Bush Pushing Global Democratic Revolution

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It bothers me to no end how conservatives and Republicans have captured the idealism of the American people, offering a compelling vision that captures the imagination while liberals and Democrats have become basically the grouchy scolds who can only criticize but not offer up any compelling vision of our own that could at least equal the idealism that is inspired by President Bush:

you mean an unrealistic head in the clouds visions tthat's just not going to workr.  Bush cana talk all he wants about some wonderfful spreading of democracy all raound the world that'll happene magically, but thingsg jujst don't owrk that way.

The dumbest claim i"ve ever heard is thatt hte war in Iraq will somehow spread democrazcy around teh world. Invadding a non-demoratitc nation and posibblyu putting a democracy in placew is not goingg to cause dictatorships to fall. Does anyone really thinka ll these "color revolutions" are connected? That teh people in Ukraine had Iraq in maind dring their protestss? Of course not, theye lected the guy who promised to bring the troops HOME. And when you loo k at even inspring homegrown democratic revolutions, like the overthrow of Ferdinand Marcos, as great as they were, they ddind't have much of an effect on the rest of the world. For that matter as long as Bush continues to supporte people like Karimov, why should we listen to him>?

There is no such thing as deomino deffect of democracy. It'd be nice, but it doesn's exist. And efven if it did, someone as hated around ithe world as Bush is tnot the man who will bring it.

(I just got back from the bars sos yes, I am somewhat drunk)

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

except there are already democracies in the Middle East and there have been in the past.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So why would Iraq be any different? Especially since the democracy there isn't being pushed from the inside.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Especially since the democracy there isn't being pushed from the inside.

Isn't it? How high was the turnout again? Despite the bombs?

a democracy isn't very healthy or succesful with 1 out of the 3 major groups of the country almost completely boycotting the election.

So far I've never heard a real argument of as to how invading Iraq would make Kuwait and Egypt move toward democracy considering that Kuwait has basically been under US occupation for the past 15 years already and the US is obviously not going to invade Egypt (which would be virtually impossible for that matter anyway)

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Participation is neccesary for a healthy democracy, and if a large portion doesn't want, it likely won't succeed.

Remember, one of the commonly cited reasons as to why the Weimer Republic failed is that a large portion of the country did not want democracy (in addition to the communists and Nazis there were old monarchist elements, etc.)

Succesful democracies in the Middle East include Israel, Lebanon, Iran until 1954 and Cyprus, but they had little effect on any other country. For that matter one can also look at Africa, where it's not uncommon to have one nation be a fairly healthy democracy while a neighboring one is a screwed up as hell dictatorship. The best example is Togo, one of the most screwed up and non-democratic nations there, right between Ghana and Benin, two of the most succesful states. There's no visible effect of one nation on another. That's why even if Iraq becomes a success, I can't see it affecting anywhere else. Also how much effect have Taiwan and South Korea had on their counterparts?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The only problem with Bush's plan is it's a ridiculous head in the clouds fantasy, basically just like communism, it sounds good but it won't work.

All the proof we need there is no "spread of democracy" effect: Togo. It's still a horrendously authoritarian dictatorship and has been forever, yet it's right between Ghana and Benin, two of of the freest and most democratic countries in Africa.

and yet somehow Iraq is going to spread democracy to the Middle East. Give me a break.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

For you to equate democracy, a 200+ year success in maximizing the "inalienable rights" of individuals - the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, with communism, a less than 100 year failed experiment in sacrificing all of those rights to a group of insider autocrats masquerading as a benificent "state", shows that you are terribly out of touch with some of the basic instincts of human nature.

No, I'm not saying democracy is like that, I'm saying the idea that democracy can "spread" is like that. It's complete bullsh**t. There have been many cases in history of one country being a prosperous fair democracy and one right next to it being a hideously backward terrible dictatorship.

I don't think anyone is arguing that democracy is 100% transferable to neighboring countries in every scenario. So you need 'proof' that this example isn't an exception to what you are disproving.

OK. How much effect have South Korea and Taiwan had on their counterparts?

It all depends on certain conditions and how successful Iraq is. Ghana is a bit better than Togo, but not nearly as prosperous enough for the surrounding countries to want to emulate it. If Iraq becomes a model for success, then it will have an influence on the political moods of the surrounding countries. It's not like Iraq exists in a vacuum.

Um, it's not an issue of countries wanting to emulate it. The leaders of dictatorships don't care which political system works best for them, they just want to stay in power. Even if Iraq does become succesful, it's not like the Saudis or Syrians are going to say "gee, democracy is a good system!" and then flip to that.

For that matter there have been and are currently democracies in the Middle East anyway.

Hell by this logic, North Korea should look at South Korea and decide that since it's much better off, they should decide to emulate them. Yeah right!

I think Egypt would be a far better country for this model to be proven with. If Egypt AND Iraq become successful multiparty democracies, I think, in combination with Turkey, it could influence the entire region's political culture. It's hard to predict.

name any case in history where this happened. One country became a democracy so the rest in the area did through domino effect. It's just like the domino effect of communism garbage lie that was spread during Vietnam. Ideologies do not spread to neighboring countries, unless one country decides to put it through military force.

Our position in Iraq will allow us to put more pressure on Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. Modern US pressure and influence tends to lead to at least some liberal reform (less civil rights abuses and so on). Our position in Iraq, for example, allowed us to pressure Syria more on Lebanon. When we aren't overstretched in the country anymore and there is an Iraqi army to back us up, our influence will magnify and become observable I'd imagine.

No, all it did was alienate the rest of the world. I bet the Europeans would be more willing to work with us if it wasn't for Bush and Iraq. And if the same sequence of events occured in Lebanon, Syria would've pulled out even if Iraq hadn't been invaded, and the US had virtually nothing to do with that anyway.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

China is steadily liberalizing and North Korea is feeling a crapload of international pressure.  It'd be swell if you could reread the first sentence of the paragraph you just quoted though.

China liberalizing? No, it's just turing into a dictatorship with free markets. Like Pinochet. It's still utterly horrible. North Korea's international pressure has nothing to do with the state of South Korea, the same thing would be happening if North Korea continued to act as it is now and South Korea was still a dictatorship.

Africa is still full of such examples. Here's another one: Botswana and South Africa vs. Zimbabwe. Or just look at Southeast Asia. Togo is the most obvious example, but looking at throughout the world it appears to be the rule, not the exception.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Supporters of such regimes hold to ideologies such as Baathism or Islamic fundamentalism that are undemocratic and don't care about the conditions of other democratic countries. It's not as if a Nazi supporter from 1930s Germany, if they were transported to modern day Europe, would all of a sudden decide that Nazism sucks and a democratic moderate government is better. Holders of extremist ideologies aren't persuaded.

You also ignored the point that succesful democracies have and currently do exist in the Middle East.

Name a time where a country has influenced the political geography of a neighboring country?  Are you serious?

no, the question is name an instance in history where one country became democratic and as a result every other neighboring country became democratic as well and that would've never happened without the first country to begin with. That's basically what the nonsense "domino effect" claim put by Bush supporters claims, that a democratic Iraq will somehow magically eliminate every dictatorship in the Middle East.

The entire continents of South America, North America, and Europe are a decent example.  America's model became emulated throughout our local hemisphere while the European model (sparked from our democratic revolution, but different) is pretty much a standard throughout that continent.  Why do you think so many countries in South and Central America have dual legislatures and a Constitution while all of the neighboring countries in Europe have parliaments and prime ministers?  Countries don't exist in a vacuum.

well this doesn't take into account that many such countries in Europe are constitutional monarchies which don't exist in the Western Hempisphere for fairly obvious reasons. This also is not an example of what I was asking for

Your response is really missing my point here though.  The US was in a unique position to pressure Syria with a strategic military position right next to it.  Obviously it wasn't TOO significant, because our military is overstretched and the threat of a military campaign in another country is mostly subdued.  US pressure in our current society tends to favor democratization and liberalization, it's not the Cold War anymore.  If the US has more of this pressure, then that will have an influence.  This wasn't my main point, just a supporting argument.

The US has always had influence in the Middle East long before occupying Iraq. It has basically occupied Kuwait for the past 13 years, yet that had no effect on Saddam. And it's pretty asinine to argue that Syria would've not withdrawn from Lebanon without the invasion of Iraq. Conservatives love to use a classic logical fallacy in this area, false cause, basically pointing to any positive development in the Middle East (and in some cases, the entire world) and claiming that it was because of Iraq. Even more asinine is garbage like that Kuwait gave women the right to vote recently because of Iraq, or the the entire world like I mentioned in claiming that Iraq somehow helped democraticize Ukraine, despite the fact the people in Ukraine fought to install a government that withdrew its troops from Iraq.[/quote]