I see nothing wrong with "introducing democracy" in the Middle East.
In fact, I think that's an admirable goal, and don't understand why primitives don't see it that way too.
were these people we "introduced" it to given a choice in the matter?
In case you haven't noticed it, they voted for it. Several times.
Removing Saddam Hussein served our and the world's interests, while simultaneoulsy giving a chance to the Iraqi people. Hope is one hell of a powerful gift to give someone who has never had it, and by removing Saddam Hussein not only did GWB give hope to Iraq, he provided that to the region.
A student of history understands the significance.
The vote wasn't about whether or not they wanted a democracy.
Regardless, after we inevitably leave Iraq, their government will succumb to the same kind corruption that plagues other Arab countries.
people said the same thing about japan and germany . . . . what is your problem with the natural attractions of democracy and individual liberty for all the countries of the world?
There is no natural attraction to democracy. That's a myth invented by Wilson. If there was such a natural attraction for it, then why didn't any stable democracies exist until some 200 years ago? I've had family members that have lived under democracy and dictatorship. They preferred the dictatorship, simply they thought there was more security under it. People care about security and stability more than they care about individual liberty.
that post actually started off almost semi-sane. it certainly didn't end that way.
nice response. Instead of discussing something rationally, you descend into name-calling.
no, name calling would be "YOU are ******* insane". I merely implied that your POST was ******* insane.
there is a difference.
yet it was a "non-response" nonetheless. Tell me, why did democracies as we know them not emerge until recently in history? Since people naturally want to have them, why didn't they emerge 3,000 years ago?
I would like to think it is a product of mankind's innate and never ending desire for improvement; improvement of the self, of the soul, and of our social arrangements.
we also tolerated slavery for a eons until we were able to overcome that moral wrong. that doesn't make it "preferable" or "superior", and simply not "natural", simply because it came first.
If that were true then democracies would never fail.
I'm not at all sure that is true, man being fallible and all. but, just for the sake of argument, when was the last time an authentic democracy did fail?
The Weimar Republic is the most glaring example, where they voted away democracy. Some of the French Republics failed. Several countries in the Caribbean/South America seem to be in a cycle of democracy/dicatorship. A good example would be Venezuela.
I intentionally used the word "authentic" for a reason. but you have identified a historic anomaly or two. and I asked the question for a reason; most of the "failed" democracies that I knew you would point out are more stable democratic forms of government now.
I think we can safely categorize the conditions in germany that gave rise to the nazis as a on-off. the fact east and west germany are reunified and democratic now actually supports my original point, and militates against yours.
and france was in a constant period of revolution throughout the failed republics that immediately followed the overthrow of louis. and they are a stable democracy now. one more time, this point goes to me.
and nothing about south america is especially stable right now. just for the sake of argument, I will concede that one to you.
