Bush and Spreading Democracy

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gilliam

Guest
By: Richard Tomkins

When President George W. Bush stood at the U.S. Capitol on a cold January day and said spreading freedom and democracy — particularly in the Middle East — were his overarching foreign-policy goals, the world shivered. And some people, to be sure, also snickered.

A new war was imminent, said the more alarmist. How naive, said the ever-so-worldly. How on Earth do you bring a very western industrialized notion to points east, where oligarchy has reigned for thousands of years, and make it stick without the barrel of a gun? Never mind Bush’s qualifiers of time and cultural components; never mind that the spread of democracy is part and parcel of the historic American psyche. Bush was just plain nuts.

Nary a peep now. The naysayers and just about everyone else are scratching their heads. The winds of change have appeared, and they are blowing through the Middle East in dramatic fashion.

In Palestinian territories, people long used to the authoritarian and corrupt chaos of Yasser Arafat and his Palestinian Liberation Organization cronies voted in January for a new leader and the promise of political and social reform to bring about a viable, even democratic, independent state.

In Iraq, millions of Iraqis defied world expectations and terrorist violence to vote for a national assembly. Their ink-stained fingers were seen everywhere as marks of honor, pride and determination to steer their own political destiny after decades of tyranny. -snip-

(Excerpt) Read more at upi.com …
 
Good post…I found this part interesting,also. upi.com

“Lack of freedom and democracy and the promise they bring breeds terrorism, he says. If for no other reason than self-preservation, the United States must encourage the winds of change, especially among allies.”
 
Here are some words that ought to give America pause. In a July 4, 1821 speech before the U.S. House of Representatives, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams said the following:

America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause by the countenance of her voice and the benignant sympathy of her own example. She well knows that by once enlisting under banners other than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, ambition, which assumed the colors and usurped the standards of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would instantly change from liberty to force…She might become the dictatress of the world. She would no longer be the ruler of her own spirit.

How prophetic these words have become. What a shame that the country no longer appears willing to heed.
 
Adams ended up being one of the most involved of the early presidents in international affairs. I suggest you read up on your American history.

In this fascinating book., William Earl Weeks argues that John Quincy Adams was the greatest secretary of state in American history. Adams’ skillful and resolute negotiation of the Transcontinental Treaty of 1819 resulted not only in the acquisition of Florida from Spain, but in the fateful extension of the boundary of the United States to the Pacific. Implicit in the treaty, Adams’ “vision of empire” as well as his bold determination to raise the United States to a more powerful international position inspired James Monroe and facilitated the president’s policy of hemispheric domination. Thus Adams’ implementation of an illustrious national destiny established the legal and ideological foundations of U.S. expansionism and imperialism that prevailed until the Civil War. hat tip]

Not that it matters that much because the Americans of those days didn’t have to worry very much about airliners flown by illegal aliens plowing into sky scrapers and murdering thousands of Americans.

I find yours a weak arguement in another way though. Americans always promoted freedom and democracy abroad, even in our colonial days.
How prophetic these words have become. What a shame that the country no longer appears willing to heed.
Click to expand...
LOL! This is hilarious, we have the entire world marveling at the ‘genious’ of our president who has actually gotten the Mid East moving towards freedom and democracy, and you write this?
 
LOL! This is hilarious, we have the entire world marveling at the ‘genious’ of our president who has actually gotten the Mid East moving towards freedom and democracy, and you write this?
Click to expand...
Would you care to cite some concrete evidence for this assertion?

Where on earth do you get the notion that the entire world is marveling at what Bush is doing? I think you’ve been reading too much neoconservative claptrap.

The outpouring of international sympathy and goodwill toward the U.S. in the wake of 9/11 has been squandered. Never has our country been more hated and feared (and not just by Muslims) since. As an American who remembers when this country was admired by the whole world, this makes me sad.

BTW, if Bush is really getting the Middle East moving toward freedom and democracy, we’d better get used to the Islamic republics of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and yes, Iraq. Vast majorities in those countries support the establishment of Islamic regimes. So, be careful what you wish for…
 
40.png
gnjsdad:
Would you care to cite some concrete evidence for this assertion?..
Click to expand...
[German Perspective]

The war’s silver lining (The Guardian eats crow)
BTW, if Bush is really getting the Middle East moving toward freedom and democracy, we’d better get used to the Islamic republics of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and yes, Iraq. Vast majorities in those countries support the establishment of Islamic regimes. So, be careful what you wish for…
Click to expand...
Sit back and watch, I don’t think they will be like Iran. Iraq has already stated it doesn’t want to be like Iran and is working very hard not to be.

Lebanon will probably be next (elections in May), and they have a mixed polulation so they will not be an Islamic regime either.
 
When I asked for concrete evidence, I meant more than a couple of opionion pieces which happen to agree with you.

Is there new polling data from foreign countries indicating massive and growing support for Bush’s policies? If so, please cite it.

What about mass demonstrations drawing hundreds of thousands clamoring for an increased U.S presence?

If Bush’s policies are resulting in this flowering of freedom and liberty, why is the so-called coalition of the willing in Iraq shrinking? Why are the Italians considering pulling out of Iraq? Similarly, the Poles and Ukrainians?
 
If Bush’s policies are resulting in this flowering of freedom and liberty, why is the so-called coalition of the willing in Iraq shrinking? Why are the Italians considering pulling out of Iraq? Similarly, the Poles and Ukrainians?
Click to expand...
You do know that almost every industrialized country on the earth has allied themselves with the US in asking Syria to leave Lebanon and in asking Iran to abandon their nukes, right?

You also know that Nato and the EU have now come on board to train Iraqi security forces (which really is what we need in Iraq now), right?
 
You do know that almost every industrialized country on the earth has allied themselves with the US in asking Syria to leave Lebanon
Click to expand...
Of course they would. They have nothing to lose. I don’t know of one country such as you describe that has a vital interest in whether or not Syria leaves Lebanon. It seems though, that only the Bush administration would actually be stupid enough to further destabilize an already volatile situation in Lebanon.
and in asking Iran to abandon their nukes, right?
Click to expand...
We don’t yet know that Iran has nuclear weapons. But I do know that they could have no greater incentive to get nukes than they have now: a bellicose United States with troops and naval forces surrounding Iran on 3 sides.
You also know that Nato and the EU have now come on board to train Iraqi security forces (which really is what we need in Iraq now), right?
Click to expand...
And those security forces will sure as heck not be trained in Iraq, where the fighting will take place. Again, the risks will all be taken by the Americans. Our blood will be shed, not NATOs or the EUs.
 
40.png
gnjsdad:
Of course they would. They have nothing to lose. I don’t know of one country such as you describe that has a vital interest in whether or not Syria leaves Lebanon. It seems though, that only the Bush administration would actually be stupid enough to further destabilize an already volatile situation in Lebanon.
Click to expand...
LOL! Yea, right. Let’s just let the tyrants be, that’s the ticket!

New York Times quotes Bush at Notre Dame: "Someone said, ‘It’s a steep hill to climb, Mr. President,’ " Mr. Bush said. “Well my attitude is, the steeper the better. Because when you get to the top, you realize you’ve left a significant contribution behind.”
We don’t yet know that Iran has nuclear weapons. But I do know that they could have no greater incentive to get nukes than they have now: a bellicose United States with troops and naval forces surrounding Iran on 3 sides.
Click to expand...
see: Iran’s Manhattan Project Speeding Ahead
And those security forces will sure as heck not be trained in Iraq, where the fighting will take place. Again, the risks will all be taken by the Americans. Our blood will be shed, not NATOs or the EUs.
Click to expand...
And this surprises you? But as we hand over the security to Iraq, two things are happening:
  1. we are loosing less troops (attacks against Americans in Iraq are ebbing near an all-time low since the insurgency really got going)
  2. the Iraqis themselves are turning on the terrorists.
    From the New York Post: "Yesterday, hostility to the insurgency boiled over into bloodshed in Wihda, 25 miles south of Baghdad. Townsmen attacked militants thought to be planning a raid on the town and killed seven of them, police Capt. Hamadi al-Zubeidy reported.
Anger against insurgents is being fed, in part, by a government television campaign. Last week, U.S.-financed Al-Iraqiya TV aired reports showing terrorists calmly talking about how they had beheaded dozens of people, kidnapped others for ransom, and raped women and girls before killing them."
 
40.png
gilliam:
LOL! Yea, right. Let’s just let the tyrants be, that’s the ticket!

You will never rid the world of tyranny. It’s a part of this fallen world. As long as there are the effects of original sin there will be tyranny. So I say, America’s motto should be Don’t tread on me. As long as the tyrants leave us alone, we are wise to leave them alone. How does the existence of tyranny in Lebanon (and btw, there is disagreement in that country over whether the Syrian presence constitutes ‘tyranny’) affect the security of the United States? By the way, what about the hypocrisy in demanding that Syria withdraw its 14,000 troops from Lebanon before democratic elections can be held there after an election took place in Iraq with 150,000 American troops there?

As an aside, I find your sources suspect. Both the NY Post and NR Online have been beating the drums for war from the beginning.
  1. we are loosing less troops (attacks against Americans in Iraq are ebbing near an all-time low
Click to expand...
since the insurgency really got going)

The toll is 1,500 dead and 10,000-15,000 wounded (which nobody ever talks about) with no end in sight

As far as Iraqis turning on the insurgency, it is way way way too premature to make an assertion like that. What your link indicates is that trouble is looming between the Sunnis and Shiites, trouble which could easily escalate into bloody civil war.
Click to expand...
 
By the way, our losses are declining as the Iraqis take over the security of their nation. I have already reference that for you. When the Iraqis have control over their country and they don’t need us any more, we leave. So yes, the end is in sight.

As the Democrat and Kerry supporter Dr. Thomas Barnett said prior to the liberation of Iraq:

LET ME TELL YOU why military engagement with Saddam Hussein’s regime in Baghdad is not only necessary and inevitable, but good.

When the United States finally goes to war again in the Persian Gulf, it will not constitute a settling of old scores, or just an enforced disarmament of illegal weapons, or a distraction in the war on terror. Our next war in the Gulf will mark a historical tipping point—the moment when Washington takes real ownership of strategic security in the age of globalization.

That is why the public debate about this war has been so important: It forces Americans to come to terms with I believe is the new security paradigm that shapes this age, namely, Disconnectedness defines danger.Saddam Hussein’s outlaw regime is dangerously disconnected from the globalizing world, from its rule sets, its norms, and all the ties that bind countries together in mutually assured dependence.

The problem with most discussion of globalization is that too many experts treat it as a binary outcome: Either it is great and sweeping the planet, or it is horrid and failing humanity everywhere. Neither view really works, because globalization as a historical process is simply too big and too complex for such summary judgments. Instead, this new world must be defined by where globalization has truly taken root and where it has not.

Show me where globalization is thick with network connectivity, financial transactions, liberal media flows, and collective security, and I will show you regions featuring stable governments, rising standards of living, and more deaths by suicide than murder. These parts of the world I call the Functioning Core, or Core. But show me where globalization is thinning or just plain absent, and I will show you regions plagued by politically repressive regimes, widespread poverty and disease, routine mass murder, and—most important—the chronic conflicts that incubate the next generation of global terrorists. These parts of the world I call the Non-Integrating Gap, or Gap.

Globalization’s “ozone hole” may have been out of sight and out of mind prior to September 11, 2001, but it has been hard to miss ever since. And measuring the reach of globalization is not an academic exercise to an eighteen-year-old marine sinking tent poles on its far side. So where do we schedule the U.S. military’s next round of away games? The pattern that has emerged since the end of the cold war suggests a simple answer: in the Gap.

The reason I support going to war in Iraq is not simply that Saddam is a cutthroat Stalinist willing to kill anyone to stay in power, nor because that regime has clearly supported terrorist networks over the years. The real reason I support a war like this is that the resulting long-term military commitment will finally force America to deal with the entire Gap as a strategic threat environment.

This crazy Democrat has turned out to be quite the profit! You can read the rest of what he has to say here:
 
How about this source?

This may be what is happening in Iraq. Today’s Daily Star – the English-language paper of Lebanon – has an article that Iraqis are turning on, and turning in, the insurgency to a significantly greater degree than has been the case for most of the period since the regime fell.

As more people lose loved ones to relentless violence, Iraqis have become increasingly vocal in their criticism of the insurgency, even staging a rare public demonstration condemning militants as terrorists after a deadly car bombing. While it may be too early to say public opinion has shifted, one thing is clear: Many Iraqis have grown tired of two years of constant insecurity, and some are directing their anger at insurgents for the first time.

“I demand that they be put in the zoo along with the other scavengers, because that is where they belong,” says one Mosul resident whose brother was killed in a recent attack.

…Popular anger against insurgents has been driven, in part, by government propaganda. Last week, U.S.-funded Al-Iraqiyya television aired a series of confessions showing alleged insurgents calmly talking about how they had beheaded dozens of people, kidnapped others for ransom, and raped women and girls before killing them.

“People are realizing that the captured insurgents are not super heroes. They are timid people who kill for money and they have nothing to do with Jihad,” said Karim Humadi, head of programming for Al-Iraqiyya.
 
40.png
aimee:
Good post…I found this part interesting,also. upi.com

“Lack of freedom and democracy and the promise they bring breeds terrorism, he says. If for no other reason than self-preservation, the United States must encourage the winds of change, especially among allies.”
Click to expand...
The United States government ought to practice democracy in this country first before preaching it to foreign nations.
 
The Iraq effect? Bush may have had it right

By Daniel Schorr

WASHINGTON – Something remarkable is happening in the Middle East - a grass-roots movement against autocracy without any significant “Great Satan” anti-American component

In Beirut, the crowds that massed in the streets and forced the resignation of the Syrian-controlled government were demonstrating for kifaya (change) and freedom from the Syrian military that has occupied their country for more than a quarter of a century.

The passionate protest had apparently been triggered by the assassination of the popular former prime minister, Rafik Hariri - an assassination that the Lebanese assume was engineered by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

In Egypt, too, the streets have been alive with the sound of kifaya. Apparently seeking to divert the movement for change, President Hosni Mubarak announced last weekend a change in the election law to permit competitive elections. But his likeliest challenger, Ayman Nour, is in jail for allegedly forging election documents. And this week there were demonstrations in the streets of Cairo in his support.

In the past the United States would have avoided criticizing Mr. Mubarak, a key figure in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. But now Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has openly rebuked Mubarak and canceled a scheduled visit to Cairo.

In London this week, Secretary Rice said, “Events in Lebanon are moving in a very important direction.”

The movements for democratic change in Egypt and Lebanon have happened since the successful Iraqi election on Jan. 30. And one can speculate on whether Iraq has served as a beacon for democratic change in the Middle East.

During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, President Bush said that “a liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region.”

He may have had it right.

• *Daniel Schorr is the senior news analyst at National Public Radio. *

csmonitor.com/2005/0304/p09s03-cods.html
 
Another liberal magazine singing Bush’s praises.

From Newsweek:

March 14 issue - Events in the Middle East over the past few weeks have confirmed the theories of that great scholar of the region, Thomas (Tip) O’Neill. The late speaker of the House’s most memorable aphorism was “All politics is local.” It’s true even of the politics of rage. As long-repressed societies in the Middle East open up, we are discovering that their core concerns are not global but local. Most ordinary Arabs, it turns out, are not consumed by grand theories about the clash between Islam and the West, or the imperialism of American culture, or even the Palestinian cause. When you let the Lebanese speak, they want to talk about Syria’s occupation of their country. When Iraqis got a chance to congregate, they voted for a government, not an insurgency. When a majority of Palestinians were heard from, they endorsed not holy terror to throw Israel into the sea, but practical diplomacy to get a state.

Tomorrow, were the Egyptian Street to voice its views—I mean the real Egyptian Street, not President Mubarak’s state-controlled media—we would probably discover that its deepest discontent is directed not at the president of the United States, but at the president of Egypt. Perhaps Arabs and Muslims are not some strange species after all. It is their rulers who are strange. The other noted political scientist who has been vindicated in recent weeks is George W. Bush. Across New York, Los Angeles and Chicago—and probably Europe and Asia as well—people are nervously asking themselves a question: “Could he possibly have been right?” The short answer is yes. Whether or not Bush deserves credit for everything that is happening in the Middle East, he has been fundamentally right about some big things.

Bush never accepted the view that Islamic terrorism had its roots in religion or culture or the Arab-Israeli conflict. Instead he veered toward the analysis that the region was breeding terror because it had developed deep dysfunctions caused by decades of repression and an almost total lack of political, economic and social modernization. The Arab world, in this analysis, was almost unique in that over the past three decades it had become increasingly unfree, even as the rest of the world was opening up. His solution, therefore, was to push for reform in these lands.

(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com …
 
This is a good article which accurately describes the sources of discontent in the Muslim world. Most devout Muslims view their governments as apostate and corrupt; regimes which rule by man-made as opposed to God’s laws.

However, they also hate the United States because the United States is seen as supporting or propping up these corrupt governments. This is one of Bin Laden’s main indictments of the United States.

Suppose Mubarak in Egypt allows a real democratic election to take place, not a rigged election, but a truly open and free one. Suppose the result is a mandate for an Islamic republic. If this happens, will the United States support such an outcome? Suppose this new Islamic government in Egypt demands that Israel abide by UN resolutions calling for a return to the 1967 borders; a total withdrawl from the West Bank and Gaza; a division of Jerusalem into Arab and Jewish sectors; and a dismantling of the West Bank ‘security wall’? Will the United States abide by this?

Soemhow, I think the answer is no.

These are questions which demand serious consideration before we proclaim our support for democratic change in the Middle East. Our enemies are well aware of our democratic proclamations. Their problem with us stems from the perception that we proclaim democracy, but support brutal and oppressive regimes because

A. they keep the price of oil (a resource which belongs to Muslims) artificially low, which works for America’s benefit and which allows these regimes to repress believing Muslims

and

B. The United States almost total support for Israel and other regimes (India, Russia, China) which suppress and brutalize their Muslim minorities.
 
Instead of believing bin Laden’s propaganda, we need to look at what is really happening on the ground.

I disagree with the idea that somehow all the people in Mid East countries are buying into bin Laden’s form of religious state. In fact, that simply is not so in Iraq or Lebanon, the two now emerging democracies.

One of the reasons why the Shiite leaders of Iraq are in Iraq and not Iran is that they don’t buy into the theory that all man-made governments are against God’s law.

Surveys in Iraq have repeatedly shown that the people do not want a government like Iran.

What is being demanded in Lebanon is a democratic state where Muslims and Christians can live in peace. Not an Islamic state.

I don’t think the Egyptians want bin Laden’s form of government either. I have not seen any evidence of it.

And in Iran, where they actually have that sort of government, the people are sick and tired of it.

By the way, if you want to know the true price of oil, let’s get rid of OPEC which acts as a limiting factor to limit the production of oil and we will see what the true price is.

The man who was parading with a Koran and a cross was cheered on by the crowds in Lebanon. Here is an interesting photo from the demonstration (a different person):

watch.windsofchange.net/pics/010305170207.jpg
"A Lebanese opposition protester holds the Muslim Koran and Christian rosaries…"

watch.windsofchange.net/pics/r1251264683.jpg
"SYRIA’L KILLING MACHINE - GET OUT"
(Mohamed Azakir, Reuters, 2005/03/01)
“Lebanese carry placards protesting against Syria in downtown Beirut March 1, 2005. Hundreds of protesters waving Lebanese flags returned to central Beirut on Tuesday to demand Syria quit Lebanon as the United States and France offered to help the country hold free elections.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top