Now, maybe I’m just a neo-con or whatever, but I find the changes we are seeing in the Middle East pretty amazing. A beautiful, free election in Iraq, compromise from Libya, Syria handing over Saddam’s half-brother (who, though a lowly 6 of diamonds is suspected of financing the insurgency), an actual election with actual voting (though, unfortunately, no actual women) in Saudi freaking Arabia and now this. Things are changing and, no matter what the doomsayers think, it’s for the better.
Posted by Karol at 03:39 PM
It’s Eastern Europe, 1989.
Although I largely agree with your post, it is important to note that the advent of democracy in post-Monarchy Germany in 1919 was considered to be a world-changing event.
However, we all know what happened 14 years later.
I saw a headline a few days ago that the Saudis may extend the right to vote to women. I didn’t read the article so I’m not sure what the catch is, or whether its even going to happen.
Also, you forgot to mention the anti-Mubarak demonstrations in Cairo. And the ongoing anti-goverment protests in Iran.
Don’t forget those other 29 Baathists that Syria handed over. Quite the PR move, eh?
Yeah, I’m sure those 114 dead Iraqis in Hilla are so happy that they died under democracy.
Brad, people were dying under Saddam in much greater numbers. Where was your concern then?
It would be nice if Nepal could get democracy rolling again.
Probably the same as President Bush’s (the first one) in 1991 when Saddam was allowed and helped to destroy a Shiite uprising.
America, Britain, France, Germany etc cherrypick who we get in a fluster over. If we want to go to war for democracy and to prevent slaughter then we should go after everyone or not at all.
Brad, take your butt buddy Don Myers’ syphilitic cock out of your ass, put it in your mouth and shut the fuck up.
The pacifist idea that should commit to invading every dictatorship in the world or none of them at all is apathy masquerading for fairness.
It a great time for freedom and its a great time to be a Republican.
Not at all Dorian. Its called principle. What made Saddam or Milosovic worse tahn Pol Pot, Mao, Jiang Zemin or the current Saudi royal family?
I would quite happily support the West attempting to bring equality to places that want it but cherrypicking who we decide to do it to is not principle. Its called blatant self interest masquerading as liberation.
So, in other words, you would support the simultaneous invasion of every dictatorship on the planet?
“Probably the same as President Bush’s (the first one) in 1991 when Saddam was allowed and helped to destroy a Shiite uprising.”
Are you aware of the reasons why Bush one did not go into Iraq in 1991? We did not go in because we wanted to prove to the world that were were nice guys, and to help them like us. We were the new world super power and we played it nice so that people would like us. That did not work so well, so we are trying somthing new.
secondly, the frist gulf war was UN sanctioned, and at the time we could not have gotten the UN to do anything to help another country (some things never change). Since the UN in was incharge and we thought it was in our best intrests not to go in, we decided not to.
Was it the wrong mistake, proably, have we fixed that mistake. Yes.
I am well aware of why Bush did not invade Iraq in 1991. My point is at the meeting of surrender in 1991 the Iraqi generals obtained US permission to retain the use of their helicopters. When the Shiites rose up in rebellion having been encouraged by America and Britain were slaughtered. One army unit that had joined the uprising went to the Americans to ask to have THEIR OWN weapons back. Response NO!. Result slaughter. Americas reaction? not a helluva lot.
Dorian. No for the simple reason what goes on within a countires borders are its own business. IF however we are going to attack tin pot dictators like Saddam then why not the Saudis who are pretty bad themselves? If you do some thing for a principle then it should be applied across the board.
So…it’s not so much so much the “cherrypicking” that you oppose…it’s the actual promoting of democracy, because, in your words, “what goes on within a countires borders are its own business”?
My views on foreign policy and international Law take 2 main points.
1. What goes on within the borders of State A is the concern of State A up until the point where its actions produce an effect on State B. State B disliking the policies of State A is just tough.
2. If State B wants to advocate a policy of intervention on moral/ethical grounds then it should do so in all cases or not at all. If it invades State B to promote Democracy then it should also commit itself to advocating democracy and if need be invading its ally State C as well.
I object to interfering forcibly in the affairs of another state where that states actions within its own border do not impact on the welfare of my own country.
I also object to countries running around claiming to be doing things for the good of the people and then turning a blind eye at best when a strategic resource supplier does similar things.
So then, to which countries does the West say “Wait just a little longer”?
The CIA thought it was good for America to put Castro in power. They also at one point backed Osama himself. Sometimes storm clouds have silver linings.
Nick, This clearly fits your definition of Point 1.
The actions going on inside the ME countries are/were negatively affecting Western nations. Saddam was a sponser of terrorism and a threat to the global community. So are the Iranians, Syrians, Saudis, and so on.
Removing Saddam and establishing a democracy in Iraq, all the while promoting democracy elsewhere, helps to take out those other regimes and make the world safer without having to invade 10 other countries. Sure, the internal benefits to the people of each of those countries are obvious, but its also in our best interest if we really want to defeat Islamic terror.
And if democracy spreads to non-threatening (to us, anyway) dictatorships like Zimbabwe, well good for them too.