[sanity assassin]

ush demands Mid-East democracy


President George W Bush has deplored the "freedom deficit" in the Middle East and said the United States must remain focused on the region "for decades".

"Our commitment to democracy is being tested in the Middle East," he said in a televised Washington speech in defence of US democracy.

Mr Bush said dictators in Iraq and Syria had "left a legacy of torture, oppression, misery and ruin".

Turning to Iran, he warned that "the regime in Tehran must heed the democratic demands of the Iranian people, or lose its last claim to legitimacy".

But some governments in the region were "beginning to see the need for change", he said, citing Morocco, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman and Yemen.



" Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe "
President Bush




He also stressed that "Islam is consistent with democratic rule" in his speech to the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington.

He said that to say Islam and democracy were incompatible was "cultural condescension".

The BBC's Rob Watson in Washington says the speech may come to be seen as a defining moment in the Bush presidency.

Mr Bush compared his drive for global democracy with the legacy of his Republican predecessor Ronald Reagan, whose tough stance against communism helped democracy to take root in Eastern Europe in the 1980s.

Creating a free Iraq

The lack of freedom in many Middle Eastern countries today had terrible consequences for the peoples of those countries, he said, blaming it for poverty and the oppression of women.



HAVE YOUR SAY
" The West has no business trying to inflict democracy on other peoples and cultures "
Jim Jensen, Philippines


"Iraqi democracy will succeed, and that success will send forth the news, from Damascus to Tehran, that freedom can be the future of every nation," he said.

"The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution."

He warned that it would be reckless to accept the status quo, so the US had adopted a new "forward" strategy in the Middle East.

"The good and capable people of the Middle East all deserve responsible leadership," he said.

"For too long, many people in that region have been victims and subjects. They deserve to be active citizens."

Democratic first steps?

Mr Bush warned that if freedom remained stifled in the Middle East the region would remain "a place of stagnation, resentment and violence ready for export".

He praised efforts by some governments in the region, but singled out others for words of warning or encouragement.


Egypt: "Has shown the way toward peace in the Middle East, and now should show the way toward democracy in the Middle East"

Iran: "The regime must heed the democratic demands of the Iranian people, or lose its last claim to legitimacy"

Iraq and Syria: Dictators "left a legacy of torture, oppression, misery, and ruin"

Jordan: "Held historic elections this summer"

Kuwait: "Has a directly elected national assembly"

Palestinians: "Palestinian leaders who block and undermine democratic reform, and feed hatred and encourage violence are not leaders at all. They're the main obstacles to peace..."

Saudi Arabia: "The government is taking first steps toward reform, including a plan for gradual introduction of elections"

Yemen: "Has a multi-party political system"


Outside the Middle East, he also said the American commitment to democracy was being tested "in countries like Cuba, Burma, North Korea and Zimbabwe".

And he said China now had just "a sliver, a fragment of liberty".

[eklipse]

There is no democracy in the middle-east and that's exactly the way Bush likes it and wants to keep it. If true democracy came to any Arab country, one would expect the opinions of the Arab street to become evident in the attitude and policies of that country's government - which, in a nutshell, means bad news for the US and Israel.

When Bush talks about 'democracy' in the middle-east, he really means more 'US-subservient regimes' similar to that of Jordan.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by eklipse:
There is no democracy in the middle-east and that's exactly the way Bush likes it and wants to keep it. If true democracy came to any Arab country, one would expect the opinions of the Arab street to become evident in the attitude and policies of that country's government - which, in a nutshell, means bad news for the US and Israel.

When Bush talks about 'democracy' in the middle-east, he really means more 'US-subservient regimes' similar to that of Jordan.

The Repugs are screwing democracy in the US, the EU is screwing democracy in Europe. I think we have to sort out our own house first.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
The Repugs are screwing democracy in the US, the EU is screwing democracy in Europe. I think we have to sort out our own house first.

Good idea.

[Lerkfish]

prong three. reshape the middle east.

man, its a burden to be right all of the time.

Lerk: How would the neocons achieve their goals?

I envision a three prong approach...

prong one: control all three branches of the government, and the intel community. Rumsfeld has already created his "CIA within the CIA" group, and the office of Homeland Security puts everything under the purview of Tom Ridge. More and more power controlled by less and less people.

prong two: quell with extreme prejudice the rights of citizens to protest by removing their access to due process, paving the road for political prisoners, like there used to be in South Africa. Sure, now its "suspected" terrorists, but how long until its anyone who disagrees with the administration? without access to legal counsel, the outside world and being held indefinitely and executed without trial, the US will have the ability to "disappear" citizens who are vocally antiadministration, and there won't be any way to prevent it since it will all be done in secret, with no protections.

prong three: rubber stamp the middle east, and then the world, in the US image. with prongs one and two in place, prong three will proceed without interference.

I know I'm extrapolating a bit, but you have to admit, everything is heading in this direction.

now, how will we know this plan is in place, or working in the coming days?

--elimination of civil liberties, weakening the ability of the citizens to stop the juggernaut
-- reshaping of the present character of the checks and balances system (like trying to stop filibustering), in such a way to advantage the executive branch over the other branches.
-- More and more "disappeared" people, along with executions in Guantanamo.
--

Also look for:
-- scenario: Bush loses the popular vote, again, and wins the electoral vote, but the chasm is wider, making it obvious the electoral college has been manipulated.
-- the rescinding of the two term presidency.
-- the permanence of US bases in Iraq as a base of operations, with the dropping of the MOAB on Syria or Iran, to "make a strong case" for submission to the US.

[macvillage.net]

Bush doesn't want Democracy in the region. Only western friendly government.

Democracy would give some people power... and people remember the crap the US has done in the region (the regimes we funded, the bombs we bought for militants, those we trained).

yea... that would keep oil prices down.

Bush wants leaders without balls. Ones that will bend over for some American spooning at his will.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Bush doesn't want Democracy in the region. Only western friendly government.

Democracy would give some people power... and people remember the crap the US has done in the region (the regimes we funded, the bombs we bought for militants, those we trained).

yea... that would keep oil prices down.

Bush wants leaders without balls. Ones that will bend over for some American spooning at his will.

yup. that about sums it up.

[theolein]

The reasons Bush is once again yapping away on Democracy™ are varied but have a lot to do with a certain date in November, 2004. I think it's a rather facile attempt to glorify the bloody mess that is Iraq and turn it into a victory and a mission so that the daily deaths don't look so bad in the press. His comments on American commitment for decades makes that obvious.

And Mr. Bush, if by some strange coincidence you are reading this, I would just like to take the opportunity to tell you that it is a rare nation that likes to be told how it should run it's affairs. Forcing democracy down the throats of countries that have no democratic traditions is not going to be easy, nor is it going to make America many friends. This statement will save me from having to tell you "I told you so" after you have invaded your next random country and are once again puzzled in your own inimmitable simian manner why all those hordes of people are so willing to blow themselves up when anything American crosses their path. Not that you yourself were actually brave enough to face the enemy when you had a chance back in the early 70's, the last time the USA got itself mixed up in an occupation and messy war of resistance.

Sadly, Mr. Bush, I am not elligible to vote for or against you, but if I was, be assured that I would love to see that door wacking you in the butt on your way out of the white house.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Bush doesn't want Democracy in the region. Only western friendly government.

Democracy would give some people power... and people remember the crap the US has done in the region (the regimes we funded, the bombs we bought for militants, those we trained).

yea... that would keep oil prices down.

Bush wants leaders without balls. Ones that will bend over for some American spooning at his will.

Which is precisely what the West's policies towards the Energy Producing Regions have always been.

I keep waiting for everyone who is touting the peleocons "bold, new, Idealist" strategy towards the region to recognize the simple truth that its the "same, old, colonial, realpolitik" strategy with a fresh paint job.

As long as our way of life depends on economic exploitation of the region's resources, nothing fundamental will change in our policies. The political, social and economic aspirations of the region's inhabitants will always be second to maintaining our exploitation. We've done through brutal colonialism. We've done through proxy dictators. Now we're doing it with sham-"democracy".

Notice that all of the fundemental economic foundations of the New Iraq are being set in stone long before the first election. You think the decision to sell Iraq's 192 publically owned industries to foreigners would have happened by popular vote?

[mr. natural]

Here's what Richard Pipes, former National Security Council advisor with Reagan in 1981-83, has to say about Bush's notions for Middle East democracy:

"I think the war was correct -- destroying this invasive evil. But beyond this I think they're too ambitious," he says.

He bluntly dismisses the promise of a democratic Iraq -- "impossible, a fantasy" -- citing obstacles similar to Russia's. "Democracy requires, among other things, individualism -- the breakdown of old clannish, tribal organizations, the individual standing face-to-face with the state. You don't have that in the Middle East. Iraq is tribally run."

What about the constitution soon to be written in Baghdad? Pipes laughs. "Stalin had a wonderful constitution, the most perfect constitution in the world. There's a lot of naivete in that. I should think we'd be satisfied with some kind of stability, preventing Saddam Hussein from coming back. It's fantastic that we haven't caught this man. He sits there somewhere."

And about Paul Wolfowitz, one of the instigators of this Middle East pipe dream (but also someone whom Pipes hired as a Defense Dept. analyst back in the mid-seventies), he says:

"Paul didn't have much education in history," Pipes says. "It's not his field. He was educated as a military specialist, a nuclear weapons specialist. Like most scientists, he doesn't have a particular understanding of other cultures."

Me. I'll believe it when I see it.

[sanity assassin]

I find it hard to take in Bush's words on Islam and Democrasy, I don;t know about you, but I wouldn't really turn to him as a spokesperson on this. It reeks of re-mouloding cultrues to the benefit of the US' domestic, and foreign needs.

[Powerbook]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
..., the EU is screwing democracy in Europe. ...

What do you mean? The lastest incidents in Russia?


PB.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Bush doesn't want Democracy in the region. Only western friendly government.

Democracy would give some people power... and people remember the crap the US has done in the region (the regimes we funded, the bombs we bought for militants, those we trained).

yea... that would keep oil prices down.

Bush wants leaders without balls. Ones that will bend over for some American spooning at his will.

Statistically the US gets only a small percentage of it's oil from the ME (even less so with more domestic drilling planned). I'd be overjoyed if we got ALL of our oil domestically or from other sources. Then we could let the ME deal with all of it's own problems. Maybe they'd just "jihad" all over themselves and be done with it.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Statistically the US gets only a small percentage of it's oil from the ME

do you covet what you already have, or what you don't have yet?
Saying we don't get much of our oil at present from the ME is hardly a good argument that the war was NOT about oil...in fact, it tends more to prove the opposite.

[sanity assassin]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
do you covet what you already have, or what you don't have yet?
Saying we don't get much of our oil at present from the ME is hardly a good argument that the war was NOT about oil...in fact, it tends more to prove the opposite.

True. Buckminsiter-Fuller have written about the formation of nation states, and the Biritsh Empire form the days of sea-faring pirates. One thing of note, is that Western Gov. do not always look to the short term, the here and now; decisions on their national interests are based on projections on 10, to 20, to 50 yearrs in the future, and how the world might be then, and what to do about it now.

For example, let's say the US wanted Iraq's oil, now, they would have planned a series of events, and projections, and set out for these to happen so that the natural law of thigns would work in their favour.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
do you covet what you already have, or what you don't have yet?
Saying we don't get much of our oil at present from the ME is hardly a good argument that the war was NOT about oil...in fact, it tends more to prove the opposite.

I'm just looking forward to when we don't get ANY oil from that region. Any fool can see that oil was at least some part of the equation. Though, I do think that part of it was for "humanitarian reasons" and to remove terrorist threats. It's not nearly so black and white as some would have people believe.

I still advocate everyone in the world turning a blind eye to the politics in the region and let THEM sort it all out. Their issues regarding their governments is their business. It would all sort itself out in 5-10 years... more than likely there'd be a big blue star floating over the whole area by then.

[Troll]

"Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe "
President Bush

And sixty years of military operations in the Occupied Territories made Israel safe?? Maybe Bush needs to go back a little further. What he is proposing to do is precisely what has been tried there and failed. In fact, one might very well argue that the Middle East is in the sh1tter precisely because the Western World tried to ram its version of the good life down Arab throats. He's going around saying that he will ignore sovereignty and change regimes that he thinks are not good and then he wonders why the rest of the world considers the US to be in the top three of dangers to international peace. What "freedom" is there in having someone else decide how your society should be structured? In the words of Nelson Mandela, "Bush doesn't think straight."

P.S. to Theo both for the post and for quoting Rodriquez. Some music promoter found him pumping gas in Detroit and took him on a world tour a few years ago. Amazing that a guy that talented could wind up on his arse. Too much Sugarman I guess! I caught a concert and found him well beyond his prime, but Just Jinger did do a very nice version of Sugarman which I've seen floating around on p2p.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Statistically the US gets only a small percentage of it's oil from the ME (even less so with more domestic drilling planned). I'd be overjoyed if we got ALL of our oil domestically or from other sources. Then we could let the ME deal with all of it's own problems. Maybe they'd just "jihad" all over themselves and be done with it.

Statistically it would be cheaper to get from the ME.

Hence the motive.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Statistically the US gets only a small percentage of it's oil from the ME

What about in 10 years?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
What about in 10 years?

It'll be more then, Israel will be selling it to us.