NationStates Jolt Archive

It is my contention that democracy is not the great peacebringer that neo-conservatives and Third-Way politicians tout it as. Rather, as always, it is a bringer of strife and conflict between peoples. This is clearly visible by analysis of the state of affairs in the Middle East. Right now, Turkey is attempting to hold down its own religious radicals. Afghanistan, despite its new democracy, is in a state of conflict with a resurgent Taliban. Iraq has radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr in a clear position of power, with Sunnis and Shiites embroiled in a vicious civil war. Iran, which could rightly be considered THE Islamic Republic, is developing nuclear weapons. Fatah and Hamas are also duking it out with one another, while Israel and Lebanon, two bona fide democracies, have already come to blows quite recently. (Even the Israeli settlers and the rest of the populace are ill at ease.)

This state of conflict is not because of peculiarities with each individual region. It is because of the inherent aspects of democracy. Democratic rulers are focused upon the short-term; the outcome of the next election. Thus, they will act appropriately. They also have no real stake in the value of the country, but only upon receiving whatever income, psychic or monetary, they receive from being in office (They can't sell or rent the country.) This leads to a modus operandi of focusing on maintaining power over all else. And what better way to maintain power than to excite or create fear of others, while promising the ever-so-necessary protection and retribution that only the politician can provide? Yes, such hatred and animosity tears apart families, neighborhoods, countries, but that is irrelevant if the politician can maintain his power. And as the Middle East is plunged into a torrent of blood, it is exactly what is happening.

Democracy cannot exist in a theocracy and vice-versa unless you have a completely homogenous society - which does not exist without 'artificial means. (genocide). That is the trouble with the middle east.

Okay...so....All Middle Eastern states should be authoritarian, totalitarian dictatorships?

Well, the only problem is that the authoritarian rulers are just as concerned with maintaining power at all costs and are even more likely to pursue corruption and violence to hold on to their power.

Like the rest of the world, the most liberal Middle Eastern nations are also the most successful. The UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar are all liberal nations with great progress towards democracy, and they have living standards, economic openness and opportunitiy, education levels, human rights records and eadership all superior to that of the more repressive and archaic regimes like the Saudis, Syrians or Iranians. However, it is important to note that these liberal regimes were not imposed on them from above but were developed organically by the governments in power. Democracy can't really be forced; it has to develop internally and be brought to fruition by a domestic educated middle class.

Okay...so....All Middle Eastern states should be authoritarian, totalitarian dictatorships?

Hating democracy =/= endorsing dictatorship.

okay, then what type of government would be best for the Middle East?...:confused:

None at all. :)

Hating democracy =/= endorsing dictatorship.

okay, then what type of government would be best for the Middle East?...:confused:

Okay...so....All Middle Eastern states should be authoritarian, totalitarian dictatorships?

Well, that's the United States Government thought when they kept both the Shah and Saddam Hussein in power for a while.

None at all. :)

QFT.

Bullshit.
The UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar are Dictatorships. Just like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria

Israel, Iran, Lebanon and Israel are the only ME democracies.

Also, QFT.

The UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar are all liberal nations...Bullshit.
The UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar are Dictatorships. Just like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria

Israel, Iran, Lebanon and Israel are the only ME democracies.

Bullshit.
The UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar are Dictatorships. Just like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria

Israel, Iran, Lebanon and Israel are the only ME democracies.

They may be dictatorships, but their records on human rights and progress towards political rights are far superior to any other nation in the region. Iran's democracy is a joke, with the clerics wielding all the real power, and Syria is a dictatorship masquerading as a democracy.

Actually, the only democracy in the Middle East is Israel.

okay, then what type of government would be best for the Middle East?...:confused:one federated Democracy.

They may be dictatorships, but their records on human rights and progress towards political rights are far superior to any other nation in the region. Iran's democracy is a joke, with the clerics wielding all the real power, and Syria is a dictatorship masquerading as a democracy.

Actually, the only democracy in the Middle East is Israel.

I know that Dubai sure as heck isn't any more democratic than it ever was before, but I'd rather live there than here. Also, the US's corrupt democracy isn't that much better than the US's, and Saudi Arabia's fling at democratizing has only succeeded in bringing wackos into power.

:( I thought this thread was about a sit-com

:( I thought this thread was about a sit-com

Democracy: Hey Middle-East, you sure look sexy tonight. Mind if I search for your WMD... if you know what I mean?
(Tape: OOOOOOOOH!!!)
Middle-East: Oh, Democracy! You and your high time preferences!
Tape: Hahaha!!!
Middle-East: You know I'll just blow up!
Democracy: Not if I blow you up first.
Middle-East: Blow me up first... what do you- OH NO!
*Democracy blows up the Middle-East.*
Tape: Hahaha!!!
Democracy: I guess that's al-Byeda!
Tape: Hahaha!!!

Bullshit.
The UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar are Dictatorships. Just like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria

Israel, Iran, Lebanon and Israel are the only ME democracies.

You have to be completely nuts if you buy that Iran is a democracy.

Democracies don't have an unelected group of religious nuts choose which candidates are acceptible.

You have to be completely nuts if you buy that Iran is a democracy.

Democracies don't have an unelected group of religious nuts choose which candidates are acceptible.

But doesn't it bother you that the people chose Ahmadinejad, the worst of all the candidates? And just because he thinks it's a democracy doesn't mean he thinks it's a good idea.

You have to be completely nuts if you buy that US is a democracy.

Democracies don't have an unelected group -SCrOTUS- choose who is going to be president. ;)

Okay...so....All Middle Eastern states should be authoritarian, totalitarian dictatorships?

Wouldn't be a bad idea. There was this one guy that was murdered by the US government and Iraqi conspirators...

They may be dictatorships, but their records on human rights and progress towards political rights are far superior to any other nation in the region. Iran's democracy is a joke, with the clerics wielding all the real power, and Syria is a dictatorship masquerading as a democracy.

Actually, the only democracy in the Middle East is Israel.

Oh God no IDF.

;)

Media recounts conducted by various groups such as the liberal NYT confirmed Bush won Florida fair and square.

Iran is a not a democracy. Mullahs choose all candidates and ban any they see a "un-Islamic". That is not a democracy.

Of course you will try to refute this while brining no facts to the table because you are too mentally deficient to do so.

Bullshit.
The UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar are Dictatorships. Just like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria

Israel, Iran, Lebanon and Israel are the only ME democracies.

Jesus, man, next time warn me before you say shit like that. I almost shat my pants! :D

Media recounts conducted by various groups such as the liberal NYT confirmed Bush won Florida fair and square.

Iran is a not a democracy. Mullahs choose all candidates and ban any they see a "un-Islamic". That is not a democracy.

Of course you will try to refute this while brining no facts to the table because you are too mentally deficient to do so.

No, the neocon pupper Electoral college decided the President, not the people.

No country is a democracy, not the US or Israel or Iran or anyone. For the most part they elect 'representatives' that rarely ever act on the interests of those who elected them, it's a joke really. The same as in the US, it's a republic based on capital property, and people cant run for the President without hundreds of millions of dollars, and if they are in bed with wealthy business interests, much like Israel. That is the antithesis of democracy in the traditional Greek conception of 'the common people rule'. Iran is not a democracy, it is a popular republic based on Islamic principles, that is why it's called 'The Islamic Republic' you tool, it would be no good if some guy tried to come to office with a policy of 'abolishing Islam and enforcing Christianity', that is what the Iranian Revolution fought for. Iran has claim to popular nominal democracy, much as many other countries do, but it does not have claim to true democracy, no country does, and Iran has never claimed to be such, so stop spewing crap, no one cares.

Jesus, man, next time warn me before you say shit like that. I almost shat my pants!

Har-har-har, troll.

The United States and Israel are democracies.

Jesus, man, next time warn me before you say shit like that. I almost shat my pants!

Jesus, man, next time warn me before you say shit like that. I almost shat my pants! :Dever heard of Lisa Nowak (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npzNLc4im38&NR=1) ?

:D

;)

That's rather like countering the assertion that "Saudi Arabia is a misogynistic country because women are forbidden to testify in court, drive cars, or ride bikes, and cannot be admitted to a hospital, examined by a doctor, travel abroad or leave the house without the permission of a male relative" by saying "But women in the US don't get equal pay!!1!!".

It's bloody stupid and you're not fooling anyone. What is it with you and jacking off to far-right, theocratic regimes anyway?

No, the neocon pupper Electoral college decided the President, not the people.

No country is a democracy, not the US or Israel or Iran or anyone. For the most part they elect 'representatives' that rarely ever act on the interests of those who elected them, it's a joke really.

It's called 'representative democracy', not that you've ever displayed any interest in facts or reality.

The same as in the US, it's a republic based on capital property, and people cant run for the President without hundreds of millions of dollars, and if they are in bed with wealthy business interests, much like Israel. That is the antithesis of democracy in the traditional Greek conception of 'the common people rule'.

So rather than actually address the relevant points you quibble and try to use a definition of democracy which was in use several millennia ago? Nice.

Iran is not a democracy, it is a popular republic based on Islamic principles, that is why it's called 'The Islamic Republic' you tool, it would be no good if some guy tried to come to office with a policy of 'abolishing Islam and enforcing Christianity', that is what the Iranian Revolution fought for. Iran has claim to popular nominal democracy

Watch out, your already tenuous grip on reality is slipping.

You're entirely right though: Iran is not a democracy. It's a theocratic regime with no respect for the rights of women or homosexuals.

Okay...so....All Middle Eastern states should be authoritarian, totalitarian dictatorships?

Intelligent reigns supreme as ever I see.

How does not seeking to impose democracy equate to advocating "authoritarain, totalitarian dictatorships"?

I quite agree with the OP in any case. How would the Americans here feel if, for the sake of argument, Saudi Arabia was the pre-potent global state, and attempted to force a monarchy upon the USA?

Democracies don't have an unelected group -SCrOTUS- choose who is going to be president.

Three words - get over it.


You lost. Move on. Bitterness will devour you. It has been close to a decade ago. Even the smallest of minds have moved past that. This desperate attempt to make an irrelevant point makes me feel bad for you.

..makes me feel bad for you.Dont cry for me Argentina ;)

That's rather like countering the assertion ....(US SCrOTUS vs Guardian Council)says you.

The SCrOTUS and the Guardians Council are the same kind of shit..
Small group of unelected old People with unparalleled power over our lives.

says you.

The SCrOTUS and the Guardians Council are the same kind of shit..
Small group of unelected old People with unparalleled power over our lives.

It's not the 'same kind of shit'; it's the difference between a bird crapping on your car windscreen and an army of muckspreaders running amok in your living room. Stop trying to equivocate the two and just admit that Iran is not a democracy.

It's not the 'same kind of shit'Yes it is the same kind of shit.

let me say that again.. It is same kind of shit..but you are entitled to your opinion and so am I.
;)

Yes it is the same kind of shit.

let me say that again.. It is same kind of shit..but you are entitled to your opinion and so am I.
;)

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but nobody is entitled to their own facts.

Let's compare the two:

SCOTUS:
-Were once asked to ajudicate on the legality of a recount.

Guardian Council:
-Vet EVERY SINGLE CANDIDATE who wants to stand for election; can veto any legislation which is 'incompatible with Islam'.

It is not 'the same kind of shit' as you know damn well, any more than murder and a fist-fight are 'the same kind of shit'.

Guardian Council:
-Vet EVERY SINGLE CANDIDATE who wants to stand for election..you are not making sense..
If they veto every single candidate.. how can they have a president elected directly by the Iranian People?

you are not making sense..
If they veto every single candidate.. how can they have a president elected directly by the Iranian People?

You are now practicing willful ignorance plus a bit of nitpicking. You know well and good the intended point. It certainly is not doing much to support your very feeble point. I would certainly hope to expect more from members of this forum.

you are not making sense..
If they veto every single candidate.. how can they have a president elected directly by the Iranian People?

It wouldn't make sense if I'd said 'veto' but I didn't; I said 'vet'.

Vet (verb): to examine carefully "Someone should vet this report before it goes out"

Wordnet (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=vet)

You are now practicing willful ignorance plus a bit of nitpicking. You know well and good the intended point. It certainly is not doing much to support your very feeble point. I would certainly hope to expect more from members of this forum.

I wouldn't expect more from Oceandrive if I were you, apparently he can't even nitpick accurately (which rather defies the point of nitpicking at all)...

You are now practicing willful ignorance plus a bit of nitpicking. You know well and good the intended point. It certainly is not doing much to support your very feeble point. I would certainly hope to expect more from members of this forum.Oh, you are such a bitter person.

It wouldn't make sense if I'd said 'veto' but I didn't; I said 'vet'.Fair enough. I dont know the meaning of the word Vet (other than veterinarian.. but I take your word for it)

Vet (verb): to examine carefully "Someone should vet this report before it goes out"Talking about vet-ing Presidential candidates... Why cant Arnold run for President?

Arnold is a US citizen, he should have the same rights as the other Citizens.

You are now practicing willful ignorance plus a bit of nitpicking. You know well and good the intended point. It certainly is not doing much to support your very feeble point. I would certainly hope to expect more from members of this forum.Oh My Goodness..
how bitterly, bitterous, bittorrent, bitter of you. :D :D :p :D

Why cant Arnold run for President?
Well, it's surely not because of restrictions based on IQ, as the current president proves.
But imagine what kind of detention camps a president Schwarzenegger would set up. His would surely dwarf Dubya's, after all Arnie is Austrian...

Fair enough. I dont know the meaning of the word Vet (other than veterinarian.. but I take your word for it)

I provided a link to an online dictionary precisely so that you didn't have to take my word for it.

Talking about vet-ing Presidential candidates... Why cant Arnold run for President?

Arnold is a US citizen, he should have the same rights as the other Citizens.

Here's the cute bit: Arnold can run for Congress and Senate, thereby gaining political power and the chance to change the law (as I believe he's trying to do at the moment). Iran operates as a closed system: nobody who disagrees with the current system will ever get to be in a position where they can do anything about it. The US system can be changed and reformed, Iran's can't.

Besides, this is completely irrelevant as there's a world of difference between vetting on grounds of nationality and vetting on grounds of political beliefs (as I've explained to you several times before...)

You do realise that, however many small faults you can find with US democracy, it won't make Iran a democracy, right?

Well, it's surely not because of restrictions based on IQ, as the current president proves.
But imagine what kind of detention camps a president Schwarzenegger would set up. His would surely dwarf Dubya's, after all Arnie is Austrian...

He would have made of better job of Afghanistan than Bush did: they could have dropped him behind enemy lines and left him to capture bin Laden on his own. :p

Talking about vet-ing Presidential candidates... Why cant Arnold run for President?

Arnold is a US citizen, he should have the same rights as the other Citizens.
Here's the cute bit: Arnold can run for Congress and Senate...we are talking Presidential elections here.

We talked about the SCrOTUS deciding who was going to be president in the US.. and the GC making rules or "minimum requirement" to run for President.

In the US we also have Un-democratic requirement to run..
in another words some US citizens are banned from running.. unless the all-mighty SCrOTUS says otherwise.

________________________________________________________
Disclamer: RLIridesAgain is not dodging my question.
his full quote can be found with the green arrow.

He would have made of better job of Afghanistan than Bush did: they could have dropped him behind enemy lines and left him to capture bin Laden on his own. :pNo, you are wrong. The dude who finished Afghanistan on his own was Rambo...

You do realise that, however many small faults you can find with US democracy, it won't make Iran a democracy, right?But it shows that certain folks are not the right ones to point fingers...

we are talking Presidential elections here.

We talked about the SCrOTUS deciding who was going to be president in the US.. and the GC making rules or "minimum requirement" to run for President.

In the US we also have Un-democratic requirement to run.. Age, place of birth , etc.

in another words some US citizens are banned from running.. unless the all-mighty SCrOTUS says otherwise.

That quote is downright dishonest: you make it seem I was avoiding the question, please edit it.

However, juding by your post it seems that you didn't take the time to read past the part you quoted anyway so I'll repost it for you:

Arnold can run for Congress and Senate, thereby gaining political power and the chance to change the law (as I believe he's trying to do at the moment). Iran operates as a closed system: nobody who disagrees with the current system will ever get to be in a position where they can do anything about it. The US system can be changed and reformed, Iran's can't.

Besides, this is completely irrelevant as there's a world of difference between vetting on grounds of nationality and vetting on grounds of political beliefs (as I've explained to you several times before...)

You do realise that, however many small faults you can find with US democracy, it won't make Iran a democracy, right?

Age restrictions are not undemocratic, VETTING ON THE GROUNDS OF POLITICAL AFFILIATION IS. Is this really so difficult to understand, or are you just so desperate to defend Iran that you're willing to ignore all evidence and reason? I think I should repeat one part of my previous post again in the hope that it'll sink in on the third attempt:

You do realise that, however many small faults you can find with US democracy, it won't make Iran a democracy, right?

For fucks sake, why are you so desperate to defend a screwed up theocracy like Iran anyway?

But it shows that certain folks are not the right ones to point fingers...

I've never even visited America so I don't see the relevance, and the faults in US democracy are trifling compared to those in Iran (although I do agree that any citizen should be able to run for the Presidency).

No, you are wrong. The dude who finished Afghanistan on his own was Rambo...

Ah, but when Rambo was there the Mujahideen were the good guys (the film was dedicated to them), wheras now they're the bad guys. It's completely different. ;)

Israel is not the only democracy the Middle East has ever had - I hate when Americans say that.

In 1953, the CIA helped overthrow the democratically-elected president of Iran. They then installed the Shah of Iran who was eventually overthrown in 1979. Iran had a democracy! It was America that took it away!

Imposing a democracy in Iran and Afghanistan which has limitations (e.g. not being able to protest, has to support america) is not what I call a democracy!

And MOST OF ALL, holding democratic elections in Palestine and then refusing to recognise the majority, Hamas, just because they do not agree with what America thinks is absolutely disgraceful! Then Israel punished the Palestinians for not voting for who they wanted them to vote! So what if Hamas does not recognise Israel? Are they not entitled to their belief? Why must America always be right?

Seriously?

Israel is not the only democracy the Middle East has ever had - I hate when Americans say that.

In 1953, the CIA helped overthrow the democratically-elected president of Iran. They then installed the Shah of Iran who was eventually overthrown in 1979. Iran had a democracy! It was America that took it away!

Imposing a democracy in Iran and Afghanistan which has limitations (e.g. not being able to protest, has to support america) is not what I call a democracy!

And MOST OF ALL, holding democratic elections in Palestine and then refusing to recognise the majority, Hamas, just because they do not agree with what America thinks is absolutely disgraceful! Then Israel punished the Palestinians for not voting for who they wanted them to vote! So what if Hamas does not recognise Israel? Are they not entitled to their belief? Why must America always be right?

Seriously?

Yep.

That quote is downright dishonest: you make it seem I was avoiding the question, please edit it.I did no say
"u r dodging" or "you are spinning".. but since you strongly feel I am treating you unfairly.. I am going to add a disclaimer.

Be advised.. I am not going to do this every time.

Slam democracy as much as you'd like, and there are many, many pitfalls to it in an underdeveloped society. But one thing it does better than any other form is to get all parties under one roof, and force them to talk to each other.

You do realise that, however many small faults you can find with US democracy, it won't make Iran a democracy, right?I dont care about you calling US -or Iran- a Democracy.. or NOT.

I care about fairness.. I am going to measure the US and Iran the same stick.. and I am going to call them as I see them.

Regardless of -how many- people is trying to portray Iran as evil. (or how many TV networks)

Slam democracy as much as you'd like, and there are many, many pitfalls to it in an underdeveloped society. But one thing it does better than any other form is to get all parties under one roof, and force them to talk to each other.

Which, given that the resultant policies are inveriably mediocre and tempered by consideration not of necessity, but of compromise, is of what benefit?

I did no say
"u r dodging" or "you are spinning".. but since you strongly feel I am treating you unfairly.. I am going to add a disclaimer.

No, but somebody reading it would think I was dodging the question. Thank you for the edit.

Ah, but when Rambo was there the Mujahideen were the good guysYep, bin Laden was there back then, too, right? Among the good guys and friends of the US... :)

I dont care about you calling US -or Iran- a Democracy.. or NOT.

I care about fairness.. I am going to measure the US and Iran the same stick.. and I am going to call them as I see them.

Regardless of -how many- people is trying to portray Iran as evil. (or how many TV networks)The strange thing about Iran is that it was not Iran that invaded two of Iran's neighboring countries.

Which, given that the resultant policies are inveriably mediocre and tempered by consideration not of necessity, but of compromise, is of what benefit?

Better marginal benefit than a massive negative. There have been few genocides in history waged by democratic nations, especially compared to dictatorships.

Better marginal benefit than a massive negative. There have been few genocides in history waged by democratic nations, especially compared to dictatorships.the line between democratic nation to dictatorship is which exactly? most of history's dictators have at one point been democratically elected.

the line between democratic nation to dictatorship is which exactly? most of history's dictators have at one point been democratically elected.

What? Most of history's thousands of dictators have been chosen through heredity.

The strange thing about Iran is that it was not Iran that invaded two of Iran's neighboring countries.

Yes. American CIA overthrew democratically-elected president of Iran in 1953 and installed shah as dictator. He was overthrown in Islamic Revolution of 1979.

Then, a few months later, the dictator Saddam Hussein, at the worst of his human rights abuses, just 'happened' to invade Iran with US support.
A million people died in that war.

Giving them a dictator and million dead - and you wonder why Iran hates the American government?????

Yes. American CIA overthrew democratically-elected president of Iran in 1953 and installed shah as dictator. He was overthrown in Islamic Revolution of 1979.

Then, a few months later, the dictator Saddam Hussein, at the worst of his human rights abuses, just 'happened' to invade Iran with US support.
A million people died in that war.

Giving them a dictator and million dead - and you wonder why Iran hates the American government?????It's unfair to single out the US supporting Saddam.

The French and many European countries supported him FAR more than the US did during that war.

It's unfair to single out the US supporting Saddam.

The French and many European countries supported him FAR more than the US did during that war.

To be perfectly accurate, the US played both sides against each other.

To be perfectly accurate, the US played both sides against each other.

Mainly Saddam but they did give weapons to Iran!

It's unbelievable isn't it?

USA also called for ban on selling weapons to Iran after Islamic revolution!

Shah was friendly to them - Iran even did military projects with Israel before overthrow of Shah! He was an oppresive dictator.

I hate when Americans (got nothing against you lads :)) , who emphasise democracy, actually justify the putting up of the dictator of Iran.
They say stuff such as 'he was secular' or 'he tried to westernise Iran'.

Hippocrites!