US Doesn't Like Outcome of Iraq Election So Tries to block the New Government

So is the assessment that Bush should mind his own business.

Cute. You've certainly gone out of your way to avoid saying it - that's for sure.

You're right! No other president has ever done that.

 

You think this makes any sense at all??

"if anybody thinks the us is interested in democracy then they're mistaken....they've deterred more democracy in this world and throughout history than anybody can ever dream of..."



Keep D&D Civil.

 

i did say "some truth"

 

OK.

(man, I wish we could get a better "grinning emoticon." this damn thing makes me feel like the Cheshire Cat!)



Keep D&D Civil.

 

No, that's just your empty rhetoric. That Jaafari's supporters have a motivation to portray this in a particular light is not.

No, its just not germane to my point. insane man suggests we take these reports which are, being most generous, secondhand paraphrasing - at face value. If your position is that secondhand paraphrasing should be taken at face value and given full credibility without evaluation, then you're a silly boy.

Well, what other President's have done is irrelevant when we're discussing what THIS administration is doing, lol. Stop trying to deflect. AND I don't think your statement is accurate anyway. Go ahead and back up your statement and show us another administration that has made this kind of public push for democratization of the Middle East, lol. Good luck, mr. rolleyes.

 

pressuring? how? are they sanctioning them? clearly they're supporting them..

do you deny that we support these authoritarian regimes?

 

Well what i meant was that the US invaded and occupied iraq to supposedly establish a democracy, after they lied about wmd, this was the rationale given by the bush administration and if anybody believes that they care about democracy then they should get their head out of the ground

i also noticed in your statement you didnt discuss any specifics, but just made a vague reference to "democratic reform" in egypt, saudi arabia, and jordan....well lets get into the specifics

Egypt:

Is a secular dictatorship that has been ruled by one man since 1981, Hosni Mubarak...there are elections in egypt, but Mubarak wins 99.9999% of the vote every time and anybody with any expertise will tell you that elections in egypt are rigged and fraudulent...for example, lets take the most recent "presidential elections" that happened last year, the main opposition candidate, Ayman Nour, was in jail as Hosni cruised to yet another 99.99999% victory....the main opposition political party in egypt, the muslim brotherhood, has been an illegal entity practically since their formation in the mid 19th century....kidnappings, torture, and murder in egypt are routine and if you dont believe me read the chapter entitled dreamland in timothy mitchell's (professor at nyu) book, the rule of experts. The United States gives egypt the 2nd largest amount of foreign aid it gives to any country, some 3 billion dollars a year, thus, the US not only supports this dictatorship, they sponsor it....this so-called "push for democratic reform" you talk about consisted of letting a few more candidates run in a discredited presidential election last year and the main opposition candidate as i said was thrown in jail!

Saudi Arabia:

This is another US sponsored dictatorship albeit a family one that is run by the House of Saud. Government officials in Saudi like Prince Bandar publicly state that because there is no taxation there will be no representation in the country, thus, they themselves admit to being a dictatorial regime in an undirect manner.

Women can't drive in Saudi Arabia, they can't even have their own ID cards, religious minorities are persecuted, people are exectued if they own certain books, and there is a level of corruption in Saudi that would make the US government proud...all of this and more has been documented by scholars and academics and I would recommend Said Aburish's work on the history and politics of saudi arabia for a better view

Since the kingdom or family dictatorship of Saud was formed, it has unequivocally been supported by the US diplomatically, politically, economically, and for a time financially, and militarily and has also never held any type of election what so ever....extremely recently, in feb. 2006, there were municipal "elections," which allowed only government sanctioned males to participate and half of the members involved in these municipal organizations were appointed by the government....moreover, the "powers" that these organizations might have was never discussed and to this day nobody knows what their role is....in an authoritarian regime, this is what you call a pr scheme, which allows saudi arabia to tell the rest of the world, look we had elections (for the very first time), but, simultaneously, the people elected will have no power and that's why there was no discussion at all on what the role of these organizations would be since they obviously are powerless.

The Saudi regime would collapse in a month or so if the US stopped supporting this dictatorship that allows for no social or political freedom for its people.

Jordan:

Another family dictatorship commonly known as the Hashemite Kingdom. In Jordan, unlike Saudi Arabia, there is social freedom, but absolutely no political freedom at all...if you publicly or privately critcize the king and somebody finds out, you will be arrested, tortured, and jailed indefinitely...just like in egypt and saudi arabia there is no freedom of the press in jordan....there are psuedo political institutions such as a parliament that has no power and rubber stamps everything that king abdullah wants to do...abdullah's father, hussein, was the target of over 20 attempt to overthrow his regime and assassinate him....if this family dictatorship had any sort of legitimacy there would not have been constant plots, some that are still ongoin, to topple the government....another common characteristic jordan shares with the other countries above is that it's supported by the US...america actually helps train the jordanian military, which is a very weak army. But the jordanian military's main goal is to ensure that the illegitimate regime running the country stays in power and they do this through brutal coercion.

In sum, there are no democractic reforms going on egypt, saudi arabia, jordan, or any other US supported and/or sponsored dictatorships in the region and that included oman, yemen, kuwait, bahrain, morocco, tunisia, algeria, and qatar

Ironically, Iran, one of the few countries in the region that has legitimate elections and genuine contestation and participation in politics is labeled as a member of the "axis of evil" This is what happens when you are not an ally of the US or one of its client regimes, you are demonized like iran by a very powerful american propaganda system, but, at the same time, all the crimes and atrocities of the US's allies are suppressed.....we live in a crazy world

 

The U.S government does what's in their best interest. I don't blame them for it either; they didn't become one of the greatest superpowers of all time by playing nice. This world isn’t set up in a way where playing nice can get you to the top. If you don’t get to the top first, someone else will, and they are going to want to stay there. Simple human characteristics.

 

i really joined to just talk about basketball, but i found it interesting that these sorts of threads existed....i dont see why my statement is "a load of crap" as you so eloquently put it....if you are going to refute my accusation, then you should do so with facts and examples, which is what i or any intelligent individual would do (see my earlier post discussing jordan, egypt, and saudi arabia).

Since WWII, the US, when it comes to democracy has had an extremely bad track record of showing tremendous amounts of hostility and contempt for democractic regimes in the developing world and supporting tyrants and dictators and i will give you some representative examples:

1953 in Iran (US overthrow of democratic government and US instillation of dictator)
1954 in Guatemala (ditto)
1960 in the Congo aka Zaire (ditto)
1973 in Chile (ditto)
2004 in Haiti (ditto, but the dictator was only an interim one)

These scattered examples dont even touch upon US support for dictators where there has never been any sort of democracy or popular movements such as most of the Arab countries in the Middle East and North Africa today (see my earlier post).

Look at the contempt the US is showing for democratic regimes in Venezuela, Bolivia, and Iran...the message is clear, if you are a developing country and don't follow Washington's orders, then democracy or not, the US will politically oppose you (which is understandable), but they will do everything they can to topple your regime (which is illegal)...for example, US support and involvement in the attempted coup in 2002 against Hugo Chavez, the two-time democratically elected leader of Venezuela, or the US sponsorship of terrorism against the democratically elected government of Daniel Ortega in the 1980s.

If America continues to support authoritarian and dictatorial regimes in the name of stability and its "interests" and also claim that it's trying to "spread democracy," then it is only a matter of time before those regimes are overthrown like in Iran in 1979 and people who are brutalized under dictatorships have long memories and they will not only harbor a tremendous amount of animosity towards the rulers that brutally supressed them, but also will have an equal amount of contempt for the nation-states that sponsored those rulers...all people should be given the right to self-determination and allowed to choose their own destiny even if that destiny is not one that washington agrees with.

 

i agree, but the person i responded to said that the US was pushing for "democratic reforms" in certain countries and that's just factually incorrect and i demonstrated why...the problem many have is with the hypocrisy...the US shouldn't claim that it supports democracy and human rights and so on, but then turn right around and hug every dictator, because there are actually people who live under those dictatorships that are brutalized

this had led to the US having a terrible image in the world and basically having no credibility in the eyes' of the majority of the people of the world....one day the people living under dictatorships will rise up and seek justice, not just justice against those who directly ruled over them with an iron fist, but also against those who sponsored them....it leads to a viscious cycle of violence and it would be in the US interests in the long run to support popular movements that have legitimacy even if they run counter to america's interests in the short term.

 

are you kidding me??

What world are you living in? It would be a disaster if you go around telling people that yes we care about this and that(human rights, democracy) BUT what we also really REALLY care about is staying a hegemonic power. You think that would work?

We don't live in utopia. there will always be some superpower, and they will ALL have blood on their hands. That's the world we live in. It's always been that way in my opinion. Therefore, i don't think it's a big deal.

 

maybe if u lived in egypt you would

 

you can't blame the U.S for everything. sometimes you have to look within. if your socity reeks then so will your government.(not always the case). though for eygpt it's fitting.

 

one last thing, as i said in my earlier post, its in the us's interests to support popular movements and democratic regimes across the board because out of that will emeger true and genuine stability, which would be in the us's long-term interests even though it might not be in the short-term, because if you keep supporting illegitimate regimes, it will come back and haunt you

bottom line is that i think US foriegn policy has been wrong is still wrong...it doesnt benefit anyone except for elites in all countries concerned

 

i'd like for you to back that up with facts and evidence, but i dont think you can because you're statement is baseless

did u even read my post on egypt?

egyptian society has produced many leading intellectuals and thinkers and so on and most have been imprisoned, tortured, and executed by the government.

egyptian civil society is very vibrant, but the 3 billion dollars the US gives egypt is hard to overcome and is the reason that the dictatorship is able to survive

if given the chance, egypt and many other countries living under oppression will flourish

you're statement is erroneous

 

Initially I thought this an exaggeration of Hayesian tactics, but after 4+ pages of wasted time - I agree. I think I tried to see Hayes' viewpoint - I certainly think I conceded a few things to him, but it's all too obvious that he won't bend under any circumstance - no matter how contrived or hypocritical his position.

Fruitless. At least he doesn't resort to name-calling and hostile rhetoric a la TJ/texxx.

 

Lol. Do you think sanctions are the only way to pressure a regime? Clearly we are using our power to get them to democratize. As quantified above.

Why would it be the most public plank of their foreign policy if they weren't actually working towards democratization? Or are we back to the same ridiculous 'neocons don't believe in democracy' sillyness?'

Er, actually each of the situations was qualified in the quotes I provided. Look again.

False.

Interesting but completely one sided. You fail to have any balance in your assessment, as you don't even mention the 'track record' of supporting democratic regimes against totalitarian influence, nor the unfortunately Cold War reality that Batista was no worse than Castro, Somoza no more than Ortega etc. Nor, IIRC, is your sample selection that accurate. Starting in '88 the US has opposed several junta's in Haiti in favor of democratic reform (including when Aristide was originally elected and when Namphy was forced out) and that we sanctioned Chile to get Pinochet to agree to the National Accords (to transition back to a democratic state).

Uh, ok. I think this post just shows your lack of any basic reasoning skills.

Congratulations - you've been glynched. Please point out my hypocrisy or where my positions are contrived, so I might address it. I'm sad that you've taken this route instead of backing up your claims that other President's have moved democratization to the forefront of their policies in the ME.

 

is it working? is saudi going to have an election soon? or do we have to go there and bomb them first?

 

Is this what you're talking about?

wow thats some real effective presurring..