First Stirrings of Democracy in the Middle East
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 02:45:32 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  First Stirrings of Democracy in the Middle East
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: First Stirrings of Democracy in the Middle East  (Read 3475 times)
ATFFL
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,754
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: March 10, 2005, 10:06:05 PM »

Quote
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.

Actually, Hitler was not elected to power.  Nice try, Godwin.

Quote
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
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
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.

Democracies do not support terrorist groups.

Was the US during the 1980s not a democratic system?
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was, but it did not support terrorists.  The US backed guerillas limited themselves to military targets.  While they practiced asymmetric warfare, they never attacked large civillian targets for the express purpose of kiling as many innocents as possible to convince the Soviets to leave.


Your other "points" are more laughable than those and I will leave people with half a brain cell to figure out their flaws without my help.
Logged
Jake
dubya2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,621
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: March 10, 2005, 10:40:41 PM »

Quote
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.

Democratically elected as the leader of a minority party who manipulated an old man into appointing him Chancellor. If that's Democracy, I'll go lie down.

Quote
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.

Were they Democracies when they fought? True Democracies?

Quote
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.

Notice he said "after the development". The middle class needs to "develop.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

They supported what terror groups again?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Many "elected" officials have killed thier own people.

Notice your quotes around elected. In a true democracy, the people would have the ability to remove that dictator

Quote
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.

Actually, it obviously is already applying to the middle east. Democracy in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine is spreading to Egypt, Lebanon, soon Syria, Saudi Arabia.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

Free Trade is an excellent thing. The freer the markets, the freer the people

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

In the third world, they do.

Name a true, third world democracy.

Quote
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.

So you take power in a bloody coup, kill your rivals, hold rigged elections to give the poor the chance to "vote", and then kill them because you're a maniac. Sounds like the communist system in action thus far.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: March 10, 2005, 10:45:49 PM »
« Edited: March 10, 2005, 10:47:33 PM by Nation of Ulysses »

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??

Because the only time a Muslim country has ever set up a succesful democracy is after a brutal tyrant shoved religion underground and forced the country to secularize by force. A government like Egypt's is what I'd like to see in all Muslim countries.

and yes, UNITA did target civilians, their record on that was horrific. Let me find the Human Rights Watch report.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: March 10, 2005, 10:48:42 PM »

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/angola/Angl998-06.htm
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: March 10, 2005, 10:50:57 PM »

Name a true, third world democracy.

Ghana
Logged
WMS
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,562


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: March 10, 2005, 10:55:24 PM »

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.

Clarification, BRTD, since you are *partially* correct about Algeria.

The Islamic Salvation Front was the Islamist party which probably won those elections back in 1992 which the military canceled. As it turned out, it was comprised of both moderate and extremist factions, considering the ISF (FIS in French) split into two main factions in the wake of the brutal military crackdown (check the Freedom House ratings - not a nice place at all since then).
The moderates were still called the ISF/FIS, and in 1997-1999 they and the government signed an agreement and reconciled. The big extremist faction is called the Armed Islamic Group (AIG/GIA in French) and was much more brutal than the ISF/FIS. The AIG/GIA was finally beaten down in long, savage, campaigns, and is mostly gone, at a high cost in lives.
Meanwhile, an even more extremist splinter from the AIG/GIA formed, the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (SGPC/GSCP in French), and these people are way into Al Qaida territory.
There are still some of them around, although the last I was that, in the process of fleeing into Chad, much of the SGPC/GSCP was captured by a Chadian rebel group, who promptly put them up for auction. Yes, for auction. Last I heard Al Qaida and the U.S. were in a bidding war for them. Smiley

So, if the ISF/FIS had been allowed into power...maybe there would've been an Islamist tyranny, and maybe not. It depends on which faction won out within the ISF/FIS.
Logged
Jake
dubya2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,621
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: March 14, 2005, 04:15:33 PM »



800,000 turn out for a pro-freedom rally in Lebanon.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: March 14, 2005, 10:18:49 PM »

Kick Syria out! Down with the terrorist loving anti-Semetic Shiite Muslims!
Logged
WMS
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,562


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: March 14, 2005, 10:52:44 PM »

Kick Syria out! Down with the terrorist loving anti-Semetic Shiite Muslims!

Actually, Syria is run by the Alawite Muslims. And not all the Shi'i Muslims support Syria - Hezbollah does, but there's more than just Hezbollah out there. Heck, a fair number of the Shi'i supported the Israelis during the latter's time in Lebanon. Hezbollah is really a tool of Iran, when you get down to it...
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: March 14, 2005, 10:57:20 PM »
« Edited: March 14, 2005, 11:02:03 PM by Nation of Ulysses »

I just see it as the Christians vs. the Muslims so it's obvious who I'll support Smiley Especially since those that awful Falange is basically defunct now, they were the only problem the Christians caused.

It's also the Christians that contain all those hot Lebanese girls.
Logged
WMS
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,562


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: March 14, 2005, 11:41:22 PM »

I just see it as the Christians vs. the Muslims so it's obvious who I'll support Smiley Especially since those that awful Falange is basically defunct now, they were the only problem the Christians caused.

It's also the Christians that contain all those hot Lebanese girls.

Point 1: but what about the Druze? Wink
Point 2: Really? That's not a bad reason at all, then. Smiley
Logged
Erc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,823
Slovenia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: March 14, 2005, 11:50:36 PM »



800,000 turn out for a pro-freedom rally in Lebanon.

Yay.  I was worried for a moment that Hezbollah actually had the hearts and minds of the Lebanese people.

Here's to the hope that Hezbollah doesn't spark a second Civil war.
Logged
M
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,491


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: March 15, 2005, 11:27:47 AM »

Hezbollah has the hearts and minds of Hezbollah, and no one else. Their are numerous reports that the vast bulk of their protesters were bused in from Syria. With these protests, on the other hand- entire villages in Lebanon are empty but for the very old and very infirm, with everyone else in the streets of Beirut. Savelebanon.com suggests it may be the largest protest (by percentage of national population) in world history.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: March 15, 2005, 11:29:00 PM »

So, the neo-cons are on high again.

It remains to be seen however whether this high is temporary or permanent. So far, democracy has not been consolidated in a single new state.

Lebanon has "conducted several successful elections" prior to this, so a Syrian pullout at this point would be a nationalistic victory (for mainly Israel and some Lebanese) more than democratic one.

Also, these events are the cumulation of a build-up of events separate from Iraq.

Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May 2000 encouraged some Lebanese groups to demand that Syria withdraw its forces as well.

The passage of UNSCR 1559 in early October 2004 - a resolution calling for Syria to withdraw from Lebanon and end its interference in Lebanese affairs - further emboldened Lebanese groups opposed to Syria's presence in Lebanon.

So, people are misleadingly connecting this with Iraq more than with the Israeli pullout in 2000 and the UN stand, as well as just the fact of Hariri's position switchover which occured in light of these above conditions. It is these latter things which mostly contributed to the events in Lebanon.
Logged
WMS
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,562


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: March 15, 2005, 11:43:38 PM »

Beet, if it wasn't for U.S. pressure, Syria would've continued ignoring all calls to withdraw from Lebanon.

Syria is vulnerable to pressure tactics - case in point: 1999, when Turkey got tired of Syrian support for the PKK and mobilized its military along the Syrian border. Now, I was in graduate school at the time, and one of my teachers was retired ex-military, and he was an expert on Turkey. He told me that, yes, Turkey WOULD have invaded Syria if Syria hadn't buckled and expelled the PKK leader and others. By itself, Turkey would've crushed Syria. Add in the Israelis, who were gleefully mobilizing themselves at that time to Syria's south, and Syria was toast. And Syria knew it.

2005: The Turks, although not as pro-U.S., are still there. The Israelis are still there. Jordan has now become pro-U.S. The U.S. has forces to their east now, in addition to whatever power the U.S. can throw at them from the Mediterranean. Hell, even the French have forces in the Mediterranean. Syria is in a box, and as the U.S. increasingly turns over direct war-fighting inside Iraq to the Iraqis (not there yet, but getting there), it has more power and more bandwidth to spare for Syria. Syria, through its support for the Iraqi rebels, has earned the enmity of the U.S.

And Lebanon's previous elections have not been free and fair - Freedom House ratings.

The neo-cons may overstate the case sometimes, but they're more right than wrong about the big picture. Yes, democracy ain't totally secure yet - but now, in 2005, we're actually talking about trying to secure democracy in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Lebanon. In 2000, could you have imagined that at all?
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: March 15, 2005, 11:56:26 PM »

Kick Syria out! Down with the terrorist loving anti-Semetic Shiite Muslims!

Ah, I hate to tell you this, but they're mostly Semites.
Logged
phk
phknrocket1k
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,906


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: March 16, 2005, 12:01:37 AM »

Kick Syria out! Down with the terrorist loving anti-Semetic Shiite Muslims!

Ah, I hate to tell you this, but they're mostly Semites.

ah yes, Arabs are Semites.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: March 16, 2005, 12:07:52 AM »

Beet, if it wasn't for U.S. pressure, Syria would've continued ignoring all calls to withdraw from Lebanon.

Syria is vulnerable to pressure tactics - case in point: 1999, when Turkey got tired of Syrian support for the PKK and mobilized its military along the Syrian border. Now, I was in graduate school at the time, and one of my teachers was retired ex-military, and he was an expert on Turkey. He told me that, yes, Turkey WOULD have invaded Syria if Syria hadn't buckled and expelled the PKK leader and others. By itself, Turkey would've crushed Syria. Add in the Israelis, who were gleefully mobilizing themselves at that time to Syria's south, and Syria was toast. And Syria knew it.

2005: The Turks, although not as pro-U.S., are still there. The Israelis are still there. Jordan has now become pro-U.S. The U.S. has forces to their east now, in addition to whatever power the U.S. can throw at them from the Mediterranean. Hell, even the French have forces in the Mediterranean. Syria is in a box, and as the U.S. increasingly turns over direct war-fighting inside Iraq to the Iraqis (not there yet, but getting there), it has more power and more bandwidth to spare for Syria. Syria, through its support for the Iraqi rebels, has earned the enmity of the U.S.

And Lebanon's previous elections have not been free and fair - Freedom House ratings.

The neo-cons may overstate the case sometimes, but they're more right than wrong about the big picture. Yes, democracy ain't totally secure yet - but now, in 2005, we're actually talking about trying to secure democracy in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Lebanon. In 2000, could you have imagined that at all?

WMS,

Syria is certainly vulnerable to pressure form the outside, and the level of U.S. pressure on Syria to withdraw from Lebanon is certainly a major variable in the balance of events in that country. The main pressures on Syria however are based mainly on various domestic and immediate developments within Lebanon, secondarily on international pressures from other countries, of which the U.S. is one, and with very little connection to the goings-on in Iraq. The Freedom House report notes that opposition to Syrian occupation began to build domestically in 2000 and 2001. Recently it was again revived by domestic factors.

The main point is that many of the heralded events advancing democracy in the region have been long separate from the neocons' strategy of trying to build a democracy in Iraq. The Gulf states had been moving towards democracy by 2000, and Arafat was going to pass away no matter what. The new "states" have had experiments with democracy have so far achieved only limited success, as democracies under the U.S. military, but not necessarily able to survive on their own. The Afghanistan government for example controls actually very little of the country. The Iraq 'government' of course commands no sovereignty over the country by traditional definitions, and it is still unknown when it may assume that responsibility. Yes, this can be seen as progress from the past, but for the large part it is still an experiment and will likely remain so for the forseeable future.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: March 16, 2005, 04:24:33 AM »

The reality of the elections in iraq and Afghanistan is far more powerful than the prospect of elections in Iraq and Afghanistan.  What I mean by that is that simply concieving what such a thing will be like in your mind will always be less impressive than what it actually is once you see it.  The impact of actually seeing it has stirred something in the Islamic world that the prospect of seeing it never could.

The Iraq and Afghanistan elections were an obvious result of neoconservative iddeology, so obvious that I don't think its even going to be a point of contention.

The Palestinian elections were also a direct outcome.  Neocons demanded the marginalization of Arafat.  We got it.  We created the circumstances in whihc the death of Arafat would lead to a more peacable Palestinian leadership.  We created Abbas by demanding a new negotiating partner.  Abbas took over because he was the second most prominent Palestinian leader, and this is because of us.  The demand for democracy was the main cause of the election Abbas decided to hold.

US pressure on Syria to leave Lebanon is significant, and coupled with the reality of America's commitment to elections in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine (And soon, Saudi Arabia and Egypt) emboldened a Lebanese people who wanted something for a long time now.  Wanting it isn't enough, though.  Therre has to be an aura of attainability, and this was the needed ingredient we provided.  I don't want to, and I don't think most neocons, would contend that democracy is brought by American force and cannot exist without American force.  The whole point is that this is what thy want anyway, and its our obligation to help them get it, within reason.  Demonstrating that Lebanese wanted democracy anyway doesn't refute neocons ideology, it confirms it.  Political freedom is a nearly universal desire, this is the central tenet of neoconservatism.

Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: March 16, 2005, 06:48:24 AM »

Vichy may be looking successful, but I wouldn't give up on the Resistance just yet:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050316/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: March 16, 2005, 08:13:31 AM »

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?


Because we intend to leave and they don't.
Logged
WMS
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,562


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: March 16, 2005, 10:11:09 PM »

WMS,

Syria is certainly vulnerable to pressure form the outside, and the level of U.S. pressure on Syria to withdraw from Lebanon is certainly a major variable in the balance of events in that country. The main pressures on Syria however are based mainly on various domestic and immediate developments within Lebanon, secondarily on international pressures from other countries, of which the U.S. is one, and with very little connection to the goings-on in Iraq. The Freedom House report notes that opposition to Syrian occupation began to build domestically in 2000 and 2001. Recently it was again revived by domestic factors.

The main point is that many of the heralded events advancing democracy in the region have been long separate from the neocons' strategy of trying to build a democracy in Iraq. The Gulf states had been moving towards democracy by 2000, and Arafat was going to pass away no matter what. The new "states" have had experiments with democracy have so far achieved only limited success, as democracies under the U.S. military, but not necessarily able to survive on their own. The Afghanistan government for example controls actually very little of the country. The Iraq 'government' of course commands no sovereignty over the country by traditional definitions, and it is still unknown when it may assume that responsibility. Yes, this can be seen as progress from the past, but for the large part it is still an experiment and will likely remain so for the forseeable future.

It has always been Bush's roll of the dice. He has the big idea down right - the internal situation in the Islamic and Arab worlds must change if the threat from Al Qaida is to be eliminated or managed. And while there were nudges here and there domestically, the U.S. presence has definitely spurred things along at a faster rate. Would Saudi Arabia have even bothered with the excuse for elections they had without the U.S presence? There is a great distance to go - Kuwait, Qatar, and even Bahrain are further along than the UAE or Oman, and Yemen is always fluctuating between full and partial repression.

And as for Syria, note how they repressed and/or ignored the Lebanese opposition after 2000, until the pressure grew from the increased presence of the U.S. in the region. A distant threat is not as attention-focusing as a threat right on one's border. Would those huge Lebanese demonstrations have been permitted to happen if the U.S. wasn't in the neighborhood? Wink
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,511
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: December 10, 2005, 09:53:42 PM »
« Edited: December 10, 2005, 09:59:14 PM by Frodo »

BUMP for those who haven't seen this thread yet -and what I have said on the first page remains true for me to this day.   
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: December 10, 2005, 10:35:04 PM »


This is the funniest post in this thread.
Logged
Undisguised Sockpuppet
Straha
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,787
Uruguay


Political Matrix
E: 6.52, S: 2.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: December 11, 2005, 12:47:35 AM »

Seconded
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.072 seconds with 12 queries.