First Stirrings of Democracy in the Middle East

[Frodo]

i hate to give Bush credit for anything, but you have to admit -the Iraq War may have opened a Pandora's Box, but it seems not all that has transpired has been unmitigated evil:

Unexpected Whiff of Freedom Proves Bracing for the Mideast

By NEIL MacFARQUHAR
Published: March 6, 2005

CAIRO, March 5 - The leaders of about half of Egypt's rickety opposition parties sat down for one of their regular meetings this week under completely irregular circumstances. In the previous few days, President Hosni Mubarak opened presidential elections to more than one candidate, and street demonstrators helped topple Lebanon's government.

The mood around the table in a battered downtown Cairo office veered between humor and trepidation, participants said, as they faced the prospect of fielding presidential candidates in just 75 days. "This is all totally new, and nobody is ready," said Mahmoud Abaza, deputy leader of the Wafd Party, one of Egypt's few viable opposition groups. "Sometimes even if you don't know how to swim you just have to dive into the water and manage. Political life will change fundamentally."

The entire Middle East seems to be entering uncharted political and social territory with a similar mixture of anticipation and dread. Events in Lebanon and Egypt, following a limited vote for municipal councils in Saudi Arabia and landmark elections in Iraq, as well as the Palestinian territories, combined to give the sense, however tentative, that twilight might be descending on authoritarian Arab governments.

A mix of outside pressure and internal shifts has created this moment. Arabs of a younger, more savvy generation appear more willing to take their dissatisfaction directly to the front stoop of repressive leaders.

In Beirut on Saturday, a crowd of mostly young demonstrators hooted through a speech by the Syrian president, Bashar al-NixonNow, as he repeated too-familiar arguments for pan-Arab solidarity, without committing to a timetable for withdrawing Syrian soldiers from Lebanon.

Young protesters have been spurred by the rise of new technology, especially uncensored satellite television, which prevents Arab governments from hiding what is happening on their own streets. The Internet and cellphones have also been deployed to erode censorship and help activists mobilize in ways previous generations never could.

Another factor, pressure from the Bush administration, has emboldened demonstrators, who believe that their governments will be more hesitant to act against them with Washington linking its security to greater freedom after the Sept. 11 attacks. The United States says it will no longer support repressive governments, and young Arabs, while hardly enamored of American policy in the region, want to test that promise.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/06/international/middleeast/06mideast.htm
 

[phk]

You post too many ing articles.

[Lunar]

Yeah, you (and a few others) could probably just give us a link to your news blog or whatever y'all keep posting.

[M]

[snip]

Well, Frodo, your honesty and openness is extremely refreshing, and gives me hope that people of different political beliefs will continue to be able to work together for common good. When my pacifist friends explain to me that they just can never support war and violence, I tell them that peace comes from democracy, since democracy do not go to war with one another and are historically very stable. It is also dictatorships which engage inm genocide, I tell the "Stop Darfur"ians. I think we all have the same goals here, but with these monsters who value no human life, like Hitler or Saddam, those who are willing to countenance the worst are more effective because we can talk to these hugs in their own language. Hence, the successes of Churchill, Reagan, and W Bush.

It would be a mistake to take Bush for a conjurer of cheap tricks, Frodo. Why don't you check out Bush's inaugural address again with an open mind and tell me if he isn't really talking about certain basic ideals that we all agree on and, I think, wish for the entire world.

[Gabu]

Well, Frodo, your honesty and openness is extremely refreshing, and gives me hope that people of different political beliefs will continue to be able to work together for common good. When my pacifist friends explain to me that they just can never support war and violence, I tell them that peace comes from democracy, since democracy do not go to war with one another and are historically very stable. It is also dictatorships which engage inm genocide, I tell the "Stop Darfur"ians. I think we all have the same goals here, but with these monsters who value no human life, like Hitler or Saddam, those who are willing to countenance the worst are more effective because we can talk to these hugs in their own language. Hence, the successes of Churchill, Reagan, and W Bush.

It would be a mistake to take Bush for a conjurer of cheap tricks, Frodo. Why don't you check out Bush's inaugural address again with an open mind and tell me if he isn't really talking about certain basic ideals that we all agree on and, I think, wish for the entire world.

I've long said that I hope more than anything else that Bush will take my words about the Iraq war when it initially began, crumple them up into a little ball, do a tap dance on them, and then shove them into my mouth so I can eat them.

I said what I did when the war began because I believed it would be true, not because I hoped it would be true.

[Jake]

You post too many g articles.

I will agree with Karl Marx Jr. on this.  It has to stop.  Post the link, and maybe a brief overview or don't post it at all.

[Frodo]

Well, Frodo, your honesty and openness is extremely refreshing, and gives me hope that people of different political beliefs will continue to be able to work together for common good. When my pacifist friends explain to me that they just can never support war and violence, I tell them that peace comes from democracy, since democracy do not go to war with one another and are historically very stable. It is also dictatorships which engage inm genocide, I tell the "Stop Darfur"ians. I think we all have the same goals here, but with these monsters who value no human life, like Hitler or Saddam, those who are willing to countenance the worst are more effective because we can talk to these hugs in their own language. Hence, the successes of Churchill, Reagan, and W Bush.

It would be a mistake to take Bush for a conjurer of cheap tricks, Frodo. Why don't you check out Bush's inaugural address again with an open mind and tell me if he isn't really talking about certain basic ideals that we all agree on and, I think, wish for the entire world.

I've long said that I hope more than anything else that Bush will take my words about the Iraq war when it initially began, crumple them up into a little ball, do a tap dance on them, and then shove them into my mouth so I can eat them.

I said what I did when the war began because I believed it would be true, not because I hoped it would be true.

i hear you, 

among the reasons why i opposed this war, and participated in antiwar demonstrations against it was because i feared that if we were to invade Iraq, that it would undermine America's security by presenting Osama bin Ladin (the original perpertrator of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001...NOT Saddam Hussein) with a whole new generation of recruits -as if on a silver platter- to help him mount attacks against the continental United States -attacks that could take any form, be it chemical, biological, radiological, or in cyberspace.  we were already pulverizing his network in our first invasion in Afghanistan (which i did support, given the direct connection between it and the perpetrators of 9/11 that i could perceive), so why divert our energies to a dictator who had nothing to do with the terror attacks?

i did not see the connection (direct or indirect) between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 (let alone Al Qaeda and Osama bin Ladin), and i never saw Saddam Hussein as anything like the threat posed by Al Qaeda, unless you consider Israel proper as an informal 51st state.  i certainly did not believe he had nuclear weapons or the ability to make them (though he most certainly desired to), but i thought it quite possible that he had residual stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and i believed he would use them on our troops as they approached Baghdad, as military analysts and experts kept telling us.  apparently he did not have chemical or biological weapons either, as they failed to materialize as our troops entered Baghdad.

i worry that the lesson that our enemies in Iran and North Korea and elsewhere have learned from our war in Iraq, is that the United States will not dare invade them if they have nuclear weapons.  so they are frantically trying to develop them as quickly as possible so as to protect themselves from any repetition of what had befallen the regime of Saddam Hussein.  this is the legacy that i am seeing as a direct result of this war we are still fighting.  if weapons proliferation was a problem during the interim period between the end of the Cold War and the terrorist attacks of 9/11, they will become an even greater problem in the wake of the Iraq War.

in addition, the entire world have seen the extent of our military might, and therefore its limits.  it will not pass unnoticed that we are not as invincible as we may seem if we are being bloodied on a daily basis by guerrila fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan.

having said all that, i hope i am wrong, and Bush is right.  maybe the Iraq War did open the floodgates for democracy and liberalization, for it is a welcome sight to see democracy taking root throughout the Middle East, with more questioning the customs regarding women that extremists say are based on the Qu'oran.  i would love to see this region become what it was when Baghdad and Cairo were the cosmopolitan centers of science and learning when Europe was still in the grip of the Dark Ages and the theocratic grip of the Roman Papacy.   granted, they will develop democracy in a way that suits their own particular culture, but that surely adds to the diversity of alternatives to that offered here in the United States. 

[M]

What about the possibility that the response to September 11th that Osama provoked out of Bush will lead to the recruitment of a generation of democrats?

Nuclear proliferation has been stomped on thoroughly, though, and while still probably the world's single biggest problem, is surely much less one than four years ago. Iraq is out of the picture entirely, the Libyans have turned over their stockpile, the A.Q. Khan network is in disarray, and the Russians are getting serious about it and working more closely with us. The major problem remains the Iranian and N. Korean programs, as you point out; if invasion were necessary it would be possible, despite our involvement elsewhere. However, I have come to believe that direct military intervention may not be necessary; rather we must keep up support for the real Iranian democrats and put convince China to open the floodgates for refugees from Pyongyang.

But wait and see (like wither of us have a choice...). I think good things will start to happen- in Israel-Arab peace, continued liberalisation in the Middle East, and the toppling or de-rogue-ation (i.e., Qaddafization) of rogue regimes. I believe this is a year, like 1848 and 1989, that history will long remember.

Bliss it was in that dawn to be alive,
But to be young was very heaven!
-William Wordsworth

[opebo]

There are two sides to every news event:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/washpost/20050309/ts_washpost/a16165_2005mar8

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050309/ts_nm/syria_dc_1

By the way, how is Syria's occupation of Lebanon any different from the American occupation of Iraq?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

By the way, how is Syria's occupation of Lebanon any different from the American occupation of Iraq?

excellent point.

[phk]

The idea that we are introducing "democracy" to the Lebanese for the first time is absurd. The country has experienced some form of parliamentary rule since independence and the Pact of 1943, when the six-to-five apportionment of seats to Christians and Muslims was institutionalized, and Lebanon's "confessional" system kept the various factions from one another's throats.

But democracy failed in Lebanon as the Muslim population skyrocketed and the Christians declined: too much "democracy" could have foisted an Islamic state on the land of the Phoenicians, and the Christians resisted a re-divvying up of the electoral spoils to reflect the new demographics. The result was a long and bloody civil war, an invasion by Israel, and the invitation to Syria to step in and maintain some semblance of order. This invitation, one might add, was extended by many of the same people who are now raising such a stink about the Syrian "occupiers."

In a Western-style winner-take-all election, the Shi'ite majority would triumph, roughly along the same lines as in Iraq: however, when it comes to "democracy," Lebanese-style, it is quite a different story. The complex mosaic of Lebanon's religious and tribal diversity translates into a Byzantine system of assigned seats reserved for certain groups. A single electoral district in, say, Beirut, is granted six representatives: two Sunnis, one Shi'ite, one Greek Orthodox, one Armenian Orthodox, and one "Christian minority" MP. It is a system that combines affirmative action with the worst aspects of the party primary system in the U.S., and one that lends itself easily to manipulation. The terms of this confessional apportionment are among the most hotly contested issues in Lebanese politics, and it is hard to see how more "democracy," rather than less, is going to improve anyone's life.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Here's what I would do for Lebanon:

1-Create an independent Palestinean state so the Palestineans can go there.
2-Kick the rest of the Muslims out, well maybe only the Shia. If they love Syria so much, they can take their terrorist anti-Semetic asses there.
3-Arrest anyone who connections to the fascist Falange party that butchered lots of children in Palestinean refugee camps. So far only one prominent leader has been arrested and tried, although a few have been assasinated, including the very deserving Elie Hobeika.
4-Outlaw the Falange and Hezbollah for good.

Then hopefully the Israelis will finally vote the war criminal Sharon out of power.

[M]

The idea that we are introducing "democracy" to the Lebanese for the first time is absurd. The country has experienced some form of parliamentary rule since independence and the Pact of 1943, when the six-to-five apportionment of seats to Christians and Muslims was institutionalized, and Lebanon's "confessional" system kept the various factions from one another's throats.

But democracy failed in Lebanon as the Muslim population skyrocketed and the Christians declined: too much "democracy" could have foisted an Islamic state on the land of the Phoenicians, and the Christians resisted a re-divvying up of the electoral spoils to reflect the new demographics. The result was a long and bloody civil war, an invasion by Israel, and the invitation to Syria to step in and maintain some semblance of order. This invitation, one might add, was extended by many of the same people who are now raising such a stink about the Syrian "occupiers."

In a Western-style winner-take-all election, the Shi'ite majority would triumph, roughly along the same lines as in Iraq: however, when it comes to "democracy," Lebanese-style, it is quite a different story. The complex mosaic of Lebanon's religious and tribal diversity translates into a Byzantine system of assigned seats reserved for certain groups. A single electoral district in, say, Beirut, is granted six representatives: two Sunnis, one Shi'ite, one Greek Orthodox, one Armenian Orthodox, and one "Christian minority" MP. It is a system that combines affirmative action with the worst aspects of the party primary system in the U.S., and one that lends itself easily to manipulation. The terms of this confessional apportionment are among the most hotly contested issues in Lebanese politics, and it is hard to see how more "democracy," rather than less, is going to improve anyone's life.

All sadly true. But we do know that at the least, an independent Lebanon would not harbor terrorism and promote drug running or be usable as a politically expedient way for Syria to attack it's Southern neighbor; nor would it serve as a prop to the fascist "Baby Doc" NixonNow regime in Syria. And In a best case scenario, a revived Lebanese democracy (quite imperfect, but glorious by Arab standards) could create a Europe-leaning preo-Western state and promote free ideal across Araby.

Here's what I would do for Lebanon:

1-Create an independent Palestinean state so the Palestineans can go there.
2-Kick the rest of the Muslims out, well maybe only the Shia. If they love Syria so much, they can take their terrorist anti-Semetic asses there.
3-Arrest anyone who connections to the fascist Falange party that butchered lots of children in Palestinean refugee camps. So far only one prominent leader has been arrested and tried, although a few have been assasinated, including the very deserving Elie Hobeika.
4-Outlaw the Falange and Hezbollah for good.

Then hopefully the Israelis will finally vote the war criminal Sharon out of power.

All fun! But altering borders today is generally frowned upon, since you might be opening Pandora's box. Only in really exceptional cases like Palestine, Montenegro, Kashmir, Western Sahara and Korea is it really even conceivable.

Falange, btw, no longer exists as a military force. At one time there were far more than two, today there is only one independent militia left, and that is Hezbollah.

[Jake]

There are two sides to every news event:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/washpost/20050309/ts_washpost/a16165_2005mar8

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050309/ts_nm/syria_dc_1

By the way, how is Syria's occupation of Lebanon any different from the American occupation of Iraq?

Yes, Hezbollah coerces 200K together for a rally for Syria. Now, what does Hezbollah get out of keeping Syria there?  Protection so they can lob Iranian rockets into Israel.

[phk]

There are two sides to every news event:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/washpost/20050309/ts_washpost/a16165_2005mar8

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050309/ts_nm/syria_dc_1

By the way, how is Syria's occupation of Lebanon any different from the American occupation of Iraq?

Yes, Hezbollah coerces 200K together for a rally for Syria. Now, what does Hezbollah get out of keeping Syria there?  Protection so they can lob Iranian rockets into Israel.

None of this turmoil is benefiting American interests: not Lebanon's "Cedar Revolution," not the Islamization of Iraq, not the horrific prospect of Egyptian elections – which, if they were held in a recognizably "democratic" fashion, would bring victory to Islamist nutjobs of the sort who brought down the World Trade Center and hit the Pentagon on 9/11.

The one major step forward is the Palestinian elections – a concession granted by Israel only after a protracted period of frantic arm-twisting, and a process that could still unravel quite easily.

Who benefits from this Middle East rampage, if not the U.S.? Israel, for one, as we have said: their war against the Palestinian radicals, who receive aid from Syria (and Iran), is advanced if both Iraq and Syria are knocked out of the game.

But al-Qaeda also benefits in a big way. Aside from eliminating the only two remaining secular regimes in the region, bin Laden's legions are swelled with each new military offensive in Iraq, with every threat issued against an Arab state: the ongoing subjugation of American interests to Israeli policy objectives confirms the main point of al-Qaeda's propaganda war, which characterizes the U.S. and Israel as two heads of the same monster.

[M]

Since your username actually IS an ideology which has historically murdered, tortured, and oppressed those who have opposed it EVERY TIME it has held power in a nation, you likely would not understand democracy. Just in case, though, I urge you to reread the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and tell me why the universal ideals of life, liberty, and property should be denied to the poor little brown people of the Near East.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

First stirrings? What about Israel? Turkey? Egypt?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

First stirrings? What about Israel? Turkey? Egypt?

Egypt is not a democracy at all. People can only vote for candidates chosen by the ruling party whic dominates the whole government. Freedom House ranks it Not Free. There are some reforms that might be happening though.

Since your username actually IS an ideology which has historically murdered, tortured, and oppressed those who have opposed it EVERY TIME it has held power in a nation, you likely would not understand democracy. Just in case, though, I urge you to reread the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and tell me why the universal ideals of life, liberty, and property should be denied to the poor little brown people of the Near East.

Lesson: Algeria. The Muslims almost voted in an Islamist party that would've created a theocracy and become a brutal terrorist state if the military didn't launch a coup and cancel the elections. Democracy and Islam don't mix. Iraq is looking like further proof with the election of the theocrat party lead by that piece of crap Sistani. Hopefully the Iraqi military has the same leadership Algeria's did.

[Lunar]

Ah, because every future election held in an Islamic country will inevitable end up like Algeria's did a couple decades ago.  There's no other option.  In fact, the argumentative strategy of taking a single failure of a system and applying it universally is logically flawless.  It's not like other, non-Islamic countries which have rapid transitions to democracy ever experience nationalist or ethnic turbulence.  All you need to do is ignore Japan, Germany, Serbia, and all the other cases of quick democratic transitions failing (a huge percentage of them do) and the argument is very sound indeed.

Furthermore, the four countries with the largest Islamic populations have all held successful elections and have elected women as executives.

[phk]

Ah, because every future election held in an Islamic country will inevitable end up like Algeria's did a couple decades ago.  There's no other option.  In fact, the argumentative strategy of taking a single failure of a system and applying it universally is logically flawless.  It's not like other, non-Islamic countries which have rapid transitions to democracy ever experience nationalist or ethnic turbulence.  All you need to do is ignore Japan, Germany, Serbia, and all the other cases of quick democratic transitions failing (a huge percentage of them do) and the argument is very sound indeed.

Furthermore, the four countries with the largest Islamic populations have all held successful elections and have elected women as executives.

In a Western-style winner-take-all election, the Shi'ite majority would triumph, roughly along the same lines as in Iraq.

Those 4 countries do not have splitting occuring along Sunni-Shiite religous lines because they are relatively homogenous in terms of sect and India definitely shouldn't count as a Muslim country despite it having the 2nd largest population of Muslims. On top of that Indira Gandhi was a disaster for India. Benazr Bhutto was a disaster for Pakistan. Mrs Bandaranike was a disaster for Sri Lanka. Megawati is proving weak and ineffective (to put it at its most kindly) in Indonesia and is looking set fair to be a disaster.

However, when it comes to "democracy," Lebanese-style, it is quite a different story. The complex mosaic of Lebanon's religious and tribal diversity translates into a Byzantine system of assigned seats reserved for certain groups.

A single electoral district in, say, Beirut, is granted six representatives: two Sunnis, one Shi'ite, one Greek Orthodox, one Armenian Orthodox, and one "Christian minority" MP.

It is a system that combines affirmative action with the worst aspects of the party primary system in the U.S., and one that lends itself easily to manipulation.

The terms of this confessional apportionment are among the most hotly contested issues in Lebanese politics, and it is hard to see how more "democracy," rather than less, is going to improve anyone's life.

[M]

Ah, because every future election held in an Islamic country will inevitable end up like Algeria's did a couple decades ago.  There's no other option.  In fact, the argumentative strategy of taking a single failure of a system and applying it universally is logically flawless.  It's not like other, non-Islamic countries which have rapid transitions to democracy ever experience nationalist or ethnic turbulence.  All you need to do is ignore Japan, Germany, Serbia, and all the other cases of quick democratic transitions failing (a huge percentage of them do) and the argument is very sound indeed.

Furthermore, the four countries with the largest Islamic populations have all held successful elections and have elected women as executives.

In a Western-style winner-take-all election, the Shi'ite majority would triumph, roughly along the same lines as in Iraq.

Those 4 countries do not have splitting occuring along Sunni-Shiite religous lines because they are relatively homogenous in terms of sect and India definitely shouldn't count as a Muslim country despite it having the 2nd largest population of Muslims. On top of that Indira Gandhi was a disaster for India. Benazr Bhutto was a disaster for Pakistan. Mrs Bandaranike was a disaster for Sri Lanka. Megawati is proving weak and ineffective (to put it at its most kindly) in Indonesia and is looking set fair to be a disaster.

However, when it comes to "democracy," Lebanese-style, it is quite a different story. The complex mosaic of Lebanon's religious and tribal diversity translates into a Byzantine system of assigned seats reserved for certain groups.

A single electoral district in, say, Beirut, is granted six representatives: two Sunnis, one Shi'ite, one Greek Orthodox, one Armenian Orthodox, and one "Christian minority" MP.

It is a system that combines affirmative action with the worst aspects of the party primary system in the U.S., and one that lends itself easily to manipulation.

The terms of this confessional apportionment are among the most hotly contested issues in Lebanese politics, and it is hard to see how more "democracy," rather than less, is going to improve anyone's life.

I assume you are aware that this is something you posted on the last page. But, if you want further deconstruction:

Western Style? You mean American style, because very few other countries do it our way. In a European style parliament, the Lebanese Shi'a would have a plurality, not a majority, and would have no choice but to seek out allies.

Megawati is no longer president. Indira Gandhi was not Muslim. And regardless, the ineffectiveness of a woman leader does not challenge the existence of a woman leader.

Yes, the creed based political system has never been a god idea, is currently used for Baathist ends, and needs reform desperately. And yes, it is unfortunate that politics should be based on cultural communities and not ideas, but seriously, that happens everywhere! Even the United States, one political view even suggests that Democrats are a party of special interests(minorities, unions, intellectual movements, etc), and Republicans of everybody else. Whether or not this is correct, it is clear that you do have particular communities more likely to vote certain ways. (Spot the Republican and Democrat here- white, Mississippi, Southern Baptist, middle class doctor and black, Muslim, Harlem, very poor, lives off welfare system). Yes, the Lebanese (and Iraqis) do take it to a different level, but one does have to start somewhere.

As you claim commitment to an ideology that has slaughtered its opponents en masse EVERY TIME it has held power historically, it is hard to see how you would understand how democracies are good for everyone. But, briefly:

Democracies do not go to war with one another.

True democracy, especially after a successful period of establishment and the development of a middle class, is the most stable system of government.

Democracies do not support terrorist groups.

Democracies do not engage in genocide against their own citizens.

Democracies historically serve as very positive incentive to political change for non-democracies, especially nearby ones or ones with cultural/historical links.

Democracies are far more likely to support free trade, regional cooperation, and other agents of globalization.

The obvious one- democracies do not line people up against the wall and blow their heads off, Che Guevara style.

Democracies promote wealth- 91% of the world's GDP is in the "Free" countries.

Democracies end hunger- there has never been a debilitating famine in a truly free nation, comparing famines in India and China during the Cold War is especially revealing.

Democracies fight disease and drugs more effectively- MDR TB, AIDS and malaria might be gone today in a democracy free world, and certainly it is noticeable that Myanmar, Lebanon, and rebel controlled parts of Colombia produce drugs, while Mexico, Turkey, Afghanistan and Colombia fight them.

So yes, democracies do make life better for many people. Not that you would understand, being a member of a fiercely anti-democratic ideology which has never held power with slaughtering and destroying all oppostion in the name of the cause, and which brands every opposing viewpoint as counterrevolutionary and backward, ensuring decades of political bondage and, in effect, turning communism into the EXACT SAME SYSTEM as the absolutist monarchism the movement arose to combat. And no, your communism is not different, it will not produce a worldwide kibbutz of love and happiness.

[opebo]

There are two sides to every news event:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/washpost/20050309/ts_washpost/a16165_2005mar8

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050309/ts_nm/syria_dc_1

By the way, how is Syria's occupation of Lebanon any different from the American occupation of Iraq?

Yes, Hezbollah coerces 200K together for a rally for Syria. Now, what does Hezbollah get out of keeping Syria there?  Protection so they can lob Iranian rockets into Israel.

Actually a great number of Lebanese muslims support Syria's presence for obvious reasons - it favors them over the christian Lebanese, much as America's presence in Iraq favors the Shiites over the Sunnis.  As for Hezbollah, of course they want to fight the Isreali occupation - they're 'patriots'. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Democracies are far more likely to support free trade, regional cooperation, and other agents of globalization.

that's not a good thing.

The rest applies to democracies for the most part but not ones in Muslim countries. The best thing for a Muslim country is a secular dictatorship.

[phk]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wasn't Hitler democratically elected as well? As was Ariel Sharon for that matter, and so was Bush.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

India and Pakistan are Democracies, yet they love to fight wars with one another; thier at 3 and counting.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Problem is Arab countries do not have this middle class that you speak of. They largely rely on feudalistic rule, with feudal landlords and peasants, sheikhs and clans, tribes and what not. With a few select elite families controlling the factors of production. The Middle Class is very small.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Was the US during the 1980s not a democratic system?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Many "elected" officials have killed thier own people.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Alright, I'll give you this one, but this largely doesn't apply to the Mid-east as Arabs have a different structure of society.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Don't these things go against the very fundamentals of conservatism?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In the third world, they do.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Replace "Free" with burgoise countries, core vs periphery.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The problem is India was largely Democratic during the Cold-War, food shortages are caused by low-income religous people being fruitful and multiplying which are in turn encouraged by consumption based capitalism.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, genocide of the proletariat, very great system you got there.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

These bourgeois rights include the so-called institution of universal sufferage as well. That's what poor people deal with all over the third world, my neighborhood included.

One is reminded of what Frantz Fanon once said: freedom isn't given, it must be taken. If you let them give it to you, they will give it to you in their terms. Overtly oppress a people until they demand change, then give them a little bit of "negative liberty" (this is what Bush is talking about when he uses the word "freedom") once you've them economically and psychologically where you want them, and what happens? Nothing.

[M]

Democracies are far more likely to support free trade, regional cooperation, and other agents of globalization.

that's not a good thing.

The rest applies to democracies for the most part but not ones in Muslim countries. The best thing for a Muslim country is a secular dictatorship.

Why not? Be honest here- might you not, 70 years ago, have said the same about Germans or Japanese; forty years ago about Catholics, twenty years ago aout Slavs? Why are the Muslims exceptional?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wasn't Hitler democratically elected as well? As was Ariel Sharon for that matter, and so was Bush.

Hitler, yes, sadly. Democracies do backslide on rather rare occasion. However, the world took exactly the wrong approach by accepting the Hitler regime as legitimate and not asserting immediate pressure in favor of the democrats. In a world of democracies, no despotic thug could last long.

Yes, Sharon and Bush are democratically elected leaders. That is why there are no dead Democrats strewn around the streets of New York, or Labourites in Tel Aviv. I never claimed that democracies do not go to war. (Thank G-d!)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

India and Pakistan are Democracies, yet they love to fight wars with one another; thier at 3 and counting.[/quote]

Pervez Musharraf, the current Pakistani leader, came to power through a military coup. Pakistan until recently supported Kashmiri terrorism against India. The Pakis have flirted with democracy, but they're not there yet. When both the countries become democracies, they will peaceably work out there differences, as do, say, France and Germany or Romania and Hungary. They may even be doing so now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Problem is Arab countries do not have this middle class that you speak of. They largely rely on feudalistic rule, with feudal landlords and peasants, sheikhs and clans, tribes and what not. With a few select elite families controlling the factors of production. The Middle Class is very small.[/quote]

As yet. But democracy and middle class generally lead to each other. And should Namibia, Jamaica and Moldova abandon the democratic experiment on account of poverty?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Was the US during the 1980s not a democratic system?[/quote]

Yes. But we did not support terrorist groups. Terrorism seeks to achieve political ends through the deliberate murder of civilians. Thus, UNITA or the U.S. Marines, which do not primarily target civilians, are not terrorists; Hezbollah, the IRA and the FARC are. Simple.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Many "elected" officials have killed thier own people.[/quote]

An election does not a democracy make, though it is the most visible and arguably most vital feature of the system. Hence, a flawed Zimbabwean or Belorussian election does not make the country democratic, and a legitimate German or Venezuelan election can end or harm the system.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Alright, I'll give you this one, but this largely doesn't apply to the Mid-east as Arabs have a different structure of society.[/quote]

As did the Japanese, the Botswanans, and the Mongolians.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Don't these things go against the very fundamentals of conservatism?[/quote]

Oh, yes. But I am not a conservative. I am a Lockean liberal.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In the third world, they do.[/quote]

Not in a real democracy. Even the Turkmenbashi and NixonNow hold elections.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Replace "Free" with burgoise countries, core vs periphery.[/quote]

Is this a coincidence? Or has a bourgeoise class evolved to represent 80%+ of democratic populations because of their governmental and economic policies, and a core emerged around the original core democratic states (US, France, UK, and later Germany and Japan).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The problem is India was largely Democratic during the Cold-War, food shortages are caused by low-income religous people being fruitful and multiplying which are in turn encouraged by consumption based capitalism.[/quote]

And yet according to Indian-born Cambridge professor Amartya Sen, there has not been a true famine in India since independence. Compare this to the Great Leap Forward, the 1930s Ukrainian famine, or the Ethiopian famine of the '80s, all of which occurred under Marxist tyrannies.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, genocide of the proletariat, very great system you got there.[/qoute]

Only if malaria microbes, poppies, and coca plants are parts of the proletariat.

To the list of democratic benefits, one could add less environmental degradation, less political corruption, and  far fewer refugees (which is related to war issues).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

These bourgeois rights include the so-called institution of universal sufferage as well. That's what poor people deal with all over the third world, my neighborhood included. [/quote]

Correct, a core democratic right is universal suffrage. And no, it is not available all over the third world, but only in free dountries. And unless your neighborhood is in Hanoi or Kinshasa, I highly doubt you are correct.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And yes, often people must fight for freedom, like today's Lebanese and Ukrainians. I find little in the world more inspiring. You?

Actually, quite a lot happens, much of it listed above. Unless negative liberty has a different meaning, like the liberty of the Poles before 1989 or the liberty of today's Cubans?