Should we encourage democracies for Muslim countries?

[Spy_007]

I got nothing against them being democratic, probably
a good thing. At the same time, I don't think we should
lift a finger to help them, because they stab us in the
back every time. I really have nothing against Syria
killing their citizens by the thousands. It is an internal
problem. If we helped them, they would still elect
a government that gave us the finger. Some things
never change. Muslims killing Muslims is one of those.
Stand back and observe, don't get into the fray as
we did in Egypt.

[Whatssnew]

the question is not always weather the system makes sense. For example, Socialism can work, it just requires a mentality that is very uncharacteristic of human history to date...it just wont work with humans effectively. I just suggested human nature is very important. To that effect let us consider that thousands of years of far above norm levels of inbreeding has occurred in the Middle East. Any good scientist would recognize regardless of political opinions that such activities, regardless of frequency will have different results, varying in scale from one race to the next. In short, how the brains of people of primarily Middle Eastern decent works may be different, and racist comments aside, it should be researched/studied. For example, one breed of dog may not be physically very different from another...other than a few minor differences, but mentally they can be wildly different. There is no reason to just dismiss without through investigation of this possibility. Reason being that what may work in other nations just may not work as well, or at all in the Middle East.

Also to consider, culture is something that just doesn't change over night. Just as you can't expect Americans to just accept a Dictatorship, you can't expect all Middle Eastern's to accept Democracy.

Lastly, a Democracy won't work in certain conditions (I suspect.) I think it will have real problems where it is not beloved by its people, where the people are unaccustomed to holding their leaders responsible, and in nations that have very few people over vast expanses...I think communication, transportation, and a general feeling of unity are very important factors to a Democracy, or Republic.

[Dan74]

Good thing human nature can change.

[Yarn]

Human nature can't change, not unless you are advocating genetic engineering. Nurture on the otherhand can change, but there are limits to what it can accomplish and will accomplish.

I think the Middle East's problems have much more to do with religion than with genes. Then again, besides Europe and the US, pretty much the entire rest of the world was pretty fucked up until the Cold War ended. It still sorta is, some places more than others, and Africa, not the Middle East, is the worst. And they aren't all muslims. Other things you could blame are imperialism, communism, and anti-communism keeping most of the rest of the world pretty unstable, corruptly manipulated, and irrational till pretty recently. All of these things justified anti-Democratic, and quite often economically crippling foreign intervention. Rampant protectionism also fucked things up. Especially in India.

[The Decider]

The Israel/Hamas scenario was just an example of a country being in a situation where it was clear a hostile regime was going to come to power. I would argue, in that case, it made complete sense for Israel to try to install a friendly dictatorship over Gaza, rather then a democratically elected Hamas. Even if you disagree on some principle ground, the practically of such a decision, cannot be denied, right?

What Palestinian would cooperate with a "friendly dictatorship" propped up by Israel? By forcibly installing an alien puppet regime Israel would only delay the inevitable--and make it infinitely worse.

Do you recall the Shah of Iran, America and Britain's forcibly installed dictator in Iran? You might like him but the vast majority of Iranians did not. The Shah was so universally hated that bitter enemies across the religious/political spectrum formed alliances to overturn him. We got the Ayatollah as a result. Had democracy run its course in Iran, and the insanely anti-communist Americans not helped to overthrow a moderate leader like Mossadegh in 1953, we might see a very, very different Iran today. But we had to install our "friendly dictator" and turn an entire nation against the US for at least two generations. What Muslim fanatic wouldn't love that scenario?

I would argue that Israel is better off with Hamas in power rather than a hated puppet regime. It forces Hamas to actually govern something and not just fight wars as outsiders. Hamas can't govern by constantly going to war with Israel and moderate Palestinians as it has for much of the last 30 years. It has roads to repair, bridges to build, social services to provide, payrolls to meet, and internal squabbles to settle. They must produce results for average Palestinians or risk losing power to the moderate factions.

Because it was an example of a hostile regime coming to power, largely due to democratic means. If we could of abolished Germany's democracy, and replaced it with a pro-western dictatorship, surely that would of been preferably then what followed under Hitler's regime - a ruler that had popular support.

You keep getting Nazi history wrong. Hitler never gained power democratically--even "largely" democratically. Never. He used back room deals with Hindenburg and street thuggery to drive a wedge between the socialists/communists and monied elites. Ironically, America did nothing as the pro democratic communists/socialists got their asses beat in the streets of Munich and Berlin and Frankfurt. Rather than support a "pro Western dictatorship," we should have supported the supporters of democracy against Hitler! But then they were commies and socialists (and Jews) and Hitler, while a nasty little fellow, seemed more amenable in his non-democratic brutality than his opponents.

[Whatssnew]

Human nature can't change, not unless you are advocating genetic engineering. Nurture on the otherhand can change, but there are limits to what it can accomplish and will accomplish.

I think the Middle East's problems have much more to do with religion than with genes. Then again, besides Europe and the US, pretty much the entire rest of the world was pretty fucked up until the Cold War ended. It still sorta is, some places more than others, and Africa, not the Middle East, is the worst. And they aren't all muslims. Other things you could blame are imperialism, communism, and anti-communism keeping most of the rest of the world pretty unstable, corruptly manipulated, and irrational till pretty recently. All of these things justified anti-Democratic, and quite often economically crippling foreign intervention. Rampant protectionism also fucked things up. Especially in India.

Since when in history are all nations equal in developments, we are just more advanced, given time, they too will accomplish what we have as of yet. However, Adolf Obama certainly dealt several countries a serious set back by virtually handing over power to the terrorist organization known as the Muslim Brotherhood, all the while hiding behind the guise that it was all in the name of freedom.

[Senor Hoint]

Since when in history are all nations equal in developments, we are just more advanced, given time, they too will accomplish what we have as of yet.

The assumption that the nation-state is somehow a "normal" polity is highly flawed, as is the assumption that human societies progress down a single linear path.

You keep getting Nazi history wrong. Hitler never gained power democratically--even "largely" democratically. Never. He used back room deals with Hindenburg and street thuggery to drive a wedge between the socialists/communists and monied elites. Ironically, America did nothing as the pro democratic communists/socialists got their asses beat in the streets of Munich and Berlin and Frankfurt. Rather than support a "pro Western dictatorship," we should have supported the supporters of democracy against Hitler! But then they were commies and socialists (and Jews) and Hitler, while a nasty little fellow, seemed more amenable in his non-democratic brutality than his opponents.

Correct. The Nazi Party never won a majority in the Reichstag and Hitler never won an election. Actually, since the Weimar Republic didn't popularly elect the head executive of the government (chancellor or president) the question of whether Hitler won an election only proves the ignorance of those who bring it up.

[The Decider]

Since when in history are all nations equal in developments, we are just more advanced, given time, they too will accomplish what we have as of yet.

Accomplish what? Massive environmental degradation? An immoral love of consumerism? Preaching democracy for ourselves and "friendly dictatorships" for others? Sharia and all that aside, I don't blame people in the Middle East or other developing regions from questioning the "benefits" of unrestrained capitalism in the "more advanced" world.

Adolf Obama certainly dealt several countries a serious set back by virtually handing over power to the terrorist organization known as the Muslim Brotherhood, all the while hiding behind the guise that it was all in the name of freedom.

OK, how exactly is Obama akin to Hitler and how did he engineer the Egyptian election to favor the MB? Explain please.

[Dan74]

Since when in history are all nations equal in developments, we are just more advanced, given time, they too will accomplish what we have as of yet. However, Adolf Obama certainly dealt several countries a serious set back by virtually handing over power to the terrorist organization known as the Muslim Brotherhood, all the while hiding behind the guise that it was all in the name of freedom.

Stop saying "Adolf Obama". It's embarrassing.

[Darklordabc]

What Palestinian would cooperate with a "friendly dictatorship" propped up by Israel? By forcibly installing an alien puppet regime Israel would only delay the inevitable--and make it infinitely worse.
Do you recall the Shah of Iran, America and Britain's forcibly installed dictator in Iran? You might like him but the vast majority of Iranians did not.

Thats the genius of a dictator, she does not need popular support

Had democracy run its course in Iran, and the insanely anti-communist Americans not helped to overthrow a moderate leader like Mossadegh in 1953, we might see a very, very different Iran today. But we had to install our "friendly dictator" and turn an entire nation against the US for at least two generations. What Muslim fanatic wouldn't love that scenario?

Or Iran could off become a communist state, we will never know. Installing a dictator in Egypt or some other Muslim country COULD backfire, but then again, allowing an extreme population to elect extreme leaders, is definitely going to be bad for us, at least in the short term. I don't think letting these countries become democracies will necessary help our popularity in that part of the world, but it will definitely give the ability for those people to inflict their hatreds.

You keep getting Nazi history wrong. Hitler never gained power democratically--even "largely" democratically. Never. He used back room deals with Hindenburg and street thuggery to drive a wedge between the socialists/communists and monied elites. Ironically, America did nothing as the pro democratic communists/socialists got their asses beat in the streets of Munich and Berlin and Frankfurt. Rather than support a "pro Western dictatorship," we should have supported the supporters of democracy against Hitler! But then they were commies and socialists (and Jews) and Hitler, while a nasty little fellow, seemed more amenable in his non-democratic brutality than his opponents.

But how did Hitler ever get into a position to leverage back room deals? Obviously he must of had considerably popular support. Somebody who receives 1% of the vote, cant make a back-room deal with anyone. It was the democratic system that assisted Hitler coming to power, and in retrospect, it would of been much better for the allies to perform an Iranian style coup and overthrow Germany's democratic system. Which was my only point to begin with.

Rather than support a "pro Western dictatorship," we should have supported the supporters of democracy against Hitler!

That is not as effective as a coup. The principles of democracy makes outside influence, difficult. For example. do you think any amount of outside influence could of got a non-Islamic politician elected in Egypt? Or a Jew elected in Pakistan? If outside pressure was as effective as a coup, then coup's would never happen.
I only used Israel and Germany as examples to illustrate the principle that sometimes democracy is undesirable. They are not perfect examples and I'm sure there is better, less contested examples I could of found, but I don't think the debate is really about specifics of either of those countries.

The debate is about; are we going to support democracy foolhardily, ignoring the sometimes extremely likely negative consequences? My position is that, we should be very careful about supporting democracies for populations that generally have views hostile to us and our interests.

[Yarn]

However, Adolf Obama certainly dealt several countries a serious set back by virtually handing over power to the terrorist organization known as the Muslim Brotherhood, all the while hiding behind the guise that it was all in the name of freedom.

The Muslim Brotherhood hasn't been handed over power anywhere. They won the elections in Egypt, but the army dissolved parliament and took over its powers. Obama's role in Egyptian affairs has been trivial; the army isn't doing what he is telling them to do.

Our airforce played an essential role in liberation of Libya, so you can blaim Obama for the fact that we replaced a terrorist dictator with a grateful democracy. But the Brotherhood didn't win the elections in Libya, secular liberals did.

Obama has absolutely nothing to do with Tunisa. The Brotherhood didn't win there, but some other variant of moderate Islamists did. Nothing horrible happened as a result of that even though that government has had power for over a year now.

[truthreality]

The Israel/Hamas scenario was just an example of a country being in a situation where it was clear a hostile regime was going to come to power. I would argue, in that case, it made complete sense for Israel to try to install a friendly dictatorship over Gaza, rather then a democratically elected Hamas. Even if you disagree on some principle ground, the practically of such a decision, cannot be denied, right?

Yes.

I agree with all of that. However, its not addressing the hypothetical. And we must not fool ourselves; large majorities of Muslims in the Middle East want Sharia law, and other things we would consider extreme. Yes we should try to effect them for the better, but lets not pretend we are going to easily be able to change people's core beliefs. And until they change, we are still left with the question, of trying to grant democracy to, as of yet, religiously traditional people, or promoting a cooperative, if brutal, tyrant.

The topic you brought up is whether or not we should encourage Democracy in Muslim countries, not whether or not Islam and Democracy are compatible. There is a different. Whether or not Islam remains the primary religion in the Middle East is irrelevant as to whether or not we should encourage Democracy. If you disagree that Islam and Democracy are compatible then by promoting Democracy in the Middle East we are also promoting secularism. Christianity was once like Islam is now but Christianity was forced to adapt the secular values. Islam should be forced to do the same if their fundamental beliefs are harmful to society.

Because it was an example of a hostile regime coming to power, largely due to democratic means. If we could of abolished Germany's democracy, and replaced it with a pro-western dictatorship, surely that would of been preferably then what followed under Hitler's regime - a ruler that had popular support.

Nazi Germany was not a Democracy.

Yes I know this, but the question is, do we want them to say undemocratic?

Do we want them to remain backwards? The answer is no so we should encourage Democracy.

Heres a purely hypothetical, say you live in Nation X, and Nation B is a dictatorship which is friendly towards your Nation. Opinion polls of Nation B show that 97% of their population, wants to destroy your nation and kill all your citizens. Furthermore, Nation B is having a civil war between the friendly dictator, and the population (which 97% wish to kill you). Do you side with the dictator and side against democracy. Or do you try to promote democracy for people, who if ever came to power, would declare war and try to genocide you and your family?

I would side against Dictatorship and for Democracy.

Obviously thats an extreme example, but it clearly shows that sometimes we should go against democracy, and arguably, less harsh versions of that scenario are taking place in the world today.

No. We should not go against Democracy. We should go against the true evil.