NEWS: Dear George, How Are The Middle East Democracies Going?

POLITICS: Dear George, How Are The Middle East Democracies Going?

Let me start by saying George W. Bush is an amazing idiot. Now that I got that out of the way I can discuss the budding Democracies in the Middle East for which George has taken the credit: Iraq and Palestine.

Iraq.

Well, this one is pretty obvious to anyone who has been alive the past four years. First we attacked Iraq because it was a threat and Saddam had weapons of mass destruction everywhere. Then when it turned out that was a lie, Bush claimed we invaded to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq. Man, did they take the whole “freedom” thing to heart. Iraq is now in the middle of a religious civil war. The democracy Bush wanted didn’t jive with the democracy Iraqis wanted. Bush was thinking secular, but Iraqis will still do whatever Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani tells them to do. He is the ultimate authority.

Currently Sistani is calling for calm but even he can't make the government function. “Democracy” in Iraq is hanging by a thread. Parliament cannot agree on four important pieces of legislation; splitting up the country’s oil wealth, allowing local elections, reinstating junior members of the Baath party and constitutional amendments demanded by Sunnis.

In August, the parliament will take a much-needed vacation from not getting anything done. Lawmakers are already known for their poor attendance records and now Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr has pulled his 30 lawmakers due to the recent bombing of the Askariya shrine. Before Sadr pulled his members, parliament was failing to pass legislation due to a lack of lawmakers showing up. Now subtract 30 from nothing.

On June 11 lawmakers actually did manage to get something done: They voted to remove the Sunni Speaker of the House. Unfortunately for them, he refused to go. The Speaker will only resign if parliament replaces him with a lawmaker from his small political party – which will never happen. Sounds like they are really getting the whole idea of Democracy, huh?

This weeks bombing of the Askariya shrine could be the last straw.

Ayatollah Al-Sistani made things worse by blaming the government for not protecting the shrine.

What a surprise. Usually when you apply Democracy at the barrel of a gun it works out.

Palestine.

Bush really seemed to think Democracy in the Middle East would create a bunch of new countries that were pals with the US. What Bush seemed to neglect to understand was that just as religious, right wing extremists elected him, they would also elect the leaders of these new Democracies. Palestine is a terrific example.

The US pressured Palestine to hold elections. The result was a victory for the militant fundamentalist Hamas Party. Bush failed to realize that his own military actions and policies in the region were undermining moderate and secular leaders. Oops.

Democracy relies on the rule of law, stable institutions and economic security. Neither Palestine nor Iraq has any of those things. If you hold elections in these environments you are asking for extremists to take control – legally. They did just that in Palestine, as Hamas took control of everything but the presidency. The US was obviously unhappy with the results. The Palestinians didn’t get the memo to choose leaders whom they didn’t want to represent them. They were supposed to choose leaders other countries would like. Jesus, how hard is it Palestine?

The US decided the best idea would be to withhold funding from the new government. So, we starve the population because they elected fundamentalists, meanwhile fundamentalists thrive when a population is starving. Good idea. The result was predictable. Hamas and their rivals Fatah are now fighting a civil war and Hamas already seems the victor. Hamas has seized Gaza, the Palestinian president’s government has been dismantled as Hamas militants pillage government institutions. Basically, it’s a fucking disaster.

Oh, but wait, there is good news!

Awesome!

Oh.

Yay! Democracy!

heh...thanks everybody who didnt want gays to be married for helpin re-elect this moron. So worth it, eh?

man, i feel like an asshole for even thinking this, but doesn't it seem like it would take an iron-fisted dictator to keep these retards in line? i mean, things seemed pretty gnarly under hussein, and he did commit genocide, but had he not done that - and had we then not invaded for that reason - his country wouldn't be rife with civil war and falling apart.

as for palestine, i dunno. i used to say that the people in palestine were there before the wandering jews sacked it, but now it seems like they don't want to do anything but fight.

i guess the most common sense thing to me (though not necessarliy the humane thing) is to let them kill each other and let allah sort it out. because it looks like we'll never be able to stop the senseless killing.

but then again, i am not a political scientist.

How the fuck did this joker get re-elected in 2004???

personally, while I think the war hasn't been executed well, I think you liberals are "amazing idiot[s]," and I find your universal tone of elitist sarcasm highly offensive. I want to hear one humane thing YOU would actually do if you were in charge of the USA about these countries in which innocent civilians are being killed by militants every day. If you want to let them kill each other, you would still have to get the innocents out of the way and lock the rest up in some sort of caged deathmatch. And don't say you'd do nothing. There IS a higher moral law. The USA is in a position where it can help, and if something is really wrong, it should.
I think it should help in Darfur, but that's another story and I bet you liberals would find something to crow on about that as well if we did. No one can see the future. We all have to do what we think has to be done. Poor presidents- whoever the current president is always has to deal with this shit from we the people.

Why can't they be a peace loving people like Americans?

The Portuguese didn't have their revolution until my mother's lifetime, and they still don't seem to have really grasped the concept (besides 'get elected and make all the money you can'). Why expect any better from Iraq... huh. I think I've said this exact same thing before. It's not like the Iraqi people revolted though, we forced the situation on them. I figure that was the first mistake; but that might be because I'm a Star Trek fan and believe the Prime Directive was probably made up after Gene looked at what future Americans did to the original ones. On the other hand, not that much has changed in the Middle East for thousands of years. Well, not in the way that people live their lives at least.

In all that time they've watched a whole lot of other countries revolt and replace royalty with a democratic leadership, yet they haven't done it themselves. Perhaps they think their way is better. Given the behaviour of our democratic leaders, one might think they have a point. Either way, it's all still just people moving through their lives. I bet that when this universe comes to an end and God looks at the entire history of Earth, He'll find that the distribution of arseholes was pretty even and constant throughout.

By the Democrats putting up such a stupendously bad candidate that so many thought GWB was the lesser of the two evils. Upset that GWB won? Attribute some of that angst towards the DNC. Maybe they can do better next time...but I am not holding my breath.

Why do people keep saying that?

Yeah 'liberals'; how dare you whine when the wanker in the white house fucks it up.
You know you should excercise your democratic right to shut up while the world falls to shit- you know, that right everybody's forfathers died for and all that...
Because it's a difficult situation and nobody could possibly do better than Mr.Bush, hey?
What was that- he caused the situation?
Oh shit.

It's called 'his job'.
It's what he gets paid shitloads more money than any of us for.
He should be able to do a better fucking job than us, he should take the fucking flack when the people he serves aren't happy and we do have the right, nay the duty, to stand up and say 'look- that's a steaming hunk of shit' when we see a steaming hunk of shit.
The guy's policies are a steaming hunk of shit and it's his job to shovel it...
But I think FTR said it better with
And you were joking with that post, weren't you HelloCentral?

Yes, clearly John Kerry was a stupendously bad candidate, proved by the fact that George W. Bush won by such an astonishing landslide that there was no question about what party's policies should be the driving force in American politics. It's like George W. had some sort of overwhelming mandate or something. The entire country was behind him, because John Kerry was such a stupendously bad candidate!

THE NUMBERS DON'T LIE, PEOPLE!





It's not like the country was divided and the race was close or anything. Clearly. No question about it.

How to bake a cake:
*Take cake mix out of packet.
*Push around for 20 seconds.
*Get pissed off that it isn't a cake yet.
*Bin it.

I don't think that's how they make cakes.

My sarcasm detector must be off. Are you serious?

Well, "personally," I'm relatively certain that the President's line of thought and reasoning is that this is his war. Surely nobody else is claiming it. So, then, how would you answer the following question:

"The responsibility for the outcome of US military action in Iraq falls upon:

A) The President
B) "you liberals"

Please remember to show all work for full credit."

Additionally, please bear in mind that the non-interventionist argument was made by the Congress of Bill Clinton's second term with regards to Kosovo. And, at the time, on the Internets, it was right-wing knee-jerks also making that argument.

On the other hand, congratulations that you've at least stayed consistent in believing (somewhat blindly) that a "higher moral law" dictates that we both intercede in an illegal situation perpetrated by a militia and pre-emptively upend the legal sovereignty of an admitted dictator on specious, dubious ground.

If you failed to note the irony in the above, the following tag will make little sense to you as well: </sarcasm>

the aggressively marketed policy of promoting democracy in the middle east - even if at the end of a gun barrel - before defining what a functioning democracy should actually entail, is only one of the many major foreign policy blunders of the current administration.

"oh yeah. now that we've got you all on board with the one man-one vote thing, and you've elected a bunch of religious fundamentalist militants, we should mention we meant "liberal democracy," which is necessarily predicated on the ideals of religious tolerance, liberty, equality, respect for the individual, foreswearing of violence, access to education, etc." whoops. simple majority rule does not a democracy make.

hate to say it but you have to hand it to that karl rove. the positioning in the average american rube's mind of middle class, liberal, progressives as being "elitist" and silver spoon aristocrats like bush, cheney and co. as being, salt of the earth, regular joes, is one of the most genius public relations achievements in modern history.

Dubya is just counting the days when someone else has to clean up the mess he left!

There is no doubt he is the worst American president ever...or at least since Buchanan.

And if America elects another republican for president, it's going to be 4+ more years of the same shit. The neo-con agenda has largely infected the GOP and it's base is so bloodthirsty and ignorant they only cheer it along without even realizing it.

Please, MODERATOR, try to remain on topic

No. Dubya won because his government LIED about WMD's in Iraq and used that and the "War on Terror" to set a "stay the course" war agenda that is profitable to the US war machine and its allies in Israel, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the other "axis of evil".

By the way, since we are talking numbers, why don't you read up on the number of casualties in Iraq -- on both sides -- since the day Dubya declared "Mission Accomplished".

I thought Americans were against mass-murder? I guess it depends on who the gun is pointing at.

Well, thank you for that contribution.

Usually I play the raving conservative, but I got to hand it to the reaper, he's right on the money. Every country we have entered and tried to force their government to do things the "American way" we have totally fucked to all hell. Here are some examples for you most of the CIA's involvement in south America, Vietnam, CIA operations in Cuba, Cambodia, Somalia, Palestine, and yes I agree the way we are doing thing's in Iraq seems to be counter productive. I am not saying that we should cease operations like this, I think we should revise our foreign policies on operations like this. I think we should stay to humanitarian aid and stabilization operations, where we would step in and help rebuild until the country gets back on its feet. Trying to force how they think politically is retarded though, we have no hope in that sector, but a long long costly war, try fifteen years plus. Any way thanks for the article reaper.