Sen. Biden Tells Arabs to Adopt Democracy

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Joseph Biden told Libyan parliamentarians during a visit to the North African nation that the Arab world should reject authoritarian rule and instead adopt democracy.

He called on Arab countries to take on the "incredibly difficult challenge" of "empowering women, spreading knowledge and expanding freedom."

snip.....

"Nothing about democracy is incompatible with Islam," Biden said, noting that decisions based on community discussions was a Muslim concept centuries ago.

"Please do not misunderstand me. I mean no disrespect. But the nations of the Arab world could be doing so much more to harness the enormous potential of their people," he said.

snip....

"Why did you thrive then?" he asked. "It was not your armies alone. It was your ideas, your civilization, your culture, your openness. Why has this one small territory -- then called Al Andalus, now called Spain -- outpaced the rest of the Arab world combined today?"

more................

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-biden-libya,0,3580803.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines

Thanks. Inquisition, anyone?

Where would Spain have been without all that Indian treasure?

that is, the Muslims of Spain, had a flourishing culture before Ferdinand and Isabella decided to do a little ethnic cleansing in 1492.

From the article:

Arab countries should consider the example Spain, Biden said, pointing out that the country was part of a great Arab empire a thousand years ago.

"Why did you thrive then?" he asked. "It was not your armies alone. It was your ideas, your civilization, your culture, your openness. Why has this one small territory -- then called Al Andalus, now called Spain -- outpaced the rest of the Arab world combined today?"

He's saying: "Hey, your culture was once at the bleeding edge of civilization for the times. Why not work to be there again?"

First of all, he uses the present perfect tense ("has outpaced"), which fails to note that for all intents and purposes, the Islamic culture in Spain was destroyed more than 500 years ago, so this former "Islamic province" has little to do with today's Spain.

There were also Islamic culture centers in Asia that were destroyed in the 1200s by Genghis Khan and the crusaders, among other invaders. After these invasions and evictions, life for the Islamic culture became a daily fight for survival, leaving little time for other pursuits.

And that does not include what happened after the imperialist powers carved up their artificial territories in the Islamic world.

the Muslims of Spain, had a flourishing culture before Ferdinand and Isabella decided to do a little ethnic cleansing in 1492.

Sorry, but Islamic Spain was doomed after the battle of Tours in 732, a result of its direct aggression against the Christians to its north.

When Abd-er Rahman led his army north, he rolled the dice and lost.

The 'ethnic cleansing' you are attempting to reference under F&I was completed in 1492, when Granada fell. The Reconquest had been going on since 750, when Alfonso I occupied Galicia.

from Republicans

He has set them straight on a path to democracy, of that i am certain.

before saying anything else.

soft money, War Chests, Non stop commercials, election fraud. SOUNDS like a GOOD idea to me.

I'll need to research that.

milleniae and the upstart US, who is caving after 300 years has the gall to lecture them about their form of governance? In case you haven't noticed, we DON'T have a democracy either so who the hell does he think he is to lecture them. WE are the ones doing ethnic cleansing.

The Ottoman Empire? They're gone. And I don't see anybody here mourning the loss of any other absolute monarchies...

The current governments? They're mostly creations of the colonial powers and the older ones have survived all of 80 years. And I don't see anybody here defending the goal of colonial appointed governments anywhere else.

No. It is long past time that the Arab world threw off the insane goverments that they were shackled with by the British and French, get rid of the monarchies, theocracies and thugocracies and give the West a run for our money. It won't make those who like the "quaint" image of the "Sheik of Araby" image of the Middle East and it certainly won't help those who make a fortune out of propping up the existing regimes and helping them rob their people but it IS what needs to be done.

Hey, what a shocking idea. Somebody on Democratic Underground who thinks liberal Democracy is a good way to run a government. Bet I get flamed for it...

refer to as democracy?

A poster on Democratic Underground refers to democracy as a "disaster" that would "shackle" people who are living under right-wing dictatorships, religious fanatic theocracies and absolute monarchies.

We're definately living in Bizarroland when democracy is a controversial thing to support on a Democratic board and when monarchy, dictatorship and fundamentalist theocracies are defended as better alternatives.

Wow.

Then you'd understand where a lot of this board is coming from. Theocracies, dictatorships, fundamentalist, and genocidal governments are OK as long as they resist the neo-colonial, corporate multi-national, facist America. Oh, and if all else fails hide behind 'self-determination'.

God, why can't these idiots keep their mouths shut?

in the USA first, because chimpy was NOT chosen but selected.

kucinich.us
Tom DeLay:"I challenge anyone to live on my salary" <$158,000 a year>

Everytime Arab nations make a serious go at an open society with democratic rule, WE --hello-- WE topple it to ensure it doesn't fall under the influence of socialism.

So what does the Arab world cling to now? Tribal and religious doctrines that are so old and extreme, it's almost impossible for someone else to take them away.

Both are pushing the same imperialist arrogance. With his little lecture, Biden will warm the hearts of the Perles and the Wolfowitzes.

,...being a relative novice in the world of politics and grappling with its unique language and characterizations. Although I am an advocate for open societies,...I cannot imagine that "imperialist arrogance" will lead to an improved world. To the contrary, that kind of arrogance has, in my view, proven to divide the world and plant seeds of hatred rather than bulbs of hope.

that imperialist arrogance supporting dictatorships and monarchies imposed by the imperialists themselves is the model of liberalism?

No thanks. I'll stick with the liberal values of promoting freedom and democracy. You can keep propping up dictators and British appointed monarchies and call it whatever else you like.

,...outside the "political dialect"? As I previously stated (and for which I am actually quite grateful), I am a novice with respect to the game and language of "politics". I actually enjoy the thought of dismissing the political game of labels, and seek clarifying the objectives of "promoting freedom and democracy", without the dogma and discriminations.

• Democratically elected government with free elections open to all adult citizens
• Citizenship open to all regardless of religion or ethnicity
• Free press
• Free speech
• Right to assemble
• Right to organize labor unions
• Right to protest
• Equal rights and protection regardless of:
  • race
  • religion
  • ethnic origin
  • sex
  • sexual preference
• Public secular education
• Public health care (well, it'd be nice if we got that one, too)

Care to give us a list of countries in the Middle East that have these including friends, enemies and those in-between?

Care to list even one of these values that we don't support?

capitalism? We don't get hardly any of that stuff anymore so what are you talking about.

,...imagine full expression without fear. *hmpff* I know few, very few, unfortunately, who take full possession of their power of expression. What have "WE" become? I do not mean that towards all those who have clearly served humanity rather than themselves. You know what I mean,...and,...we simply cannot bear the weight of those who choose to ignore reality. We must deliver "reality" and respect whatever choice is exercised. We may be disappointed, initially,...because we have our own "vision". But, we either abide by the process of life or we engage in constant turmoil,...and are participants in HELL.

what the Hell are you talking about? come back to planet DU ok.

Right to protest
Equal rights and protection regardless of:
race
religion
ethnic origin
sex
sexual preference

now, care to name ANY other country in the region that does?

Maybe Saudi Arabia, no wait, they don't even allow Jews to get a visa
Or Jordan, no wait, their constitution bans Jews from citizenship
How about the PA, no wait, they're pushing to expell all Jews.

Please. We'll wait for you to find us a nation in the region with equal rights regardless of religion besides Israel.

Oh, and if you DO come up with an answer with a few caveats, please, let us know how Israel and the US are worse.

you know, event organizers should be punished if someone pops an ecstasy pill!

(or at least Mr. Rave Act thinks so...)

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: Biden :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

:(

the reason Arab societies aren't working is precisely because they don't have democracy or democratic institutions. Their governments may tell him to "get bent" but we need to do our best to persuade them to do otherwise - short of adventure wars, of course.

"Democratic underground" and all that.

The thing is Senator Biden would have more credibility if
he chose a better example, a nation that actually developed under
democracy. Spain's democratic transition was quite recent.

His basic thesis is wrong too, nations that industialized and
modernized under an even nominally democratic government are
the exception rather than the rule. It is certainly disputable,
but the historical evidence does not suggest that you have to
become democratic in order to progress with development, rather
the opposite.

As it is, he looks ignorant.

Edit: to be clear, what usually seems to have happened is that
nations develop, in the sense of become literate and modern and
technically knowledgeable, and then they become democratic. But
there are some exceptions.

Edit2: So if you are REALLY interested in democracy, then you
promote literacy, birth control and education, and you work to
reduce poverty and it's consequences.

I agree that Spain wasn't a good example, but what is? Where is there a succesful example of an Arab democracy? I'm not saying Arabs are incapable of democracy - far from it I think the absence of a single Arab democracy is a real problem.

It is certainly disputable,
but the historical evidence does not suggest that you have to
become democratic in order to progress with development, rather
the opposite.

I could not disagree more. History has shown us that democracy is by far the least unstable form of government. Stability is good. It also allows the freest exchange of money. That's good for an economy. But beyond that, democracy is a fundamental human right. Moreover, in the developed world, democracy is the rule, almost without exception - and every one of the seven leading industrialized nations is a democracy. That's not an accident.

So if you are REALLY interested in democracy, then you
promote literacy, birth control and education, and you work to
reduce poverty and it's consequences.

Agreed. Pakistan isn't an Arab country, but it is heavily involved in the Arab world. And almost sixty years after independence, it still doesn't have public education. We need to make Musharaff change that. But you're just skimming the surface. How do you reduce poverty and its consequences? Birth control is one way, but the current system - which in Saudi Arabia involves handing out cash - doesn't work. Saudi Arabia has no economy whatsoever other than the oil industry. So they have huge numbers of people just sitting around all day, doing nothing, except listening to the odd fundamentalist cleric. So yes, they obviously need to work to build up non-oil-related businesses, so Saudis can get jobs and money. But they also have to introduce elections, even if they are fairly limited at first - give the people a stake in their lives. And you have to change laws to allow freedom of expression and the press, and allow independent newspapers, so people can actually know what's going on.

You have to move on all fronts. And we need to use our hefty powers of persuasion to get the House of Saud to move on all of them.

I don't understand why you started blathering about Arabs and
Pakistan. I said nothing about them, and I see no reason to
think they are special in this regard.

The most stable forms of government ever know were the ancient
hydraulic empires, they ground along for millenia.

Democracy seems to be quite unstable in the absence of a literate
and informed population, the very problem you addressed in your
first post, one election and you are done. That is what happens
if you "impose" a democratic system withour preparing a democratic
citizenry and providing the aforementioned economic conditions too.

I fear for the USA for precisely that reason, we seem to be
becoming less literate and informed all the time, and that is
causing us to drift in the direction of oligarchy. Mr. Biden's
ignorant whining at these Arabs is a perfect example of that,
and I mean no defense of the Arab governments in saying that.

with what I saw as your main point - that democracy is unnecessary. I think that's wrong-headed and very dangerous.

The most stable forms of government ever know were the ancient
hydraulic empires, they ground along for millenia.

They lasted, but they were definitely not stable. As one ruler replaced another, you'd have famine, massacres, warlords in the provinces, etc. Peaceful transitions of power were the exceptions, rather than the rule, and I think I could probably provide a thousand examples of this.

Democracy seems to be quite unstable in the absence of a literate
and informed population, the very problem you addressed in your
first post, one election and you are done. That is what happens
if you "impose" a democratic system withour preparing a democratic
citizenry and providing the aforementioned economic conditions too.


And now we're going in circles. Because as I have argued as well, you definitely have to bring in education, a free press, etc. But you can't just move on one front. At the same time you're doing that, also bring in muncipal elections, a repeal of oppressive sections of religious law, etc. Otherwise, people in the Arab world will be sitting around waiting for democracy forever. No, I don't believe you can just declare democracy and that's it - you definitely have to lay a groundwork. But you also can't have a "transition" to democracy that never actually winds up resulting in democracy.

Mr. Biden's
ignorant whining at these Arabs

Joe Biden is many things, but ignorant and a whiner he is not. His point is correct and knowledge is more than adequate.

I did not say "democracy is unnecessary", although I would
ask "necessary for what?" Things are not "necessary" in
general, they are necessary for something. The original issue
was development and modernization, or so I thought.

What do you think of the Roman empire, especially the Byzantine
branch? You now think democracy guarantees no famines, massacres
and warlords in the provinces? What do you think of the fledgeling
"democracy" in Afghanistan?

The point is that democracy cannot be imposed, it comes from the
bottom up.

But this is tedious.

Mr. Biden is a half-wit, repeatedly convicted by his own words as
here. I will never forget of forgive him for the Anita Hill
hearings and letting that Uncle Tom get on the USSC.

Necessary for many things. Necessary for human dignity, for economic progress, for the preservation of human life.

What do you think of the Roman empire, especially the Byzantine
branch?

Anyone who has studied the period knows that the Roman Empire was one of the bloodiest affairs ever conceived. The Pax Romana was largely a myth. Civil War ravaged the empire almost without respite for four hundred years. Populations were exterminated, many thousands died, generals would take command of some troops and them proclaim themselves emperor, etc. Look at the Third Century, when there were literally dozens of "emperors," each slaughtering their political enemies, each wreaking havoc.

And the Empire in the East was worse. I don't think ever in the history of humanity has there been a society as violent and divided into petty factions as the Byzantine Empire. It was so bad that we have word in English, "byzantine" to describe bureacratic situations so complex, so filled with intrigue and betrayal, that they become unworkable.

But all this is moot anyways. Are you suggesting that Byzantium under Justinian is really a viable example for anything in contemporary society? Democracy is necessary for society now. Osama bin Laden wants us to revert to the way life was during the seventh century caliphate. That's impossible. We live in the 21st century.

Good, then we agree. Please see post #17 again for my
opinions on how that comes about. The notion that you can
give a people democracy, or accomplish it by lecturing the
leaders is simply ludicrous, contrary to fact and contrary
to the historical record.

The Byzantines, and ancient hydraulic empires, were merely
examples of real long term stability in political organization,
they are hardly recommendations. It was not I that brought up
stability. As you point out they are quite ugly in operation,
and yet they are better than chaos and barbarian conflict,
warlordism and tribalism.

I don't think civil war, massacres, famines and political violence are indicative of stability. The Byzantine Empire is an example of an unstable regime. Democracy avoids all that, because it provides a system for the peaceful transfer of power. That's what stability is and that's good for everybody.

You can give a people democracy, or rather give them the tools to give themselves democracy. But you have to make a concerted effort to do so or it won't happen.

And of course I agree with you that chaos and barbarian conflict, warlordism and tribalism are not altogether desirable.

Since we were discussing political organization I thought it
reasonable to assume that was what was meant. Now I see you
mean social stability. Once again, the notion that democratic
political forms provide social stability in the absence of the
aforementioned social conditions (#17) is ludicurous. Even then
one must deal with the neighbors, who may not be so enlightened.

One of the primary arguments for autocratic rule has always been
that it provides order and suppresses the passions of the ignorant
and violent mob. Periods and places where there are no "civil war,
massacres, famines and political violence" are quite rare in human
history, ancient or modern, and it is delusional think otherwise,
and there is no evidence whatsoever for the idea that those idyllic
situations, when they do occur, have anything to do with democratic political forms.

Even then one must deal with the neighbors, who may not be so enlightened.


They may not be so enlightened, but democracies are better at winning wars as well, because their soldiers fight harder and are trained to make decisions for themselves. Just look at the War of the First Coalition, from 1793-1797, in which Spain, Holland, Austria, Prussia, England and Sardinia united to invade France following the Revolution - and were soundly defeated by popular uprising. When people are encouraged to think for themselves, and are led to believe they have a stake in their government, they do better.

Democracies are indeed more stable. They result in less violence and necessitate pacifiyng compromise. History shows that again and again.

One of the primary arguments for autocratic rule has always been
that it provides order and suppresses the passions of the ignorant
and violent mob.

It does that very well - for a while. The problem again is that there is no provision for an orderly transition of power. So you can periods of perfect order, but they are then followed by an ungodly orgy of violence and destruction. That argument just doesn't work - because dictatorships never survive a dictator.

WRT your first point please see post #54. I hope you are
not suggesting that Revolutionary France, before or after
Napoleon, had a democratic political organization.

Please provide some examples of democracies being more stable
in terms you specfied. The one point that I will agree to in
some degree is Fukuyama's observation that liberal democracies
rarely fight each other.

in the sense that the people believed that they were represented by the regime and had a stake in it. People can feel that way about any government, but that's most true for democracies.

Please provide some examples of democracies being more stable
in terms you specfied.

I think the fact that the US has had only one period of internal violence would certainly seem to suggest that. That Britain has had no violence since Parliament replaced the king as decision-maker. That Switzerland has been at peace for three hundred years. Democracies work. They're not necessarily peaceful - look at us for example - but they are stable. And they build prosperity. For a third-world example, look at Costa Rica. Costa Rica is poor, but it has not seen the same kind of internal conflict that the rest of Central America has. Its decisions are settled at the ballot box, not on the field of battle.

The seven leading industrialized countries are the richest countries in the world, have many of the most powerful militaries, and are also all democracies. Coincidence?

"The seven leading industrialized countries are the richest countries
in the world, have many of the most powerful militaries, and are also
all democracies. Coincidence?"

I love it. I rest my case.

Iceland, Costa Rica, the Swiss, and a few others make good examples,
but they all have certain characteristics, and most have geographical
advantages.

I have to go now. Nice talking to you.

that they live in the desert. These have been flourishing cultures for milleniae and you are pretending they aren't working. America is dead after 300 years yet you pretend that our brand of democracy/greed is working. Could it be that we have been at war for centuries with them in a thousand different ways that things are difficult for them? What incredible arrogance!!

I'm making no statement whatsoever about Arab culture. I'm talking about politics. The political systems in the Arab world have failed it. Virtually everyone agrees on that. Saudi Arabia is a failed state. Kuwait is a failed state. Iraq is a failed state. Yemen is a failed state. I can go on.

America is dead after 300 years yet you pretend that our brand of democracy/greed is working.

Forget "our brand." I'm talking about any brand. Because, yes, I do believe that democracy is better than dictatorship. I believe that respect for human rights and political and intellectual pluralism are universal values common to humanity. If that's "incredible arrogance," so be it. Its not just my arrogance, then, its the arrogance of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You might try reading it.

that on Democratic Underground you actually have to fight people about whether Liberal Democracy is a good thing?

Shame on everyone who dares post here opposing democracy.

we are all democrats. But democracy does not equal Liberal Democracy. Ask any Russian for example... or just look closer to home.

V

Its a one-man autocracy revolving around the tackiest cult of personality yet conceived.

but the you must surely agree that context matters? Russia calls itself a Liberal Democracy. It has elections. So does, for example, the US. Neither in my view is democratic.

Most of our Liberal Democracies are thinly veiled ways to surpress the rights of the working class. Thats why I support democracy, minus the L.

V

P.S. using Liberal in the European sense troughout.

Sorry.

The US has many faults, but it is infinitely more democratic than Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, or even Russia. If you don't see that, you're not paying attention.

you ain't at the bottom of the ladder doesn't mean you are doing well. And its not like I am looking for perfection. But I think the US system is so undemocratic as to make it untenable as a democracy. Sure Kuwait/SA/Russia are worse. A murderer is worse than a thief - both are criminals.

V

P.S. Yeah, we disagree. That's democracy i guess (or was it free speech) :)

The purpose of the Democratic Underground is to provide a forum for those who wish to advance the Democratic Party and its principles in the contexts of American democracy. If you don't think that's possible, why are you here?

and besides, things happen in stages. At the moment supporting the Dems is entirely the right thing to do (especially in the upcoming presidential election) - i'm a realist as well as being far left you know.

And its fun to discuss things with other progressives. Rather than telling them to piss off.

V

if the United States isn't a democracy? If democratic change is impossible, why are you wasting your time with a group who thinks it isn't?

and nowhere did I say that. I said that the US is not a democracy. That is very different. And I support the Democrats because:

A) They are better than *
B) They are the only realistic option at the moment

It doesn't mean I can't also have solidarity with the efforts of the CPUSA for example. And there are sections of the Democrats like Sharpton/Kuchnich/CMB who support genuine democratic change.

V

If the US isn't a democracy then groups that are trying to make changes in democratic contexts won't be able to. On the other hand, if the US is a democracy then opposition politicians can and will get elected. So which is it?

and now it is, through elections. Things change. Democracy does not mean opposition politicians being able to get elected - it means people being genuinely involved in the decision making process, which is a different criterion.

V

I have been to Caracas too many times, my friend.

No thanks.

Democracy does not mean opposition politicians being able to get elected - it means people being genuinely involved in the decision making process, which is a different criterion.

If people want to be involed in the decision making process, they need to involve themselves. The only barrier to truly representative government in the US is apathy - but the US is certainly a democracy.

Certainly from the point of view of the ghettoes and the poor and marginalized, which is my main interest.

Apathy is a huge barrier, but not the only one. Its the fact that the ruling class actively works to marginalize participation. No one really wants the homies in south central voting and taking part... they might have uncomfortable opinions.

V

There is no ruling class. Sorry.

No one really wants the homies in south central voting and taking part... they might have uncomfortable opinions.

Do you really believe that? You do know, don't you, that African-Americans are registered to vote at a significanty higher rate white Americans? And maybe, just maybe, South-Central is disenfranchised. But why is its Congresswoman Deputy Democratic Whip? Why is she Chair of the House Democratic Steering Committee?

And why isn't Harlem? After all, Harlem's Congressman is ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee, Chair of the DCCC, Chair of the New York State Dem Congressional Delegation, etc. -- and hardly disenfranchised.

You can accuse Democrats of being racist all you want - the problem comes when you actually look at the facts which indicate nothing of the sort.

there is no ruling class, then we really do have very little to discuss I'm afraid. And allright, I picked South Central because it was the first that came to mind. I could have gone on about Florida and the 2000 election again. Or about how many black people there are in American jails as compared to whites. Or about... tell you what read Stupid White Men, or indeed any of MM's work.

I accept the point about voter registration btw. But again, as Florida showed, when those votes become inconvinient, they are quite easily disposed of.

V

I've been given most of Michael Moore's books over the years, including Stupid White Men, which are universally childish.

I accept the point about voter registration btw. But again, as Florida showed, when those votes become inconvinient, they are quite easily disposed of.


Well then you're making two different points. If you're saying that Republicans are racist, or that Republicans will do anything to get their candidates elected up to and including denying voters their right to vote, then you're right. But African Americans weren't chased away from the polls in 2000 by "The Ruling Class," they were chased away by local Republican officials.

Or about how many black people there are in American jails as compared to whites.

So? If you want to argue that there is institutionalized racism in America, we'd be in total agreement. But there is not a Ruling Class. Your arguments do not support one another.

nontheless he makes a fair few good points and I for one don't have the time to read ad infinitum about these things.

And it seems we agree on something at least - that there is institutionalized racism in America. And that republicans are scum - but then that's rather obvious. But they are only one facet of the ruling class. The point isn't that there is NO difference between Republicans and Democrats, it is that the difference is grossly exxagerated. They both work to essentially maintain the status quo, with some differences in flavour.

At the moment the difference in flavour is a lot bigger than usually, because Bush is much more of a fascist than most Republicans were. Hence ABB 2004 for me. And, as I said before, people like Kuchnich/Braun/Sharpton show that there is hope for the Democratic party.

V

The vast majority of people are of mixed race, or indigenous, and they live in poverty.

The same is true in Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Brazil, and other countries in Latin America.

and no, the vast majority of people are not of mixed race.

has always been that it justifies and legitimates the
levee en masse, i.e. the military draft, thus
allowing the mobilization of much larger military forces
than was possible before the French Revolution made that
stunning discovery.

This is a completely different thing, as one may easily
see in the USA with regard to any number of issues, from
the idea that the people should decide how things are to
be run in the nation.

of thinking outside the box. Yeah, good point.

Attractions for the politicians presumably?

V

Wish I could take credit.

Turkmanbashi dresses worse.

Did you know he has a statue of himself which revolves to always face the sun? Now that is tacky baby!

V

only as good as it's leadership, elected, inherited, stolen or otherwise.

All forms of governments can do well with good leadership. That's never the problem. The problem is how you respond to bad leadership. Bad leadership is inevitable regardless of the political system, but how do you adapt?

Do you give that bad leader unconditional powers as in a despotism? Do you overthrow him in a bloody civil war? Do you simply suffer under him for perpetuity? Or do you defeat him at the ballot box?

Democracy offers checks and balances and non-violent accountability. It allows us to peacefully transition from one government to another, regardless of how good or bad each is.

What exactly is wrong with my statement? Any government is only as good as it's leadership. That holds true for the US government. Wouldn't you agree that the present leadership of the US, including Congress, falls well below the standard of being good?

I believe your point is that the Constitution of the US allows for the advantage of checks and balances and non-violent accountability.
I do believe the US has an extra-ordinary Constitution and fortunetly it allows for amendments that have brought changes for the betterment of this nation, i.e. women's vote. There is some question that the tenets of the Constitution have been ignored and stretched for the advantage of political expediency i.e. use of war/invasion of other countries for political expediency, power and economic advantage.

Democracy does not come fully formed from some E-Z Bake Oven.

This "insta-democracy" attitude, alas, is a disease that all US politicians have.

They should be publically ridiculed for it at every chance.

It shows 1) their lack of historical knowledge of world history as well as the history of this country
2) a complete lack of understanding of human nature
3) a complete lack of understanding of democracy itself.

Biden et al. Read a book!

Democracy is predicated on the existence of democratic institutions, like education and a free press. The recurring fear is that you'll have "one election, one time," and then the state reverts to being a fundamentalist theocratic dictatorship. That's why Biden and others are trying to put pressure on Arab regimes to institute the kinds of reforms - the defunding of extremist clerics, expansion of public education, institution of local elections, - that can then serve as a stepping stone to democracy.

This "insta-democracy" attitude, alas, is a disease that all US politicians have. They should be publically ridiculed for it at every chance.

No insta-democracy is not helpful, but then neither is perpetual-dictatorship, which is what many in the Arab world have lived under for far too long. Its time we used the power and prestige of the United States for something good - and turning one-family dictatorships into secular multiparty democracies, a long-term prospect admittedly, is still a great good.

Maybe, just maybe, it's related to the assbackwards creation on the region.

We start w/ the PDA of 1881, then Husayn-McMahon, at the same time we have Sykes-Picot (-Sazanov, til Russian Rev), then Balfour Declaration, then San Remo Conference (we'll ignore the King-Crane commission--as everyone else did)

In other words, this region was created and we're still reaping the benefits of this.

For Liden or anyone to chastise is plain wrongheaded.

Are you suggesting that dictatorship only came to the Arab world in 1881? There has never been an Arab democracy. Enlightened-despotism is almost as good, and yet there hasn't been one of those in seven hundred years.

Its just silly to blame all the ills of the world on the West - and Arab governments have to stop blaming their authoritarianism on anybody other themselves. India is an artificial state, drawn up on maps by Western colonialists; composed of so many ethnic groups it makes a hell of a lot less sense than most of the Arab states. And you know what? India, for all its faults, is a multi-party functioning democracy.

The descendents of Ibn Saud own Saudi Arabia, not because they were installed by the West, but because they defeated the Western-backed Hashemites in battle. Are they really our fault? Maybe you could blame us for tolerating their rule - I certainly would - but that's very different from saying we're to blame for them being in power in the first place.

Egypt: de-facto British Protectorate after 1882, was officially one as of 1914. Unilitarerally granted independence in early 1920's by GB w/ "reserve points" allowing for British involvement in domestic and foreign affairs. (Example: Feb 4 Incident in 1942)

Mandates: GB--Got Iraq (created out of 3 Ottoman provinces) eventually with Constitutional Monarchy -- They placed Faysal on the throne to the tune of God save the (friggin) King. A foreigner on an artificial throne in an artificially created country. Things trundled along til 1958; Transjordan--created to keep the bedouin tribesmen in order so as not to mess up; Palestine--later to become Israel, although Resolution 181 of 1947 called for a partition; France--got Syria, which they split up eventually into Syria and Lebanon (don't even get me started on Lebanon and its confessional form of government)

As for the others-- The Gulf States etc were created (borders etc) via GB involvement. Although Husayn was given the "Kingdom of the Hijaz" when things went south, the British told him to give in and go into exile as the Saudis had won it. As for the rest of North Africa...ever hear of Algeria (1830 to 1962 under France)

The only two modern countries that "formed themselves" for the most part are Turkey and Iran (non-Arab) although even then, it was not an easy process then or in the interim.

The borders, political systems, mandate practices all were controlled by foreign powers.

The "seeds of democracy"--building the infrastructure, developing the societal criteria, were all imposed from without, not within. Those that gained power from the indigenous population were at first installed by outsiders while later rulers took over by a variety of means--often based upon coups and the like (some of which were aided, abetted, or supported by foreign powers--at the worst. At the best, they were condoned)

In the end--this region is still adjusting to its creation and misadministration--there is blame for all--but in the end--it was the very creation of the region that sowed the seeds of the current crises.

In other words-- any analysis requires knowledge of the region's history--not only the current state of affairs.

I've grossly oversimplified the history here--giving the major bullet points. There is more to the story quite clearly--but the key points remain the same.

BTW-- it is criminally negligent that, according to The Independent, the US forces were basing their dealings with tribal elements in Iraq as of late, on reports written by the British in 1918 (!!!!!!!!)

Biden and the other politicians can go f&*& themselves thirty ways to Sunday. They have absolutely no room to speak on the issue.

of Nations. From what? From the Ottoman Empire, hardly a pinnacle of good governance. And the Ottomans were replacing Mongols, Seljuks, Byzantines, and yes, Arabs who weren't a whole lot better. The Middle East didn't start being a mess with the Europeans, nor did it end with them. You might as well blame the problems the Middle East is facing today on the Mongols, who destroyed the Abbasid Caliphate when they sacked Baghdad in 1258.

The only people to blame for the evils of the House of Saud are members of the House of Saud. The only people to blame for the Al-Kalifas are the Al-Kalifas. The only people to blame for the Al-Sabahs are the Al-Sabahs.

Have you *actually* studied the history of this region?

Or are you just listing a series of names (kudos for those, by the way, although a more accurate orthography would be Saljuqs--at least from the medieval histories) and painting everyone with the same brush.

BTW-- I did not mention the League of Nations at all? Why put words in my mouth.

I placed the blame on a variety of parties. If you would have stopped to actually read my earlier post, you might have recognized that.

Great Britain, France, Russia to an extent were key perpetrators of the creation of the Modern Middle East. From that time--the leadership that has arisen has been less than stellar--the reason for which stems from a total lack of ability on their part, and being hamstrung on the other by the machinations of outside power. Then, of course, their was the ridiculous notion that "nation building" is doable--especially by those from different cultural, socio-political backgrounds with their own national interests in mind.

Your notion of painting this regions myriad dynasties with the brush of incompetence has one thing right about it-- incompetence. Alas, the incompetence lies with your assessment of the ability or lack thereof of the leadership from this region and the various methods of government that have been employed over the centuries.

I should note that this is my field of research, so I come at it with a bit more knowledge of the intricacies from the pre-Islamic to the modern period--specific to rule, governance and the notions of power.

Normally, I would not spend time arguing this point, but of late I've been fed up with the blatant ignorance on the part of politicians, policy makers, pundits and posters on the DU.

From reading this thread, and many of those posting on it--it is clear that a number of folks are egregiously ignorant of the facts and for whatever reason (love of ignorance, stereotyping bigotry, or laziness) seek to perpetuate their stupidity and "spread the wealth."

It is an unfortunate situation to say the least. At first blush, I should be more charitable--the problem is folks have been given a free pass for their avoidance of intellectual analysis of the problem for too long. They need a wakeup call.

at least he isn't invading countries to impose democracy...

just making a suggestion heh.

i mean...would we be in an uproar if he was telling other countries to respect human rights, or to stop polluting?

i see no belligerence in this.

In a single speech he's managed to offend both the corporatists who love their single-point-of-bribery relationships with their propped up thugs and the "aren't the Arabs cute in their little outfits and camels" condescending types who view the Arab world as a theme park they'd oh so hate to see modernize.

He, for one, actually took the view of suggesting that the Arab world do something good for the Arab people.

For that, he deserves our heartfelt thanks for his courage and our deep respect for his insight.

Thank you Joe Biden!

update the rides, right?

to make sure that the West can keep their "noble savage" image of the Arab world out of some Valentino movie.

Here are some infant mortality numbers in the region (with some extras thrown in for comparison.

Saudi Arabia - 47.94 deaths/1,000 live births
Turkey - 44.20 deaths/1,000 live births
Egypt - 35.26 deaths/1,000 live births
Syria - 31.67 deaths/1,000 live births
Libya - 26.80 deaths/1,000 live births
Lebanon - 26.43 deaths/1,000 live births
China - 25.26 deaths/1,000 live births
Gaza Strip - 24.15 deaths/1,000 live births
West Bank - 20.68 deaths/1,000 live births
Russia - 19.51 deaths/1,000 live births
Jordan - 18.86 deaths/1,000 live births
Hungary - 8.58 deaths/1,000 live births
Israel - 7.37 deaths/1,000 live births
USA - 6.75 deaths/1,000 live births
UK - 5.28 deaths/1,000 live births
Australia - 4.83 deaths/1,000 live births
France - 4.37 deaths/1,000 live births
Germany - 4.23 deaths/1,000 live births
Japan - 3.30 deaths/1,000 live births

And who could forget Afghanistan and its great Democrat, Hamid Karzai.

You seriously want a few more Iraqs? Where do we start?

it is THEIR CHOICE and NOT OURS.

We in the West are the ones propping up their dicatorships, their monarchies and their autocracies.

We in the West are the ones who created most of those dictatorships, those monarchies and those autocracies.

Maybe it's time we worked to get democracy and representative government going rather than working to keep a miserable status-quo.

It's high time we undid the damage we've done. And if that means they vote in a pizza shop or a McDonalds rather than yet another quaint falafel stand, we'll have to just learn to deal with it. It is, after all, their choice and not ours.

"Maybe it's time we worked to get democracy and representative government going rather than working to keep a miserable status-quo."

But - uh... I thought it was their choice?

So what choice are they making in this scenario - I notice "its time we worked" - what about their choices, why isn't it time that THEY worked?

Do you think they had a choice in setting up their current governments? Study some history.

Do you think they have a choice about keeping their current governemnts? Study our trade contracts.

a horrible, horrible idea.

Ok, so enough of your condescension, lets get serious: what are the concrete steps we take TODAY to bring about this Perleization?

You're in charge: what do we do?

What does that hollow talk about democracy boil down to?

What do you want?

Romantic notions of democracy sound great in print, but what's the gameplan and what grim reality will it lead to?

I'm saying we work to UNDO the mess we made. You're advocating a continued policy of propping up the dictators and absolute monarchs we appointed.

Sorry. I'll continue to support democracy. Sorry you think that's somehow not liberal.

I haven't advocated any policy except not invading countries on the pretext of giving them the gift of democracy.

And yes, your talk of democracy is INCREDIBLY condescending. Perhaps you should go on a speaking tour of the Middle East if you don't believe me - you could give rousing speeches which I'm sure will be greeted by thunderous applause.

They await you with open arms - you could be the Tom Paine of the Middle East!

Just make sure to cut me in on the film rights.

We in the West are the ones propping up their dicatorships, their monarchies and their autocracies.

We in the West are the ones who created most of those dictatorships, those monarchies and those autocracies.

So true. We start by stopping intervention, there we agree. But I doubt that is what Biden is on about...

V

I missed any purpose for the trip. I assume it has something to do with his role on the Foreign Affairs committee......

The United States is not democratic and it has a long dismal record of supporting tyranny across the world, as long as the tyrants were friendly to Wall Street.

Biden is another of those Cold War pukes in search of a new mission for their bankrupt ideology.

across the world, as long as the tyrants were friendly to Wall Street."

Uh IndianaGreen, if that's the case, then why are you attacking a liberal US Senator who's doing the right thing? For once, someone is a position of power is challenging tyrants friendly to Wall Street - one would think you'd be elated at the change. But you're not.

Why not?

Biden and his cohorts on regime change:

Washington turns to “regime change” in Iran
By Bill Vann
29 May 2003

Senator Joseph Biden, the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, indicated that any differences on Iranian policy were limited to tactics and timing. Appearing on NBC’s “Today” show, Biden cautioned that the US military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq were still far from completion.

“We’ve got a long way to go there,” he said of Iraq. “I don’t think we should be biting off more than we can chew right now.”

Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that Iran represented “more of a clear and present danger than Iraq last year.”

For his part, Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-Ct.) enthusiastically embraced the administration’s adoption of a state policy of “regime change.”

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/may2003/iran-m29.shtml

Why didn't you answer my question?

If we're going to start knocking off governments that have weapons of mass destruction, how about we go after ones that are actually seeking them.

I'd be far less upset about US intervention in Iran, where the government is actually seeking nuclear weapons. Or how about North Korea, where Kim Jong Il is practically jumping up and down, screaming "Look at me! I've got nukes! Come on, let's go!"

How about Israel, American politicians? Oh, I forgot, when it comes to Israel, Republicans and Democrats pander to the most extreme pro-settlement elements in Israel and in the US, while ignoring the voices for peace including the ones within Judaism.

Israel is a artifical construct as are Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the PA, Libya, etc.

Of all of those constructs, it's the only one that actually has a democracy, free elections, free press, socialised medicine, equal rights for women, equal rights regardless of sexual preference, equal rights regardless of religion. If you want a free Arab press, the best place to have one in the Middle East is Israel. If you are an Arab and want to run for parliament in open elections, the best place to run is in Israel.

They have the highest standard of living, the best health care and the best educational institutions which are all available to all citizens regardless of religion or ethnicity. They have a more religious diversity than any of the Arab states or, for that matter, the US. They have ethnic diversity that would make any multi-culturalist proud.

Yeah, given a comparison, you pick a really amazing choice of example. But, hey, why let your apparant total ignorance of the facts get in the way of a good fashionable rant...

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/summit/text/0416bdn.htm

... Painful compromises will be required on both sides. Palestinians will have to yield on the right of return to Israel, which would destroy the Jewish nature of the state. Israelis will have to understand, as most already do, that a Palestinian state will require dismantling most settlements. ...

The apologists for Israel are in the same category as those who apologize for the agressive foreign policies of the US.

or do you just like throwing out meaningless phrases with nothing to back them up?

perhaps he should try to return democracy to the US before looking further. Perhaps he should fight for the rights of black, hispanics, women, gays, muslims and other marginalized groups in the US. But no, always easier to criticize others.

V

Biden's a committed liberal of impeccable standing.

But as ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joe Biden's primary concern is, well, Foreign Relations. And you find fault with that?

Preaching at Arabs about democracy yes. You clean up your own house before preaching to others IMO.

I would honestly prefer if Western politicians just shut up about how the Middle East should democratize.

V

until they are as pure as the driven snow?

I guess then the United States should apologize for waging war on Adolf Hitler when all the while we were practicing Jim Crow in the South.

I'm sorry my friend, but we live in the real world. We need to advance democracy and fight tyranny everywhere. Not just in the United States, not just in the Arab World, but everywhere.

Its not about purity. But you certainly can't wage an illegal war on Iraq and then preach at Saudis about democracy while ignoring the UN.

We do live in the real world. But you fight tyranny at home first.

V

We do live in the real world. But you fight tyranny at home first.

You keep saying that. But why? Yes the Iraq war was wrong, and YES we need to fight the Bush Administration here at home, but NO you cannot afford to "fight tyranny at home first." Again, if we adopted that policy, we'd have never fought Adolf Hitler. You fight tyranny anywhere and everywhere.

people than all the Middle East regimes put together a good few times over. And Europe was begging for help, unlike say the progressives in Iraq who opposed the invasion. Hitler was very different.

Fighting tyranny in country X while supporting it in Y (Latvia, Turkmenistan to give but two obvious examples) is just hypocritical.

V

want to live under the present dictatorships?

If so, you need to meet a few more people from that region.

The one thing everyone agrees on - all across the political spectrum from liberal reformers to Al Qaeda - is that the present dictatorships are incredibly unjust and repressive.

Fighting tyranny in country X while supporting it in Y (Latvia, Turkmenistan to give but two obvious examples) is just hypocritical.


I'll admit its an inconsistency. But its a lot less odd than your position - which seems to be that we shouldn't fight tyranny at all.

but they don't want your 'help' either. The Iraqi student unions (underground) certainly didn't. Because they know that, like in Afganistan and Iraq, democracy brought through interventionism inevitably leads to exploitation of another kind.

V

to exploitation of another kind."


Really?

I take it you don't consider Germany to be a democracy. How about Japan? South Korea?

And Japan.

Funny, guess I somehow had it wrong.

Please help me understand how arrogant American interventionism led to WWII.

While a coupla ragin' radicals, Nazis, and long-dead Japanese nationalists probably do think that it did - I somehow doubt you do.

but then after the war we imposed democracy on them. Unfair! How dare we do such a thing!

that's what we're talking about, forcing democracy on people - not reconstructing vanquished countries after the complete hell that was WWII.

Put it this way: if Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan formed an Axis of Refried Evil and attempted to take over the world, millions were murdered, country after country devastated, I wouldn't complain if parlimentary democracies were setup in the aftermath.

But to START wars to setup those democracies? No thanks. You and Wolfowitz can lead the charge, but try to keep my friends and family out of it.

I think we can all agree that doing so is not productive. There are more effective ways of spreading democracy, freedom and respect for human rights.

Give us an itemized list, wow the world with your wisdom.

Invite Prince Abdullah to Washington.

Tell him that the United States wants to see the following reforms in Saudi Arabia:

1. An end to funding for extremist clerics;
2. An end to state control of newspapers and television;
3. The establishment of an interim Constitution with specific enumerated rights to be granted to all citizens without regard to sex, race, religion, sexual orientation or political affiliation;
4. Local elections;
5. Major investments in public education;
6. A plan for developing the economy beyond oil;

And tell him that if he doesn't comply with American demands, the United States will be prepared to make life extraordinarily difficult for him.

And what do you propose to do if he refuses to your demands?

This isn't a mob movie, "extraordinarily difficult" doesn't cut it - what are you threatening them with?

And how do we respond to their counter-threats about oil?

There's no chance in hell Bush would EVER propose anything like that.

And a President Kerry wouldn't either.

We kinda like cars and stuff.

And that alone shows that it's probably a good idea.

Or are you suggesting that Bush is right?

"Or are you suggesting that Bush is right?"

Galos, that's pathetic. I'd insert an eyeroll here if I believed in stupid emoticons.

And then we'd remind him that without American military, technological (who provides oil field services?), and intelligence support, the Saudis would be out looking for a new kingdom. We could also fund opposition groups, broadcast anti-Saudi propangda into his kingdom, embargo all trade, and generally make life a living terror for the Royal Family.

Stopping oil shipments would make things a lot worse. For one thing, there's just no way OPEC would honor a Saudi embargo. The other producers would just pump more. In the extremely unlikely event that OPEC did side with Saudi Arabia, it still wouldn't be a big deal. The two oil shocks of the 70s were failures - Europe just bought more oil from the Arabs and we bought ours from non-OPEC countries. The only real shortages came because Americans panicked and topped off their tanks. There is no oil shortage in the world - in fact there's far too much production capacity. The Saudis cut off their oil and the silence will be deafening.

Lest you forget the idea is to bring democracy and human rights TO Saudi Arabia.

a democracy before WWII. South Korea's past situation (pre Korean War) I don't know well enough to comment upon. And Japan is, I agree an interesting case, which again I don't know enough to comment on. So maybe it did work in places in the past. But against that you have... Bosnia (Protectorate), Serbia (hasn't been able to elect a president for 2 years now), Kosovo (protectorate with an appaling minority rights situation), Afganistan (anarchy outside Kabul), Iraq (anarchy full stop)...

The recent record is shit. Why should Arabs trust that Saudi Arabia/Iran/wherever would turn out better?

V

First of all, you're talking only about military interventions. I'm not talking about military intervention. I think invading Saudi Arabia to impose democracy would be a mistake, for instance. But lets carry on:

But against that you have... Bosnia (Protectorate),

Bosnia is a Federal Republic.

Serbia (hasn't been able to elect a president for 2 years now),

That's hardly our fault. Contrary to popular belief, we didn't kick out Milosevic. The Serbs did.

Kosovo (protectorate with an appaling minority rights situation),

Kosovo is a country? And I thought it was a lawless province of the aformentioned Serbia. But we didn't intervene to protect democracy, we intervened to stop genocide. And we succeded.

Afganistan (anarchy outside Kabul), Iraq (anarchy full stop)...

I agree that the US hasn't shown enough of a commitment to Afghanistan, and that we shouldn't be in Iraq. But the solution is to commit more resources and spend more effort trying to build democracy, not less than the meager efforts we've contributed to date.

How many must die? How many billions must be spent?

We made the mess, we clean it up.

Bosnia is a protectorate, its leadership can be impeached pretty much at will by a UN envoy. There is a strong foreign military presence within it. Its a protectorate.

Serbia - you are right, the Serbs removed Milosevic (and about time it was too). But the Serb's inability to choose a government since then is largely due to the pressure placed on them by the US to select 'appropriate' governments, i.e. due to US non-military intervention. And those govts. they elected that the US did like, e.g. DOS/G17+ coalition, largely didn't work in terms of the domestic agenda.

Kosovo is de facto independant. I really don't want to get into a discussion of the 'genocide' because... lets just say I am from Belgrade, OK? Long story. But the fact is that since then, the US and EU have taken it upon themselves to try and build democracy there. And have failed spectacularly.

It doesn't work.

V

up until the Bush Administration, which deprioritized the Balkans. The Former Yugoslavia is very much a work in progress. No, the US hasn't brought the magical gift of democracy but it has brought temporary stability. Nothing in the end will force Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Muslims to work together if they don't want to, but I think they will learn to.

What as in a toy model? Dude... I am not particularly patriotic, the country I was born in and feel part of died some 14 years ago. But please, please, tone down the arrogance. And for once this has nothing to do with Bush... it was failing long before him.

V

Germany, Japan, and Korea were dealt with by multinational forces.

Biden and his neocon-like ilk envision the US as the key player.

So far, it's not going so well.

I believe in democracy, myself, and think that most people would want to embrace it. But bombing, invading & looting their country is not the way to convince them.

Demonstrate the values of democracy at home & in positive international relations.

Bremer through his Army of tanks & helicopters has handpicked the "Civilian Puppet Leadership"

He's not saying - "Hey, look at how great a democracy Spain is... you guys should be like Spain!"

Some people apparently need to brush up on their Arab history. The Moors were in Spain during the Middle Ages... you can still see some of their influence today. That's the culture Biden is talking about, and you'd know that if you read the article.

And for those that don't know, Islam was one of the most culturally sophisticated religions for the time, with a rather high degree of religious tolerance and such. Biden is asking why Islam is moving backwards in terms of culture, rather than forwards.

The Democrat's Barry Goldwater.

as Goldwater was conservative. He's smart as hell, and he's incredibly tough. Now what's wrong with him promoting liberal democracy?

And can't distinguish between advice and coercion.

For those so troubled, here's the distinction:

Invading a country and forcing them to move to "democracy": Coercion
Saying to the people of a country, and the rulers of a country, that they should move to democracy: Advice

that is in the process of "remaking the Middle East" - its a bit more than just friendly advice.

Wouldn't the much-discussed Biden-Lugar resolution have limited the scope of the Iraq War, if it happened, to WMDs, rather than regime change? I honestly don't remember (brain's more than a little fried this morning).

In that case, it's harder to claim that he's gung-ho on the PNAC plan to turn the Middle East into the next group of American states.

is such a model of self-decided governments. How dare we give them advice when their British and French created governments are doing so well?

Do you really think Iraq/Afghanistan are a great track record?

Biden didn't propose invasion. Why are you relying on that red herring? Nothing to propose except for maintaining the status-quo of supporting dictators and kings appointed by French and British imperialists?

Go on, make with the Stratego.

Maybe we should require people who run for national office to take a test (math-science-arts) before they can be qualified as a nominee?

I just want to throw some thoughts in the debate regarding democracy , now a cliche standing for an ideal form of governance.

Democratic form of government which as a practical matter,is supposed to materialize into the true exercise of civil rights and liberties as we know them . Most of the time it is simply reduced to an election process , example India and Pakistan , one of the poorest nations in the world where fundamentalism, ignorance and superstition thrive!
Democracy is the government by the People and I don't thing any human society has attained this level yet. The problem with democracy is that it cannot not be embedded in a society that has not continually fought for its tenets throughout its history because the government which is inherently authoritarian, is its natural enemy that can undermined it through school programs, and other institutions specially religion. Now who comes first the egg or the chicken?

In all the society since we cannot unfortunately rely on the 75 of the population who count with their toes to bring about an ideal society, the society can be saved if it has generated within a educated revolutionary elite with vision and determination to educate others against government natural tendency to overreaching. The first question before even going further in the autopsy process of any system is: Whose interests a government really represents?

In any case there can be no future for democracy in a society where conservatism and religion are the clutches for spiritual strength because fears and superstition have settled in the black hole meant for Rationally .

:hi:

Democracy has not reached fruition and won't reach fruition until the necessary environment is created.

I don't see what's necessarily wrong with Biden's comments. I understand that this entire mentality of imposing democracy and forms of government on other countries is counterproductive and repulsive, but I think that in the end, democracy *is* the best form of government.

I really get sick of it when the Bush administration claims to be going to war for "democracy," when in reality they want the big O. Yet, I think Biden's comments were sincere and respectful.

If the Iraqi public had been allowed to vote on a binding IWR, they would have not voted to subject themselve to 'shock and awe' and the US would not be in Iraq today stealing their oil.

The Turks have democracy. But when we don't like the will of its people (ie. rejecting U.S. use of Turkey to attack Iraq) we castigate them and seek to undermine them.

We're going to have permanent military bases in Iraq and I bet the Iraqis won't vote on that one either.

Did the Iraqis get to vote on which government services the U.S. privatized? Did they vote when the U.S. switched their exporting currency from euros to dollars?

Why haven't the leaders of Algeria, Tunisia, Morroco, Libya, Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, or Syria sent troops to Iraq?

Is it because they hate democracy?

I don't think so!

Their respective populace's would eat them alive if they tried it!

Thanks for calling like it is.

Democracy is something the West uses as a tool to force its will on other regions.

It's disengenuous at best.

The Middle East provides ample proof of that.

Saddam's Iraq
The Shah's Iran

Lovely little affairs all of them.

Selfishness, Arrogance, Deciet, Anger, Denial, etc. They are not Fools.

Sen. Joseph Biden should have told Libyan parliamentarians during a visit to the North African nation that the Arab world should reject authoritarian rule and instead adopt the preemptive principle of "you are with us or against us".

He should have called on Arab countries to take on the "incredibly easy challenge" of "empowering corporate elite, subverting knowledge and expanding faith based freedom."

snip.....

"Nothing about democracy is incompatible with patriot I and II," Biden would have said, noting that decisions based on compassionate community discussions was a Muslim concept centuries ago.

"Please do not misunderstand me. I mean no crusade. But the nations of the Arab world could be doing so much more to outsource the enormous potential of their people," he would have said.

snip....

Calling Edward Said...(may he rest in peace)

vote on--excellent list above. Or turn around present RW-U.S. model of 'democracy'. It sure does NOT (as poster Galos purports) include Right to Assemble -To organize labor unions -
To protest - (without sacrificing 10 or so to gun shot fatalities).
Not even fundamental right of bargaining for workers rights,
which is being violently repressed now.

CPA-Occupation-US/Pentagon enforces Saddam Hussein's own anti-union laws! Harassment of organized labor by occupying forces by repeated arrests of labor rights activists..ransacked union offices..assembly and protests violently discouraged.
http://www.occupationwatch.org