| Author |
Message |
    
Phenixrising
Citizen
Username: Phenixrising
Post Number: 487
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 8:38 am: | 
|
My point in starting this thread is that "democracy" does not necessarily get translated into pro-US government policies.
So true.
I'm sure most Lebanonese want the decision to choose their own government. Unfortunately, it may NOT include US policies & intervention. Seems alot of the demonstrators are anti-Syrian & anti-American.
|
Straw & manure
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 4650
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 8:41 am: |
|
commie b.s. |
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 585
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 8:57 am: |
|
It has nothing to do with installing a pro American government. It is about setting the conditions in the region so that these countries will become democracies. A democratically elected government is less likely to be a state sponser of terror. This will marginalize the islamic fundamentists.
|
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1104
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 9:08 am: |
|
quote:A democratically elected government is less likely to be a state sponser of terror.
Why is that necessarily so? If the people in these countries elect anti-U.S. or anti-Israel governments, why wouldn't they continue to use terrorism as a tactic? I would hope the new governments would be peaceful, but it doesn't follow as a necessary outcome of democratic elections. |
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 586
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 9:28 am: |
|
Democracies hold their elected officials accountable. The majority of voters would also have to support terrorism as policy as well as the policy of islamic fundamentalism. This is highy unlikely.
Elected officials in democracies have to worry about satisfying their constituents. Spreading islamic fundamentalism through terrorism will not get then re elected. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1105
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 9:51 am: |
|
why is it unlikely? haven't wars been started by democratically elected governments?
In countries where people have no opportunities and are living in poverty, what's to stop their democratically elected governments from trying to hold on to power by scapegoating an outside entity like the U.S. or Israel? It would be easy to divert anger at their own government into aggressiveness toward outsiders.
Your proposition is wishful thinking (and I also wish it comes true), but nothing more. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 751
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 9:59 am: |
|
In addition, if a state-sponsor of terrorism is attacked (either completely destroyed or through pinpoint attacks) because of their sponsorship of terrorism, theoretically the people will hold their government reponsible for getting them attacked.
Theoretically...
Democratically elected governments sponsor "terrorism" all the time, including the US. Remember that one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. The Sandinistas were not considered heros by everyone in Nicaragua, nor does Hezbollah speak for everyone in Lebanon. |
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 589
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 10:06 am: |
|
More than likely those governments would try to improve the standard of living of the population , rather than becoming an international pariah . Better to be part of the international community and reap the economic benefits.
It is a matter of removing islamic fundamentalism as a driving force in the government. The voters would care more about their own self intterests as opposed to spreading terrorism.
|
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 752
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 10:13 am: |
|
Agreed. But remember that Islamic Fundamentalism, as a means of distracting people, is nothing different from radical nationalism. As has been pointed out many times (and I'm not disagreeing with anything being said to this point), the way to end terrorism is to improve people's standards of living to where they just can't be bothered with rioting or planning attacks. They're too busy earning a decent living and taking care of their family. |
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 590
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 10:23 am: |
|
If the population has a low standard of living, there is only so long you can distract them before you get voted out of office. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 7920
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 10:27 am: |
|
Lebanon is probably even more diverse than Iraq as far as the population goes. Yah got Shi'a, Sunni, Christian and God only knows how many ethnic groups in a country with less than 5,000,000 people.
The elections, assuming that Syria doesn't throw a wrench in the process in May should tell the story. Hopefully, they can provide the needed security.
|
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1106
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 11:03 am: |
|
A lot of things need to happen besides "democracy" in these countries. Many people (our president included, apparently) seem to think that democratic elections are sufficient to make countries stable, prosperous, and peaceful.
Stability and prosperity will indeed be more likelty to bring peace, but democracy is not a sufficient precursor (or, once could argue, even a necessary one).
In the middle east, it appears that finding peaceful ends to religious, ethnic, and tribal hatred is more important than holding democratic elections. If the elections result in governments that are more open and accountable, and most importantly give opportunity and voice to these countries' religious, ethnic, and tribal minorities, then we may see peaceful outcomes. But if democracy results in majorities or coalitions that oppress their minority populations, then who knows what the result will be. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3271
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 11:19 am: |
|
What democracy in the world has voted for their country to engage in international terrorism? |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 7923
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 11:23 am: |
|
Oh, and I forgot the Druise. 
|
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 754
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 11:33 am: |
|
cjc, no one said that any "democracy in the world has voted for their country to engage in international terrorism." I don't know where you got that from. Neither has a democracy in the world to go to war (as far as I know). We give those powers to those we elect. What I said was that democratically elected governments have sponsored terrorism.
Of course, if you refuse to believe that a democracy can engage in terrorism, then by definition, a democracy will not engage in terrorism. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3273
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 11:48 am: |
|
Rastro -- I'm not saying any country had voted for international terrorism -- either directly or via truly democratically elected officials. Doc questions the statement it's 'unlikely' that a country would vote for terrorism and to think they wouldn't is 'wishful thinking." So....I'm asking which country has voted for terrorism in the past. |
Phenixrising
Citizen
Username: Phenixrising
Post Number: 488
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 2:47 pm: |
|
It has nothing to do with installing a pro American government.
Guy,
Perhaps I shoud have worded my quote, "not friendly towards the US government ".
Regardless, Hezbollah will play a major part in Lebanon's government. The following is a intersting read:
Syria's exit may mean more power for Hezbollah
By SORAYA SARHADDI NELSON
BAALBEK, Lebanon - If Syrian forces leave Lebanon in the face of growing international and Lebanese pressure, the Islamic militant group Hezbollah - entrenched in this Bekaa Valley hamlet and across much of eastern and southern Lebanon - is ready to fill the military and political vacuum.
Should it succeed, the anti-Syrian democratic protests that have attracted so much international attention since opposition leader Rafik Hariri was assassinated Feb. 14 could prove stillborn. Instead of clearing the way for pro-Western democrats, Syria's withdrawal could bring to the fore a virulently anti-Western political force believed to be responsible for attacks on U.S. Marines and the American Embassy in Beirut and for kidnapping dozens of foreigners.
Hezbollah has matured from a guerrilla group during the civil war to a military and political powerhouse, patrolling the southern Lebanese skies with robot aircraft and representing the country's largest religious group, with 12 seats in the Parliament.
Community involvement may be the secret to Hezbollah's popular appeal. Hezbollah-funded hospitals and schools serve thousands of poor and underemployed Lebanese in the Shiite-dominated south and east.
Many Lebanese think that Hezbollah, commonly known as "the resistance," and its guerrilla tactics - rather than the army - are better suited to fighting their southern neighbor.
Hezbollah also has captured anti-American sentiment brought on by the U.S. presence in Lebanon during its civil war and more recent Bush administration policies in the Middle East.
Now the group has its eye on the general elections in May.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3276
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 8:57 pm: |
|
The Shia represent 1/3 of the population of Lebanon. It's very, very far from a slam dunk that Hezbollah will call all the shots. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 7926
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 4:51 am: |
|
Hesbollah has over 20,000 battle seasoned militia troops. If they are frozen out of a new government I doubt if they will go peacefully into the night. Iran will still finance them one way or another.
The Lebanese Army has about 70,000 troops. However, they were trained and led by the Syrians. I think the loyalty of their senior officers might be suspect.
Look I hope and pray that a democratic solution can be found. However, given a 15 year civil war in the recent past things are going to be very dicey. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3277
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 11:14 am: |
|
Well, the Syrian Fedeyeen have left Beirut per the wires today. Also, the coalition that is the opposition has been described as a war lord, a president who fought the war lord, and a militant once in jail that fought against the first two. This in addition to religious leaders and other individuals. It's a very diverse group here united to get their country back.
As with Iraq (where a clear majority think the country is on the right path in a recent IRI poll), I'm very optimistic about all this.
And the thread title is so wrong and hoping for disaster that it's laughable. |
Phenixrising
Citizen
Username: Phenixrising
Post Number: 490
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 12:37 pm: |
|
And the thread title is so wrong and hoping for disaster that it's laughable.
cjc,
You continue allude to "words" that are not there. Do you actually read through these threads? Perhaps reading comprehension is a challenge for you? As indicated below, several times you had to be corrected.
cjc, no one said that any "democracy in the world has voted for their country to engage in international terrorism." I don't know where you got that from.
cjc: That's not what Benvenisti is saying at all.
Cjc, Haaretz is further left than the NYT.
Nobody's hoping for the disaster in this thread till YOU brought it up. The title doesn't indicate this either.
Lebanon's March to Democracy Turns Pro Syrian, Anti US.
Hmmm…don't see anything about disaster, just folks freedom of expression and the right to protest.
With demonstrations on BOTH side of the spectrum, I'm sure the Lebanonese people would rather have a peaceful solution to the direction of their government. Others indicate that Hezbollah (whether we like it or not) will play a role in this government. I'm sure they would prefer to avoid another civil war.
Laughable huh?
Whether I agree or not, I thought the discussion was rather interesting seeing it from BOTH sides (right & left). |
Dave
Citizen
Username: Dave
Post Number: 5610
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 1:21 pm: |
|
Panoramic view of the recent protest. Nearly 1/5th of the population showed up, I think.
http://www.panoramas.dk/fullscreen5/f11-lebanon.html |
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 597
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 1:28 pm: |
|
Dave, a more detailed view.
 |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3283
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 1:39 pm: |
|
Phenixrising -- OK. The other reporters and op-ed writers on the right and left who have chronicled the despair and demise of the Left on this issue of spreading democracy must be talking about people other than you who jump on any bad news. You just seem to fit that mold. |
Phenixrising
Citizen
Username: Phenixrising
Post Number: 491
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 1:47 pm: |
|
And what mold is that? |
Heybub
Citizen
Username: Heybub
Post Number: 394
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 2:46 pm: |
|
Great Picture. Hezbollah rallies have too many men. |
Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 285
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 10:21 am: |
|
The NY Times reported after the big Hezbollah demonstration that the Bush admin was preparing to deal with Hezbollah as a political entity. This was quickly denied by Secretary Rice, but Bush's latest statements describing Hezbollah as terrorist but leaving the door open if they give up their weapons, seems to indicate that the Times was right.
The same policy needs to be pursued in Iraq -- opening up talks with the Baathist insurgents (not the Al Qaeda-related groups) and negotiating a stake for them in the future Iraq.
Such talks could only work in the context of an exit strategy by the US in which we would make clear and specific our commitment to end the occupation of Iraq.
But the Bush administration is moving in the opposite direction -- actually building at least 10 permanent military bases in Iraq and putting in place a program to privatize Iraq's oil, making it available to foreign oil companies.
And given the administration's agenda, it has no incentive to bring in the Baathists to end the civil war. Because if the civil war ends there is no justification left at all for continued US military presence and occupation in Iraq.
I understand that what I've said here is an over-simplification and it minimizes the difficulties in bringing the Iraqi factions together -- even with the best intentions.
But I think the question of a vested interest by the Bush administration in a continued insurgency -- perhaps on a smaller scale -- needs to be seriously considered.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3295
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 11:26 am: |
|
Please back up assertions on permanent military bases occupied by US forces forever, oil privatization plans that will be forced upon the elected government of Iraq, and most of all the civil war you say is going on.
Saying the US needs a civil war and wants it to continue so we can stay there has put you over the edge into wacko-dom. |
Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 287
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 2:46 pm: |
|
CJC: Two years ago I posted a WSJ report on a Treasurey Department study on the privatization of the Iraqi economy -- prepared before the invasion. If you look in the archives, I'm sure you can find it.
Here's an updated cit on the US privatization program for Iraq
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1224-05.htm
And here's a cit on the building of permanent military bases in Iraq:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0119-23.htm
You seem to be questioning whether there's a civil war in Iraq. I thought that was something that is not controversial.
I'll respond to your other point about whether it's "wacko" to suggest that the Bush administration has an incentive to encourage a civil war later. I've got to catch a train back to Maplewood. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1107
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 4:00 pm: |
|
Someone please explain to me again why we (or Israel) should expect only peace and tranquility from democratically elected governments:
quote:Ukraine has acknowledged exporting to Iran 12 cruise missiles capable of reaching Israel amid mounting pressure from other countries to explain how the sales occurred, the Financial Times reported on Friday. Ukraine also exported six missiles to China.
It quoted Ukraine's prosecutor general Svyatoslav Piskun as saying 18 X-55 cruise missiles, also known as Kh-55s or AS-15s, were exported in 2001, although none was exported with the nuclear warheads they were designed to carry.
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/553951.html
While this is admittedly not "state sponsored terrorism," it's not something we should feel good about, either. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 7952
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 5:26 pm: |
|
Cjc, I don't know if you call it a civil war or an insurgency, however, a lot of Iraqis are being killed and maimed on a daily basis.
There was an interesting article about militant Islamists killing barbers for God's sake for giving western style haircuts.
Guy, I wonder what she will look like in a Burkha after the elections? |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3299
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 10:35 pm: |
|
We know what civil wars look like. We had one, the Balkans have had one at various paces. This is not what's happening in Iraq. The assertion that a civil war is going on not being controversial? To whom, other than those who wish it were so (and that's quite a group when you look at the membership!)?
I saw the privatization article. I perhaps wrongly took it to mean privatization in terms of Iraq giving complete control over it's oil industry to the US. In fact, Iraq will have to depend on outside investment -- and a return on that investment -- to fully realize the potential from oil in that country as the Saudis do to this day, be it from the US, France, Russia or any combination. Mexico is facing a problem where the state oil industry cannot fully realize their potential because outside participation is prohibited by law. Allowing outside investment doesn't necessarily mean outright control by foreign governments.
The article by objectivists at The Nation on permanent US bases isn't convincing at all. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page