Could it spread?

[CBL4]

This January, Arabs in two nations get to choose their leaders. Could it spread to other Arab countries?

One factor in favor of its spreading is that the candidates in both Iraq and the Palestinian territories are using satellite TV for their campaigns. This means that Arabs everywhere are seeing their brethren have free and contested elections. I am sure that the Arab rulers else where are playing down the significance but democracy is a contagious idea.

I should note that the two places where the election are occuring are the two places where the great satans are the current rulers. It must just be a coincidence.

CBL

 

[peptoabysmal]

Not if Zarqawi gets his way:

But before the cackles could reach their crescendo, the naysayers hit an inconvenient snag. Musab al-Zarqawi, the "prince" of Al-Qaida in Iraq, appointed by Osama Bin Laden, came out and agreed with President Bush. "We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology," Zarqawi declared in a statement. "Democracy is also based on the right to choose your religion," he said, and that is "against the rule of God."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20050126.shtml

 

[Dorian Gray]

Arabs have always chosen their leaders. This is just the first time voting was involved. Oh, except for Turkey.

 

[Mrick]

This January, Arabs in two nations get to choose their leaders. Could it spread to other Arab countries?

It has tried to spread before. In Saudi Arabia revolts have been put down with the help of U.S. Corporate security forces.

Americans don't really care if the government is democratic. They only care if it is controllable. It isn't liberty they are after. It is oil.

Mrick

 

[Cleon]

Arabs have always chosen their leaders. This is just the first time voting was involved. Oh, except for Turkey.

Turkey's not an Arab country. (Nor is Afghanistan, if that's what the OP is referring to.)

But Egypt's had elections for a good long time.

 

[Giz]

But Egypt's had elections for a good long time.

Remind me again, when will the Egyptian president get voted out?

 

[CBL4]

Egypt has never had real elections but there is a chance it is starting to change. From the Economist
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3542132

But change is brewing as [Egypt] approaches both parliamentary and presidential polls this year. For the first time in half a century, at least three candidates have dared say they will run against the incumbent, President Hosni Mubarak, who is near-certain to run for a fifth six-year stint. Unprecedentedly, police even tolerated a demonstration last month, where protesters covered their mouths with signs that read, simply and eloquently, “Enough!”

The trouble is that the challengers must first secure a constitutional amendment, since current law gives parliament the task of nominating a single candidate, who is then approved in a popular referendum. And Mr Mubarak's party controls 85% of parliament's seats.

Clearly Mubarak will win but there is a chance that this is the first baby step on the road to freedom.

CBL


CBL

 

[kalen]

This January, Arabs in two nations get to choose their leaders. Could it spread to other Arab countries?

One factor in favor of its spreading is that the candidates in both Iraq and the Palestinian territories are using satellite TV for their campaigns. This means that Arabs everywhere are seeing their brethren have free and contested elections. I am sure that the Arab rulers else where are playing down the significance but democracy is a contagious idea.

I should note that the two places where the election are occuring are the two places where the great satans are the current rulers. It must just be a coincidence.

CBL

You make this sound so nice.

You do realize that both Palestine and Iraq are occupied territories and that the elections are overseen by the occupying power.

That democracy is a contagious idea in the context of the Arab world of today is absurd. They aren't screaming for elections to spite "the great satans" as you put it, but rather, for the occupying powers to get the hell (pun?) out of their country. Maybe democracy (real democracy) will happen in the Mideast eventually, but that can only happen when the invaders are gone. Being forced to have electons is not "democracy."

 

[rikzilla]

Re: Re: Could it spread?

It has tried to spread before. In Saudi Arabia revolts have been put down with the help of U.S. Corporate security forces.

Americans don't really care if the government is democratic. They only care if it is controllable. It isn't liberty they are after. It is oil.

Mrick

Mrick...you are no longer needed here. You've been automated:

<iframe src="http://blog.gleeson.us/avm/avm_sidebar" width="150" height="240" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0"></iframe>

 

[Number Six]

I think it will spread, not neatly, not evenly, not without unpleasant side effect, but it will spread. It's a "toothpaste out of the tube" kind of thing. More generally, freedom of expression is a toothpaste out of the tube kind of thing and that is slowly starting to spread in that part of the world. Voting is just one manifestation of it, albeit a manifestation of it that was brought about by force. But the larger point is that you don't have to threaten people with violence to get them to vote, rather you have to threaten them with violence to get them not to vote.

 

[CBL4]

You make this sound so nice.
You do realize that both Palestine and Iraq are occupied territories and that the elections are overseen by the occupying power. ... Maybe democracy (real democracy) will happen in the Mideast eventually, but that can only happen when the invaders are gone. Being forced to have electons is not "democracy."

Both the Americans and the Israelis have shown that they are willing let the "occupied" nations have freedom if the people are willing to live in peace but that's a big if. I will not pretend that either the Americans or Israelis are guiltless but they have set up the condition for real democracy. The Palestinians have continuously blown the opportunity. The Sunni Iraqis are doing their best as well.

Assad, Mubarak, the Saudis, etc are all doing the best they can to stay in power and prevent freedom. The native born tyrants have prevented democracy not the Isrealis nor the Americans. (Granted the US has supported some of the tyrants.)

To pretend that the if the US and Israel leave democracy would magically appear is a joke. The Palestinians would be deprived of their freedom by King Hussein and Mubarak. The Iraqis would be living under Saddam. The "satans" have provide a chance for democracy. Via satellite TV, they have shown the Arab people that they are forces for freedom no matter what the tyrants and their apologists pretend.

CBL

 

[Skeptic]

Re: Re: Could it spread?

Americans don't really care if the government is democratic. They only care if it is controllable. It isn't liberty they are after. It is oil.

Of course. Those oil wells in Serbia, Haiti, and Afghanistan were the REAL reason for liberating them.

 

[Jocko]

Re: Re: Could it spread?

Americans don't really care if the government is democratic. They only care if it is controllable. It isn't liberty they are after. It is oil.

No, that's why we occupied Texas.

 

[Mrick]

Re: Re: Re: Could it spread?

Americans don't really care if the government is democratic. They only care if it is controllable. It isn't liberty they are after. It is oil.

Of course. Those oil wells in Serbia, Haiti, and Afghanistan were the REAL reason for liberating them.

Touche. But this is Iraq. Keep in mind that Saddam was our boy. Ronnie would have french kissed him if he could. Rummie was sent to press the flesh. And George thought he had weapons still cause, after all - didn't his daddy sell them to him?

George 1 tells you exactly the reason for Gulf 1. He said it was to much oil for Saddam to control. Go back and read his speech. One wonders why he let Jim Baker green light the Kuwait invasion in the first place - but he did. Maybe there was a plan.

So how about liberating other oil rich countries. Saudi Arabia maybe? Guess not. Actually american corprorations are hired to help provide the security - they suppress revolts against this regime.

BTW - Last I look 70% to 80% of Iraqis want us out. Guess they don't get it. Who could blame them. We have blown the hell out of there country, failed to give them security, but kill thousands of Iraqis including women and children.

Maybe we are pure of heart - but I am skeptical.

mrick

 

[Jocko]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Could it spread?

Touche. But this is Iraq. Keep in mind that Saddam was our boy. Ronnie would have french kissed him if he could. Rummie was sent to press the flesh. And George thought he had weapons still cause, after all - didn't his daddy sell them to him?

There was this little thing back in the 80's called the Iran-Iraq war. Now, in context, can you think of any reason why, in the 80's, we may have supported an arab thug against an organized muslim theocracy?

And the old "America armed Saddam" lie has been put to bed many times on this forum already. DENMARK supplied more arms than the US did. Read up on it, I think you'll be surprised.

George 1 tells you exactly the reason for Gulf 1. He said it was to much oil for Saddam to control. Go back and read his speech. One wonders why he let Jim Baker green light the Kuwait invasion in the first place - but he did. Maybe there was a plan.

GW1 was a UN-administered action. Blame them for the endless morass it became. Besides, can't you imagine that everyone in the developed world has a stake in a reliable oil supply, not just the US? Maybe that had something to do with the UN's coalition?

So how about liberating other oil rich countries. Saudi Arabia maybe? Guess not. Actually american corprorations are hired to help provide the security - they suppress revolts against this regime.

So we invade, it's because of the oil. We fail to invade, it's because of the oil. Gotcha.

BTW - Last I look 70% to 80% of Iraqis want us out. Guess they don't get it. Who could blame them. We have blown the hell out of there country, failed to give them security, but kill thousands of Iraqis including women and children.

Better have a relibale citation when you toss around numbers. Where did you read that?

Maybe we are pure of heart - but I am skeptical.

I don't care. As long as we are clear of purpose.

 

[Mrick]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could it spread?

There was this little thing back in the 80's called the Iran-Iraq war. Now, in context, can you think of any reason why, in the 80's, we may have supported an arab thug against an organized muslim theocracy?

And the old "America armed Saddam" lie has been put to bed many times on this forum already. DENMARK supplied more arms than the US did. Read up on it, I think you'll be surprised.

It is easy to read upon. Type into google "Saddam weapons supplied U.S." and you can read to your hearts content. Particularly entertaining is the strains needed for biological warfare.

Yes I remember the Iraq-Iran war. We supported the Shaw (also hated by the people) in Iran. Despite the best efforts of the CIA, the Shaw was overthrown. So we supported Saddam as a secular balance in the regime. Which is precisely why it didn't make sense to position the war as a response to radical Muslim terrorism.

GW1 was a UN-administered action. Blame them for the endless morass it became. Besides, can't you imagine that everyone in the developed world has a stake in a reliable oil supply, not just the US? Maybe that had something to do with the UN's coalition?

Sure. That's another reason why Gulf 2 is different than Gulf 1. The Sanctions were coming off. France and the USSR had oil contracts. Saddam was not going to trade with us and he was not even going to trade in dollars.

The very first presidential order that Bush signed after the invasion was to trade oil in dollars. Go look for yourself. The presidential order is still on the White House website.

So we invade, it's because of the oil. We fail to invade, it's because of the oil. Gotcha.

What? We invade to maintain control. We support governments to maintain control. We support governments no matter how they treat there people so it is an indication that it is the oil not the liberty. You understand that.

Better have a relibale citation when you toss around numbers. Where did you read that?

I didn't. I am watching ABC nightline. The whole program is on Iraq and the necessity to stay. The figure came from the program. The panel contains all points of view. I did not hear any dispute of the figure.

I don't care. As long as we are clear of purpose.

We are clear of purpose. We use about 25% of the world's oil supply and we need large stable oil supply. So we need a puppet government or controllable government, just as Saudi Arabia and just as the Shaw in Iran, and just as when Saddam was our boy. We didn’t have exit strategy because we didn’t intend to exit.

Additionally, there is the chance to transfer large amounts of contracts to american corporations as payback for political support.

Unfortunately those doing the fighting are not aware of our purpose. But they need to be. Once armed with that purpose, they may decline further involvement. Some already have. I think about 5000 have deserted with some going to Canada rather than Iraq.

mrick

 

[Number Six]

I've never really understood the "war just for oil" stuff. If it were just for oil then I don't know why Gulf 1 would have happened, much less Gulf 2. So Saddam takes over Kuwait...so what, he's still going to sell us oil cheap so what do we care? Just so long as we make clear to him he can't take over Saudia Arabia too (assuming that even matters...I mean again, even if he did that, so long as he'd sell us cheap oil then what does it matter?)

If it was a war just for oil then the people making the decisions are really dumb because it was pretty clear going in that the amount spent on the war itself was going to be a lot greater than the amount saved (if any) on cheaper oil.

 

[kalen]

Both the Americans and the Israelis have shown that they are willing let the "occupied" nations have freedom if the people are willing to live in peace but that's a big if. I will not pretend that either the Americans or Israelis are guiltless but they have set up the condition for real democracy. The Palestinians have continuously blown the opportunity. The Sunni Iraqis are doing their best as well.

Assad, Mubarak, the Saudis, etc are all doing the best they can to stay in power and prevent freedom. The native born tyrants have prevented democracy not the Isrealis nor the Americans. (Granted the US has supported some of the tyrants.)

To pretend that the if the US and Israel leave democracy would magically appear is a joke. The Palestinians would be deprived of their freedom by King Hussein and Mubarak. The Iraqis would be living under Saddam. The "satans" have provide a chance for democracy. Via satellite TV, they have shown the Arab people that they are forces for freedom no matter what the tyrants and their apologists pretend.

CBL

You seem to contend that freedom and democracy are the same thing. You use these terms interchangably yet they are mutually exclusive. Having the opportunity to vote means very little or alot depending on the circumstances. For example, if there is only one name on the ballot or if certain segments of the population are excluded from suffrage. If you think think that the Iraqis are going to be magically "freer" after the elections, you are deluding yourself. One thing they do have in common, though, is that freedom and democracy only exist if there is real choice. I'm afraid I just don't see that there. In fact, I have to look pretty hard even to pretend that I see that anywhere.

Also, if a country is not a democracy, it does not automatically make it a tryanny.

 

[Beerina]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could it spread?

We are clear of purpose. We use about 25% of the world's oil supply and we need large stable oil supply. So we need a puppet government or controllable government, just as Saudi Arabia and just as the Shaw in Iran, and just as when Saddam was our boy. We didn’t have exit strategy because we didn’t intend to exit.

Don't put the cart before the horse. The thugs who overthrow want to be in charge so they can be the ones to sell us oil. And get the profits. Religious thugism. Secular thugism. Holy Royal family thugism. These are all just tools used by the power hungry to get into power. So they can be the ones to sell us oil.

In other words, given that a new group of thugs would take over and be just as rotten, if not moreso, than those they replaced then what difference does it really make to the individuals there?

The only moral option would be to refuse to buy from such a country. Or overthrow and force a freedom-based democracy down their throats. But that's not politically correct (completely neglecting the domestic issue of concensus.)

If it's unethical to "force freedom" down another country's throat, wouldn't it be unethical to "force freedom" down the throat of a statium full of people who had been taken hostage by some terrorists? How big of an area, and how many people must be captive before, uhh, it's now unethical to free them from their captors?

 

[kalen]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could it spread?

Don't put the cart before the horse. The thugs who overthrow want to be in charge so they can be the ones to sell us oil. And get the profits. Religious thugism. Secular thugism. Holy Royal family thugism. These are all just tools used by the power hungry to get into power. So they can be the ones to sell us oil.

In other words, given that a new group of thugs would take over and be just as rotten, if not moreso, than those they replaced then what difference does it really make to the individuals there?

...

Exactly. You are correct.

We are the new group of thugs.