NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-02-27-voa17.cfm
For the first time in God knows how many years, Egypt's presidency will go through a truely competitive election. It is just a first step, but a positive one.
We are seeing the beginnings of liberal democracy throughout the region. Iraq's election has showed that many Arabs are hungry for democracy, and not the brand of "democracy" that Iran supplies, either. The Palestinians democratically elected a man that will steer the Palestinians to independence. The recent bombing in Tel Aviv shows that, as Israel and the Palestinians are cooperating in ways never seen since the death of Yitzak Rabin. Even Lebannon is going through a revolt of sorts, and that may be just like what was seen in Ukraine recently: a peaceful revolution that will establish, or in Lebannon's case, restore, liberal democracy.
There are reasons to be worried, of course. The disintergration of the Soviet Union initially led to liberal democracy, but has led to a dysfunctional Russia with an authoritarian president. But there is still reason for hope: this is definitly the biggest change in the region since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. And if twenty years from now, the Middle East becomes like Asia is today, this will be the biggest change in the region since the advent of Islam.

I thought that after the Tel Aviv bombing the Israelis were going to keep Palestinians from working and travelling in Israel?

I thought that after the Tel Aviv bombing the Israelis were going to keep Palestinians from working and travelling in Israel?
Yes, they were. But unlike in previous bombings, the Israelis are maintaining open dialogue with the Palestinians. It's not perfect, but it is much better than in previous crises.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-02-27-voa17.cfm
For the first time in God knows how many years, Egypt's presidency will go through a truely competitive election. It is just a first step, but a positive one.
We are seeing the beginnings of liberal democracy throughout the region. Iraq's election has showed that many Arabs are hungry for democracy, and not the brand of "democracy" that Iran supplies, either. The Palestinians democratically elected a man that will steer the Palestinians to independence. The recent bombing in Tel Aviv shows that, as Israel and the Palestinians are cooperating in ways never seen since the death of Yitzak Rabin. Even Lebannon is going through a revolt of sorts, and that may be just like what was seen in Ukraine recently: a peaceful revolution that will establish, or in Lebannon's case, restore, liberal democracy.
There are reasons to be worried, of course. The disintergration of the Soviet Union initially led to liberal democracy, but has led to a dysfunctional Russia with an authoritarian president. But there is still reason for hope: this is definitly the biggest change in the region since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. And if twenty years from now, the Middle East becomes like Asia is today, this will be the biggest change in the region since the advent of Islam.
whenever I read a paragraph like this my hear fluttters with joy. literally.....I hope soooo much that things will be good.
you're right about lebanon, it's high time for the Syrians to get out of the babysitting buissness.

The only step for the Middle East now is Communism. However, in order to embrace it they must dump their religious superstitions which have no place in a dynamic socialist society. Take the example of South Yemen the only Middle Eastern country ever to communism it fell apart because it did not cleanse itself of religious superstitions. Soon if the Middle East is wise it will embace communism. That is all. By the way Scotland beat Italy at rugby! Hooray!

Do not forget the elections for local offices in Saudi Arabia. All this happening because of Iraq? Maybe President Bush's policies are really working, but then I'm a Bush supporter. :)

Do not forget the elections for local offices in Saudi Arabia. All this happening because of Iraq? Maybe President Bush's policies are really working, but then I'm a Bush supporter. :)
The pretending that every country needs America-style democracy is ludicrous

The pretending that every country needs America-style democracy is ludicrous

I never said or thought that. There are many different styles of democracy in the world that work and work well. I have no doubt that Iraq will come up with a constitution that is radically different from that of the US, but it will be something that will work for them and espouse democratic principles.

The point is they are democracies and the reality of having a democratic society is spreading to the Middle East as a direct result of President Bush's policies.

Do not forget the elections for local offices in Saudi Arabia. All this happening because of Iraq? Maybe President Bush's policies are really working, but then I'm a Bush supporter. :)
I'm willing to say Bush is a factor. His biggest contribution is that he is bringing this developement to the world's attention, rather than ignoring it, and letting this die at the hands of a few autocrats. He's also helping to accelarate this process. But I attribute this to three long term causes:
1. The existence of Israel. Israel has no oil, and hardly any natural resources. Yet it is democratic, a market economy, and has becoming the strongest country in that region. Other countries have not followed Israel's political or economic models, and are stagnating states. The Arabs chose to ignore Israel, but it is impossible to ignore a regional society for fifty years, especially in this modern age of communication.o
2. The Middle East's wealth. The mineral wealth has been stratified to the ruling elite, plus the workers in that region. It has provided states like Saudi Arabia with great wealth, but they never used that wealth to diversify their economy. Now they have a youth bulge, where millions of young children will compete for only a few thousand jobs in the oil industry. Most Arab children have no future under this system.
3. The collapse of communism. This had two significant effects. The first was the removal of the USSR, a long time powerbroker in the region, and an agitator for Israel and the Gulf States. The second was that it offered no ideaological alternative. Communist tinges were seen in Arab nationalism. It morphed into an excuse for dictatorships after the first Gulf War, and is now dead.
I would also like to add that other countries are moving in the direction of liberal democracy. Dubai is extremely wealthy from free trade and banking, not oil. Qatar has invested its mineral wealth into developing a market economy, and has written a constitution mandating an assembly. And there are other examples in the region.

The Wave of Hope in the Middle East
Everybody, get up and do the wave!

Actually, what Isreal has said was that they blame the Syrians for this latest bombing, and that naturally this means that they should put the peace process with the Palestinians on hold.... :rolleyes:

http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-02-27-voa17.cfm
For the first time in God knows how many years, Egypt's presidency will go through a truely competitive election. It is just a first step, but a positive one.
We are seeing the beginnings of liberal democracy throughout the region. Iraq's election has showed that many Arabs are hungry for democracy, and not the brand of "democracy" that Iran supplies, either. The Palestinians democratically elected a man that will steer the Palestinians to independence. The recent bombing in Tel Aviv shows that, as Israel and the Palestinians are cooperating in ways never seen since the death of Yitzak Rabin. Even Lebannon is going through a revolt of sorts, and that may be just like what was seen in Ukraine recently: a peaceful revolution that will establish, or in Lebannon's case, restore, liberal democracy.
There are reasons to be worried, of course. The disintergration of the Soviet Union initially led to liberal democracy, but has led to a dysfunctional Russia with an authoritarian president. But there is still reason for hope: this is definitly the biggest change in the region since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. And if twenty years from now, the Middle East becomes like Asia is today, this will be the biggest change in the region since the advent of Islam.

Yes, I mean, it's not like it's fear induced.

The U.A.E. has been a republic for a while now and is, currently, the best place to live in that part of the world. I don't see the entire Middle East going broke for democracy 'cause of them, they're doing it 'cause they don't want to be invaded.

I can think of a certain evil empire that used fear to rule...

Bah, who am I kidding? This country's controlled by business men interested in a profit, why would they care about the individual?

I would agree on everything except Israel and Palestine. Never get your hopes up regarding that part of the world.

I'm willing to say Bush is a factor. His biggest contribution is that he is bringing this developement to the world's attention, rather than ignoring it, and letting this die at the hands of a few autocrats. He's also helping to accelarate this process. But I attribute this to three long term causes:
1. The existence of Israel. Israel has no oil, and hardly any natural resources. Yet it is democratic, a market economy, and has becoming the strongest country in that region. Other countries have not followed Israel's political or economic models, and are stagnating states. The Arabs chose to ignore Israel, but it is impossible to ignore a regional society for fifty years, especially in this modern age of communication.o
2. The Middle East's wealth. The mineral wealth has been stratified to the ruling elite, plus the workers in that region. It has provided states like Saudi Arabia with great wealth, but they never used that wealth to diversify their economy. Now they have a youth bulge, where millions of young children will compete for only a few thousand jobs in the oil industry. Most Arab children have no future under this system.
3. The collapse of communism. This had two significant effects. The first was the removal of the USSR, a long time powerbroker in the region, and an agitator for Israel and the Gulf States. The second was that it offered no ideaological alternative. Communist tinges were seen in Arab nationalism. It morphed into an excuse for dictatorships after the first Gulf War, and is now dead.
I would also like to add that other countries are moving in the direction of liberal democracy. Dubai is extremely wealthy from free trade and banking, not oil. Qatar has invested its mineral wealth into developing a market economy, and has written a constitution mandating an assembly. And there are other examples in the region.

Outstanding points. You have stated a lot of things I nevcer thought about. Thank you.

Bah, who am I kidding? This country's controlled by business men interested in a profit, why would they care about the individual?

Not all capitalists are bad. Some are, some aren't. That's why there are unions and governments, to keep a check on the bad ones. What other economic system would you recommend for the Middle East. What other type of government would you recommend? What alternatives do you propose? :confused:

Actually, what Isreal has said was that they blame the Syrians for this latest bombing, and that naturally this means that they should put the peace process with the Palestinians on hold.... :rolleyes:
But they are still maintaining dialogue. It's far too early to say that this will have an impact.

I would agree on everything except Israel and Palestine. Never get your hopes up regarding that part of the world.
But Yasser Arafat is dead, and he was the greatest obstacle to peace. Things may be different now.

The pretending that every country needs America-style democracy is ludicrous

I believe Bush has said that countries over there will not have an American style democracy. He said that countries will take democracy and fit it to there customs and culture. However that may be. With that said democracy in the middle east means free elections.

I believe Bush has said that countries over there will not have an American style democracy. He said that countries will take democracy and fit it to there customs and culture. However that may be. With that said democracy in the middle east means free elections.
However, in order for a democracy to suceed, it needs common aspects. Democracy without a firm constitution, market economy, and judicial system breeds despots that can be found in Russia, Venezuela, or Zimbabwe. That may be what people want, but it does nothing to improve either their security, nor ours.

http://olympics.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7750423
This shows that there is really a huge opposition to Syria's presence. This would really be a big blow to Syria, and maybe even serve to destabilize the regime in Damascus.

With that said democracy in the middle east means free elections.

Thank you, Captain Obvious. If you hadn't said that, I wouldn't have known that democracy involves elections! Now I am enlightened!

Thank you, Captain Obvious. If you hadn't said that, I wouldn't have known that democracy involves elections! Now I am enlightened!
Well, you know what he meant.

Not all capitalists are bad. Some are, some aren't. That's why there are unions and governments, to keep a check on the bad ones. What other economic system would you recommend for the Middle East. What other type of government would you recommend? What alternatives do you propose? :confused:

Not all, but the bad greatly outnumber and outpower the good.

And I would suggest capitalism (I'm a freaking liberatarian), but an educated capitalism, where you teach the consumer just how to wield the invisible hand that capitalism promises them.

bump

Mystic, from reading your posts, you truly are hopelessly idealistic and moralistic. Out of curiosity, what country are you from? Have you ever done military service?

Improvement? Hope?. Yasser Arafat was a freedom fighter and had a shedload more integrity than any American President. Israel has no right to exist. And whats wrong with having a non-democratic system? Democracy is not the only way of running things, theres nothing wrong with Egypt's style of government. Peace is a lie, I would call it the Middle East "American greed profiteering control" process. Control and peace are different things.

Improvement? Hope?. Yasser Arafat was a freedom fighter and had a shedload more integrity than any American President.
Sorry, I don't define freedom fighter as a person who starts terrorist organizations and the like

Mystic, from reading your posts, you truly are hopelessly idealistic and moralistic. Out of curiosity, what country are you from? Have you ever done military service?
I do not believe that my nationality should matter. I feel that nations and ethnic groups are artificial constructs, anyhow.
As for military service, no I haven't. I am physically incapable, as I have a nerve problem that severily limits my mobility.

Improvement? Hope?. Yasser Arafat was a freedom fighter and had a shedload more integrity than any American President. Israel has no right to exist. And whats wrong with having a non-democratic system? Democracy is not the only way of running things, theres nothing wrong with Egypt's style of government. Peace is a lie, I would call it the Middle East "American greed profiteering control" process. Control and peace are different things.
Arab nationalism died a long time ago. Get used to it.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=539382
Well, it looks like there might be rapid progress with the Greater Syria area. They are now calling this the Cedar Revolution, after the Lebanese national tree.

bump

http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-02-27-voa17.cfm
For the first time in God knows how many years, Egypt's presidency will go through a truely competitive election. It is just a first step, but a positive one.
We are seeing the beginnings of liberal democracy throughout the region. Iraq's election has showed that many Arabs are hungry for democracy, and not the brand of "democracy" that Iran supplies, either. The Palestinians democratically elected a man that will steer the Palestinians to independence. The recent bombing in Tel Aviv shows that, as Israel and the Palestinians are cooperating in ways never seen since the death of Yitzak Rabin. Even Lebannon is going through a revolt of sorts, and that may be just like what was seen in Ukraine recently: a peaceful revolution that will establish, or in Lebannon's case, restore, liberal democracy.
There are reasons to be worried, of course. The disintergration of the Soviet Union initially led to liberal democracy, but has led to a dysfunctional Russia with an authoritarian president. But there is still reason for hope: this is definitly the biggest change in the region since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. And if twenty years from now, the Middle East becomes like Asia is today, this will be the biggest change in the region since the advent of Islam.

Let's hope the Middle East doesn't become like Asia since most of Asia's people live in poverty caused by corrupt government.

Also, will Middle Eastern style democracy entail America having a role in electing officials and US corporations getting major contracts to run the country? (because that's what's happening now)

http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-02-27-voa17.cfm
For the first time in God knows how many years, Egypt's presidency will go through a truely competitive election. It is just a first step, but a positive one.
We are seeing the beginnings of liberal democracy throughout the region. Iraq's election has showed that many Arabs are hungry for democracy, and not the brand of "democracy" that Iran supplies, either. The Palestinians democratically elected a man that will steer the Palestinians to independence. The recent bombing in Tel Aviv shows that, as Israel and the Palestinians are cooperating in ways never seen since the death of Yitzak Rabin. Even Lebannon is going through a revolt of sorts, and that may be just like what was seen in Ukraine recently: a peaceful revolution that will establish, or in Lebannon's case, restore, liberal democracy.
There are reasons to be worried, of course. The disintergration of the Soviet Union initially led to liberal democracy, but has led to a dysfunctional Russia with an authoritarian president. But there is still reason for hope: this is definitly the biggest change in the region since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. And if twenty years from now, the Middle East becomes like Asia is today, this will be the biggest change in the region since the advent of Islam.hope it good, but let me cold you a little. as israeli jewish, I learned enough about the radicals trying to kill the peace chances.
I give you some examples: 1920- heads of the jewish community and the arabs in the area get agreement about the great union of the middle east with democratic system, and jewish authonony in israel with full rights. the nationality stuff wasn't here yet, and all it need was agreement of the rulling empires in the region:britain and france. they thought the impraialism will succed, and prefer to rise the fire, in porpuse to keep their control. chance number one has failed.
1947- the UN decide on establishment of 2 countries with united economy and peace realitionship: israel and palastine. israel established countrey, the arab leader decide to start war with israel despite obeying to the UN resolution, and the end is known: israel has a countrey on bigger area than the UN give her, and the palastinians had nothing but refugees camps.
1994- oslo agreements. jewish radical kill the israeli prime-minister and the peace agreement.
1995- other jewish radical kill many arabs in the cave of Machpella. the hammas obey to the un-written agreement of radicalism and kill more than 20 jewish in bus bombing. as result the right party going to leadership, and ruin Peres trying to relive the peace talks.

I could add more, but you get the point. you should know what the israeli security told. jewish radicals going to try and stop the plan of sharon one of those (just examples): bombing the mountain of temple, killing the israeli prime minister or kidnapp one of the ministers, or killing foreign ambassador.
even if they don't do it there are the terrorists.
it will be miracle if the plan will done.

The pretending that every country needs America-style democracy is ludicrous

the thing is, the only similarities between US democracy and Iraq's democracy is elections. I'm tired of hearing this argument. The national assembly picks 2 presidentsa dn then a prime minister. Either that or they vote for a parliament who picks the 2 presidentas and the prime minister.

hope it good, but let me cold you a little. as israeli jewish, I learned enough about the radicals trying to kill the peace chances.
I give you some examples: 1920- heads of the jewish community and the arabs in the area get agreement about the great union of the middle east with democratic system, and jewish authonony in israel with full rights. the nationality stuff wasn't here yet, and all it need was agreement of the rulling empires in the region:britain and france. they thought the impraialism will succed, and prefer to rise the fire, in porpuse to keep their control. chance number one has failed.
1947- the UN decide on establishment of 2 countries with united economy and peace realitionship: israel and palastine. israel established countrey, the arab leader decide to start war with israel despite obeying to the UN resolution, and the end is known: israel has a countrey on bigger area than the UN give her, and the palastinians had nothing but refugees camps.
1994- oslo agreements. jewish radical kill the israeli prime-minister and the peace agreement.
1995- other jewish radical kill many arabs in the cave of Machpella. the hammas obey to the un-written agreement of radicalism and kill more than 20 jewish in bus bombing. as result the right party going to leadership, and ruin Peres trying to relive the peace talks.

I could add more, but you get the point. you should know what the israeli security told. jewish radicals going to try and stop the plan of sharon one of those (just examples): bombing the mountain of temple, killing the israeli prime minister or kidnapp one of the ministers, or killing foreign ambassador.
even if they don't do it there are the terrorists.
it will be miracle if the plan will done.

Well, some different circumstances exist today. Israel has not been directly attacked by a country since the first Gulf War. Even today, Arab countries are not as threatened by Israel as previously. Peace was made with Jordan, ties with Egypt are stronger, and the Gulf states are not openly hostile to Israel. Iran and Syria are, but they are becoming more of outcasts in the Middle East, and in the case of Syria, is weakening very quickly.
And as always, Yasser Arafat is dead. His stubborness and radicalism prevented a solutiion, whereas Mahmoud Abbas is a known moderate.

Let's hope the Middle East doesn't become like Asia since most of Asia's people live in poverty caused by corrupt government.

They were caused by corrupt governments only in some countries, like the Phillipines. But the Asian dictators have led their countries down the path of the rule of law, the free markets, and eventually, democracy. Some, like South Korea, are a shimmering success. Some, like Singapore, are just about there. And some, like Franco Marcos of the Phillipines, try to reverse the trend, but ultimatly fail.

Well, some different circumstances exist today. Israel has not been directly attacked by a country since the first Gulf War. Even today, Arab countries are not as threatened by Israel as previously. Peace was made with Jordan, ties with Egypt are stronger, and the Gulf states are not openly hostile to Israel. Iran and Syria are, but they are becoming more of outcasts in the Middle East, and in the case of Syria, is weakening very quickly.
And as always, Yasser Arafat is dead. His stubborness and radicalism prevented a solutiion, whereas Mahmoud Abbas is a known moderate.
I know the situation is different. that why I write in the hand things that more likely to be this days. I hope to peace and to normality, but one thing that everyone should remember is nothing is over in the middle east until there is written agreement, although even that isn't sure.

I know the situation is different. that why I write in the hand things that more likely to be this days. I hope to peace and to normality, but one thing that everyone should remember is nothing is over in the middle east until there is written agreement, although even that isn't sure.
Well, that will take a while. Negotiations don't happen overnight. The good news, however, is that a.) thiey are happening, and b.) everyone has a degree of flexibility.

There's a "wave" of hope, you say?
Do the waves everybody! *does the wave*

They were caused by corrupt governments only in some countries, like the Phillipines. But the Asian dictators have led their countries down the path of the rule of law, the free markets, and eventually, democracy. Some, like South Korea, are a shimmering success. Some, like Singapore, are just about there. And some, like Franco Marcos of the Phillipines, try to reverse the trend, but ultimatly fail.


I see your point here but would also like to add counties like China. Here is a growing economy and possibly the next super power that is not a Democracy. Like you say, it is those governments that make the nation's progress, rather than their own personal gain, their priority that propels a nation into success. A lot of times, people seem to think that the requisite is Democracy.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-02-27-voa17.cfm
For the first time in God knows how many years, Egypt's presidency will go through a truely competitive election. It is just a first step, but a positive one.
We are seeing the beginnings of liberal democracy throughout the region. Iraq's election has showed that many Arabs are hungry for democracy, and not the brand of "democracy" that Iran supplies, either. The Palestinians democratically elected a man that will steer the Palestinians to independence. The recent bombing in Tel Aviv shows that, as Israel and the Palestinians are cooperating in ways never seen since the death of Yitzak Rabin. Even Lebannon is going through a revolt of sorts, and that may be just like what was seen in Ukraine recently: a peaceful revolution that will establish, or in Lebannon's case, restore, liberal democracy.
There are reasons to be worried, of course. The disintergration of the Soviet Union initially led to liberal democracy, but has led to a dysfunctional Russia with an authoritarian president. But there is still reason for hope: this is definitly the biggest change in the region since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. And if twenty years from now, the Middle East becomes like Asia is today, this will be the biggest change in the region since the advent of Islam.
As I pointed out in a previous thread: the old "Domino Theory" in reverse. :)

I see your point here but would also like to add counties like China. Here is a growing economy and possibly the next super power that is not a Democracy. Like you say, it is those governments that make the nation's progress, rather than their own personal gain, their priority that propels a nation into success. A lot of times, people seem to think that the requisite is Democracy.
But they have led their nation to wealth. Wen Ho Lee saw that as leading to personal prestige. Obviously, he, nor his successors, are now able to hold back the tide of democracy. The same will happen in China, once more educated people result from the nation's ever increasing wealth.

As I pointed out in a previous thread: the old "Domino Theory" in reverse. :)
And the original domino theory didn't work. This one is working faster than even I dared to hope. I see a reason: few want to be told what to do.

But they have led their nation to wealth. Wen Ho Lee saw that as leading to personal prestige. Obviously, he, nor his successors, are now able to hold back the tide of democracy. The same will happen in China, once more educated people result from the nation's ever increasing wealth.


My point is that the spread of democracy is not the key for a better life in the middle east. If governments are as corrupt as they are now, poverty will continue to overrun the countries. Democracy is a system. The success of a system relies on its people. Other systems can be successful as well, as long as the right people are in power.

The spread of democracy in the Middle East is not being done because the Bush administration is looking for a better life for the people in Iraq or anywhere in the Middle East. The spread of democracy facilitates the sale and trade of resources, such as oil. Countries that share the same governments tend to be friendlier towards one another.

Furthermore, you have to ask what kind of influence will the US have on the country's government? You can use South Korea, Japan, and Germany as positive examples of US/Allied intervention. But, you can also use the Philippines, countries in Africa (such as Nigeria) and countries in Latin America as negative examples.

I see a reason: few want to be told what to do.

I think this is an exaggerated statement. I doubt that people are being told what to do with regards to every little thing in their lives by the government. This is practically impossible since in most cases the number of people in a country heavily out weigh people in the government.

Surely, there are more restrictions in a dictatorship, socialism, or communism vs a democracy. However, those restrictions are not as severe as most American movies make them out to be.

The way I look at it is a trade off. In a socialism/communism, people contribute more to the society in an effort to make the society better. Even America uses socialistic ideas like Social Security and Medicare to try to provide for its people. But, contributing to soceity means less for you. You are giving up more, maybe even in terms of freedoms. But, I don't look at this as they are being controlled. Even in America, your rights are restricted. You cannot just go kill a man or stamp on somebody else's right to pursue happiness.

My point is that the spread of democracy is not the key for a better life in the middle east. If governments are as corrupt as they are now, poverty will continue to overrun the countries. Democracy is a system. The success of a system relies on its people. Other systems can be successful as well, as long as the right people are in power.

The spread of democracy in the Middle East is not being done because the Bush administration is looking for a better life for the people in Iraq or anywhere in the Middle East. The spread of democracy facilitates the sale and trade of resources, such as oil. Countries that share the same governments tend to be friendlier towards one another.
Hardly. Democracy's spread is dependent on economic factors. Democracies in poor nations yeild "elected autocrats" like Mugabe, Putin, or Chavez. Iraq's democracy may not survive, as it is a poor, backwards nation. However, the nation may be content with strongmen that prefer economic and judicial growth, especially with some outside prodding (and lots of that is happening). Of course, India is an exception. While poor, and likely to remain so for a long time, it is a humongous democracy.

Hardly. Democracy's spread is dependent on economic factors. Democracies in poor nations yeild "elected autocrats" like Mugabe, Putin, or Chavez. Iraq's democracy may not survive, as it is a poor, backwards nation. However, the nation may be content with strongmen that prefer economic and judicial growth, especially with some outside prodding (and lots of that is happening). Of course, India is an exception. While poor, and likely to remain so for a long time, it is a humongous democracy.


I think this reiterates what I say but says it a little differently (and correct me if I am wrong). If the people in the government improve the state of the country (ie, economy and standard of living), then you will see a successful country. If a country becomes a democracy, it may or may not be successful because the leaders may make mistakes or have hidden agendas. So, the wave of hope in the middle east is not democracy but the change of regimes. This change may or may not lead to a better life.

I think this reiterates what I say but says it a little differently (and correct me if I am wrong). If the people in the government improve the state of the country (ie, economy and standard of living), then you will see a successful country. If a country becomes a democracy, it may or may not be successful because the leaders may make mistakes or have hidden agendas. So, the wave of hope in the middle east is not democracy but the change of regimes. This change may or may not lead to a better life.
a.) It is always hope when regimes fall this rapidly.
b.) there are several factors that gvie me this hope, like the fall of Communism, the triumph of the market economy, and the sucess of Dubai.

a.) It is always hope when regimes fall this rapidly.rule number one- anarchis usually influenced by outside nations and become influence by dictatroships (as sirya take lebanon in the past civilian war).
b.) there are several factors that gvie me this hope, like the fall of Communism.
that part is problem. russia trying now to get back her strengh and they make connections with the arab regimes in the middle east. for now they:support the nuke plan of Iran (the worst dictatorships in the region), sell weaponary to syria (the vice of Iran) and sell weaponary to the terror organizations in the palastinian territory.
I think those facts could ruin the hope.

rule number one- anarchis usually influenced by outside nations and become influence by dictatroships (as sirya take lebanon in the past civilian war).
I don't quite understand what you are saying.
that part is problem. russia trying now to get back her strengh and they make connections with the arab regimes in the middle east. for now they:support the nuke plan of Iran (the worst dictatorships in the region), sell weaponary to syria (the vice of Iran) and sell weaponary to the terror organizations in the palastinian territory.
I think those facts could ruin the hope.
Russia's policies right now are unsustainable in the medium term. Besides, I was refering more to the ideaology, as there is now no formidable alternative to a free market democracy.

as there is now no formidable alternative to a free market democracy.

What is this based on?

What is this based on?
The past fifteen years. Not all countries practice this, but there is no solid ideaological alternative. There has been no massive switchover to something else, as there was with fascism and communism. All there is is dictatorships, and usually, that has no ideaology, unless keeping power by any means necessary is considered an ideaology.

I don't quite understand what you are saying.maybe I clear mysel: lebanon already were in situation of civil war. syria used that to conquer lebanon. now they had anarchy again. it can't be sure this will be good thing, since iran and sirya could take them secretly.

Russia's policies right now are unsustainable in the medium term. Besides, I was refering more to the ideaology, as there is now no formidable alternative to a free market democracy.supporting those groups in the middle east is problem much bigger than the russian trying to enforce communism in the region.

The past fifteen years. Not all countries practice this, but there is no solid ideaological alternative. There has been no massive switchover to something else, as there was with fascism and communism. All there is is dictatorships, and usually, that has no ideaology, unless keeping power by any means necessary is considered an ideaology.


I agree with you on this. But, that makes democracy the trend of the times rather than ideological superior.

I agree with you on this. But, that makes democracy the trend of the times rather than ideological superior.
I disagree. In the past two hundred years, traditional monarchies, fascism, and communism all threatened communism. They all failed. Even socialism, an economic system of democracy, is slowly succumbing to the free markets, even in Scandanavia.

I disagree. In the past two hundred years, traditional monarchies, fascism, and communism all threatened communism. They all failed. Even socialism, an economic system of democracy, is slowly succumbing to the free markets, even in Scandanavia.

This doesn't really prove one is ideologically better than the other. It could be practically advantagous to become a democracy because the world's superpower is one.

Anyway, this gets away from the point I was trying to make.

This doesn't really prove one is ideologically better than the other. It could be practically advantagous to become a democracy because the world's superpower is one.

Anyway, this gets away from the point I was trying to make.
And I don't remember what it was. Anyhow, that may be ppart of it, but look at China. They aren't really a superpower yet, but are arguably the most powerful entity in Asia, and possibly second in power only to the US. It follows "communism" that is really an authoritarian bureaocracy with a liberal economy. Is anyone following it? A few people. Is it succeeding? No, but it has actually eroded in many countries.

And I don't remember what it was.

My point was that if you have a corrupt government, it is going to drag down a country whether it is a democracy or not. There's no hope in that. Is democracy the best form of government? The fact that there is a movement towards democracy doesn't prove this to me. Like I said, it is advantagous to have something in common with the world's superpower. Furthermore, I think the answer depends on what you favor. If you're ok with giving up some of your individual "liberties" for a common good, then democracy is not the answer for you. But, if you're not willing to give those things up, then maybe democracy is better for you.

My point was that if you have a corrupt government, it is going to drag down a country whether it is a democracy or not. There's no hope in that. Is democracy the best form of government? The fact that there is a movement towards democracy doesn't prove this to me. Like I said, it is advantagous to have something in common with the world's superpower. Furthermore, I think the answer depends on what you favor. If you're ok with giving up some of your individual "liberties" for a common good, then democracy is not the answer for you. But, if you're not willing to give those things up, then maybe democracy is better for you.
When I refer to democracy, I mean modern democracy, being constitutional, market-oriented, and democratic. Corruption will exist in these guidelines, but it should be marginal.

When I refer to democracy, I mean modern democracy, being constitutional, market-oriented, and democratic. Corruption will exist in these guidelines, but it should be marginal.

Not necessarly true. The Philippines have lots of corruption and are democracy of this nature.

Not necessarly true. The Philippines have lots of corruption and are democracy of this nature.
But not as much as under Fernando Marcos, who was a virtual autocrat.

But not as much as under Fernando Marcos, who was a virtual autocrat.

Sure, but having a democracy doesn't ensure what you're saying

Sure, but having a democracy doesn't ensure what you're saying
But in constitutional boundaries, it certainly does.

bump
BTW, I heard that the Lebanese parliment voted to reinstall the former PM, despite his resignation. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

bump
BTW, I heard that the Lebanese parliment voted to reinstall the former PM, despite his resignation. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

That's just the latest news Mystic. Yesterday, there were protests to keep Syria military in Lebanon. Some reports say 1.5 million people showed up (compared to the 60,000 people in anti-Syria protests).

From Yahoo:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...a/lebanon_syria

From Al Jazeera:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exe...EA859C159CF.htm

bump
BTW, I heard that the Lebanese parliment voted to reinstall the former PM, despite his resignation. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Wasn't he just a Syrian puppet??

I was hoping for a positive change in Lebanon..........


Oh well.............

Wasn't he just a Syrian puppet??

I was hoping for a positive change in Lebanon..........


Oh well.............

This is positive. The people in Lebanon have spoken loud and clear to keep Syria in Lebanon. The protests will hopefully keep other countries' agression and unwanted intervention from spreading to Lebanon and Syria.

This is positive. The people in Lebanon have spoken loud and clear to keep Syria in Lebanon. The protests will hopefully keep other countries' agression and unwanted intervention from spreading to Lebanon and Syria.


Somehow, I just don't think so.......

....and government lawmakers advised the president to bring back his pro-Damascus prime minister who was forced by opposition protests to resign.

Nominating Omar Karami again as prime minister would be sure to enrage the opposition, which is demanding the creation of a government free of Syrian domination.

Somehow, I just don't think so.......

So, you think the US is going to use force to remove Syria from Lebanon and possibly invade Syria?

[QUOTE=Progress and Evolution]That's just the latest news Mystic. Yesterday, there were protests to keep Syria military in Lebanon. Some reports say 1.5 million people showed up (compared to the 60,000 people in anti-Syria protests).
It does not mean, however, that Hezbollah is too powerful to withstand the anti-Syrian protesters. Somehow, I doubt this will be as peaceful as the Orange Revolution. In fact, it may end up like Tianmen Square: a near revolution where thousands of protestors may have been killed, while the rest of the China stood by.
And btw, while it is possible, I somehow doubt that the protest was truely that large. A little over 3 million people live in Lebanon, most in the countryside, and many are probably indifferent, anyhow. It is inconcievable to me that over a third of the nation protested at the same place at the same time.

It does not mean, however, that Hezbollah is too powerful to withstand the anti-Syrian protesters. Somehow, I doubt this will be as peaceful as the Orange Revolution. In fact, it may end up like Tianmen Square: a near revolution where thousands of protestors may have been killed, while the rest of the China stood by.
And btw, while it is possible, I somehow doubt that the protest was truely that large. A little over 3 million people live in Lebanon, most in the countryside, and many are probably indifferent, anyhow. It is inconcievable to me that over a third of the nation protested at the same place at the same time.

I agree with you. As the articles were saying, most likely the numbers are in the hundreds of thousands. Still much larger than the anti-Syrian protests.

If Syria stays, it's not Hizb Allah that has to deal with the protestors but the Syrian military. This is pretty much the same divide that caused the civil war. If Syria leaves, there's a good chance it will erupt again. If they stay, the Syrian military will keep everyone in check like they did before.

The question, for me, is will Syria stay? There is international pressure, as we know. But, how much weight does that carry if the majority of the country wants Syria to stay. You can't claim you're spreading democracy if you're going against the desires of the majority. Furthermore, Lebanon is already a democracy. The politicians they are voting into office will theoretically reflect the people's will. Therefore, if the politicians vote to keep Syrian military in Lebanon and to keep a pro-Syria government, it is what their people want.

I agree with you. As the articles were saying, most likely the numbers are in the hundreds of thousands. Still much larger than the anti-Syrian protests.
But hardly large enough to outright overpower the anti Syrian lobby iin a confrontation.
If Syria stays, it's not Hizb Allah that has to deal with the protestors but the Syrian military. This is pretty much the same divide that caused the civil war. If Syria leaves, there's a good chance it will erupt again. If they stay, the Syrian military will keep everyone in check like they did before.

I can argue ideaological points with you on this one, but I believe that it'd be better if Syria left. Initially, there may be some trouble among the radical elements of Hizb'Allah. But the majority will realize that a change is coming, and legally try to change things. Of course, I believe that most of them will change their minds.
The question, for me, is will Syria stay? There is international pressure, as we know. But, how much weight does that carry if the majority of the country wants Syria to stay. You can't claim you're spreading democracy if you're going against the desires of the majority. Furthermore, Lebanon is already a democracy. The politicians they are voting into office will theoretically reflect the people's will. Therefore, if the politicians vote to keep Syrian military in Lebanon and to keep a pro-Syria government, it is what their people want.
Of course. But as I said earlier, it is not a democracy that is productive in the region. Rather, it is subservient to a still yet more tyrannical country. Luckily, as we see, Pres. Assad's grip on the country and his government is weakening, despite his efforts to try and control it. He may be forced to withdraw troops from Lebanon because many Syrian generals are just sick of it. He is much weaker than his father, in this regard.

But hardly large enough to outright overpower the anti Syrian lobby iin a confrontation.

Of course not, that's why Syria had to step in in the first place.

I can argue ideaological points with you on this one, but I believe that it'd be better if Syria left. Initially, there may be some trouble among the radical elements of Hizb'Allah. But the majority will realize that a change is coming, and legally try to change things. Of course, I believe that most of them will change their minds.

I doubt this. That's why Syria had to step in in the first place.

Of course. But as I said earlier, it is not a democracy that is productive in the region. Rather, it is subservient to a still yet more tyrannical country. Luckily, as we see, Pres. Assad's grip on the country and his government is weakening, despite his efforts to try and control it. He may be forced to withdraw troops from Lebanon because many Syrian generals are just sick of it. He is much weaker than his father, in this regard.

Despite whether it is productive or not, the people should/will have the final say if Syria stays or goes. If the country slips back into civil war, someone's going to have to intervene and it just might be the Syrians (I guess they don't have to but they should). As for Assad's grip, he was ready to let go, at least some power, by pulling back. I don't know how sick the Syrian generals are either. It's not like they are in combat zone where they get fired at everyday. They keep the peace in Lebanon and get the benefits of being in an army. If the peace process continues, there is no threat from Isreal. I don't hear much about suicide bombers in Lebanon. Really, the major thing that sparked this is Hariri's death.

Really, the major thing that sparked this is Hariri's death.
But an important admission must be made: this group existed just below the surface. They want what they want, and want it now. They were probably small in 1990, but have grown since. There are probably more of them, too.

But going back to your point, I don't believe Lebanon will slip back into civil war. Too many factors are working to prevent it, and also, times have changed. The Lebanese have done a beautiful job rebuilding their security forces. There will definitly be violence, but not war.

But an important admission must be made: this group existed just below the surface. They want what they want, and want it now. They were probably small in 1990, but have grown since. There are probably more of them, too.

What group are you refering too? Jihad group? Jihad group is a small group and some reports are saying the technology used to kill Hariri was too hi-tech for such a small group.

But going back to your point, I don't believe Lebanon will slip back into civil war. Too many factors are working to prevent it, and also, times have changed. The Lebanese have done a beautiful job rebuilding their security forces. There will definitly be violence, but not war.

You could be right about this but Hizb Allah has to be factored in. They obviously don't want to see the Syrians go and might try to instigate anything possible to get them to stay.

What group are you refering too? Jihad group? Jihad group is a small group and some reports are saying the technology used to kill Hariri was too hi-tech for such a small group.

No. I was reffering to those that want Syria out.

You could be right about this but Hizb Allah has to be factored in. They obviously don't want to see the Syrians go and might try to instigate anything possible to get them to stay.
Of course they will. But they now have an added disadvantage: with Syria gone, Hizb'Allah will be vulnerable. Much of the reason that group exists is because of Syria. Otherwise, the Israelis would have grinded them into the Earth.

No. I was reffering to those that want Syria out.

Maybe be the group who wants Syria out has grown but as the protests show, it seems the ratio is still heavily favored to keep Syria in.


Of course they will. But they now have an added disadvantage: with Syria gone, Hizb'Allah will be vulnerable. Much of the reason that group exists is because of Syria. Otherwise, the Israelis would have grinded them into the Earth.

Syria can still supply Hizb Allah with weapons and money. Then, there's Iran who also helps Hizb Allah. How vulnerable they will be, I'm not sure. You can say they US might try to freeze the assets that are coming in to Hizb Allah but how successful they will be will be difficult to determine since they can't even close up the Iraqi/Syrian border. Furthermore, Isreal isn't going to risk the peace process by going into Lebanon and trying to cruch Hizb Allah. Maybe make attacks on their leaders like they did with Hamas but that only made Hamas more popular among the Palestinian people. So, who does Hizb Allah have to worry about? The Lebanese minority that resents Syrian interference. But, this minority isn't strong enough to crush Hizb Allah, give them problems maybe, but not crush. And as we've seen, the numbers are favored towards Syria and their benefactors so in that way they have the lead.

Again, some will argue there is international pressure but I don't see how that can be affective if the people of Lebanon are going against that. Not without international pressure being hypocritical of their own democracies anyway.

Syria can still supply Hizb Allah with weapons and money. Then, there's Iran who also helps Hizb Allah. How vulnerable they will be, I'm not sure. You can say they US might try to freeze the assets that are coming in to Hizb Allah but how successful they will be will be difficult to determine since they can't even close up the Iraqi/Syrian border. Furthermore, Isreal isn't going to risk the peace process by going into Lebanon and trying to cruch Hizb Allah. Maybe make attacks on their leaders like they did with Hamas but that only made Hamas more popular among the Palestinian people. So, who does Hizb Allah have to worry about? The Lebanese minority that resents Syrian interference. But, this minority isn't strong enough to crush Hizb Allah, give them problems maybe, but not crush. And as we've seen, the numbers are favored towards Syria and their benefactors so in that way they have the lead.

Again, some will argue there is international pressure but I don't see how that can be affective if the people of Lebanon are going against that. Not without international pressure being hypocritical of their own democracies anyway.
Even so, Hizb'Allah needs Syrian troops to survive. If they withdraw, Hizb'Allah can't attack Israel without Israel invading again. That's why, if Syria does withdraw, I think a few thousand troops should make up an intervention force, and just make sure that they don't go near the border. If they launch a coup, then they should be routed out of Beirut.

Even so, Hizb'Allah needs Syrian troops to survive. If they withdraw, Hizb'Allah can't attack Israel without Israel invading again. That's why, if Syria does withdraw, I think a few thousand troops should make up an intervention force, and just make sure that they don't go near the border. If they launch a coup, then they should be routed out of Beirut.


I think that should read Hizb Allah needs Syrian troops to carry out its objectives in Isreal. Then, I would agree with you. Hizb Allah would have their hands full in Lebanon, should Syria leave, and would not be able to attack Isreal. If they launch a coup, no doubt the international community will turn on them (at least those in Europe and America). I think maybe the people of Lebanon will turn on them too. Lebanon is a democracy and I don't think the people would appreciate going from that to a dictatorship or religious state. Definitely, civil war would break out if Hizb Allah made such an aggressive move.

I think that should read Hizb Allah needs Syrian troops to carry out its objectives in Isreal. Then, I would agree with you. Hizb Allah would have their hands full in Lebanon, should Syria leave, and would not be able to attack Isreal. If they launch a coup, no doubt the international community will turn on them (at least those in Europe and America). I think maybe the people of Lebanon will turn on them too. Lebanon is a democracy and I don't think the people would appreciate going from that to a dictatorship or religious state. Definitely, civil war would break out if Hizb Allah made such an aggressive move.
Well, you're right about the coup part. Hizb'Allah doesn't need it, as they are presently a majority. That may or may not be a good thing, considering that guerilla groups are sometimes weakened when in political power. But by this time, infighting should form. Only one portion of the party are really diehards.

Well, you're right about the coup part. Hizb'Allah doesn't need it, as they are presently a majority. That may or may not be a good thing, considering that guerilla groups are sometimes weakened when in political power. But by this time, infighting should form. Only one portion of the party are really diehards.

The question for Hizb Allah in that case would be can they adapt? Look at Castro or Arafat. Both are revolutionaries and did a lot of good work as such. However, they didn't know how to govern a state for peace time efforts. With Castro, he seems to want to keep the revolution going forever, even though a revolution is a transitory state. However, then you look at a group Hamas. A violent revolutionary group that is simmering down in the peace process. They have grown popular among the Palestinian people and seemed to have claimed a stake for themselves in the new Palestine. Those that have been part of Hamas are now being incorporated in the new Palestinian government. If Hizb Allah can adapt in this way, then they will succeed.

But, does Hizb Allah want this? If they did, then they would probably also be asking Syria to leave, that way they can take Lebanon's reigns. In the current scheme, Syria kept the peace in Lebanon which allowed Hizb Allah to concentrate on raising hell in Isreal. If Hizb Allah wants to keep that objective, then they wouldn't be interested in governmental power in Lebanon. It would occupy their time and money too much.

Interesting...........

'Record' protest held in Beirut

Beirut's Martyrs' Square was packed solid with people

Nearly one million people have gathered for an opposition rally in Beirut, officials say - a month after the death of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
The BBC's Kim Ghattas in Beirut says the crowds turned the city centre into a sea of red, white and green - the colours of Lebanon's national flag.

They were protesting against the presence of Syrian forces in Lebanon.

The demonstration surpassed recent pro-Syrian rallies and is thought to be the biggest in Lebanese history.

Syria has pulled back some of its troops in Lebanon to the border.

Damascus also promised the UN a full timetable for the withdrawal of its 14,000 troops and intelligence agents.

The move was cautiously welcomed by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as a "positive development".

Meanwhile military intelligence officers left two offices in the north, in the town of Amyoun in Koura region and Deir Ammar on the coast, the Associated Press news agency reported.

Fears of violence

Beirut city official Mounib Nassereddine told AFP news agency more than 800,000 people had turned out for the protest, which would make it the biggest demonstration held in the country's history.

AP also estimated the same turnout, with people still arriving.

Demonstrators packed Martyrs Square, near where Hariri died in a car bomb, and the crowd spilled over into nearby streets.

The sea of people fell silent at 1255 (1055 GMT), the exact time Hariri was killed four weeks ago.

Unlike previous anti-Syrian rallies, Sunni Muslims came out in force to join Druze and Christians to commemorate the loss of their leader.

A stream of buses and cars brought protesters from the eastern Bekaa Valley, while others arrived from Junieh in the north by sea.

"We are coming to liberate our country. We are coming to demand the truth," Fatma Trad, a Sunni from the northern area of Dinniyeh, told AP.

Many offices and schools closed early for the demonstration.

Our correspondent says a lot more effort went into organising this event, and the media owned by Hariri was a driving force.

The opposition will try to keep the momentum until parliamentary elections in May, she adds.

An investigation is continuing into Hariri's death and the opposition has demanded the resignation of senior security officials.

Druze opposition MP Marwan Hamadeh told the huge crowd: "You want the truth [about Hariri's killing]? It's clear... the world and Lebanon know them [the killers] well, know them one by one, name by name, rank by rank."

Protesters have also been angered by President Emile Lahoud's reinstatement of the pro-Syrian Prime Minister, Omar Karami.

Withdrawal commitment

But correspondents say fears are growing that protests could spill over into violence, with the authorities considering a ban on protests after Monday.

Both President Emile Lahoud and Maronite Christian Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir, a leading opposition mentor, have urged dialogue as an alternative to protests as a way out of the crisis.

Sunday saw a mass pro-Syrian rally, this time in the town of Nabatiyeh.

Tens of thousands of people voiced support for the Syrian military presence and against American intervention at the rally organised by the Hezbollah militant group.

After talks in Syria on Saturday with President Assad, UN envoy Terje Roed-Larsen announced that he had received a commitment that Damascus would provide details of its withdrawal plan.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4346613.stm