"The claim that democracy is on the march in the Middle East is a fraud."

[LynnTheDem]

Yes, that's one of those "no shit, Sherlock" remarks, but we need more of them. REALITY and TRUTH are the enemies in bushWorld; constant repetition is the only way American Idiots will ever Get It.

It is not democracy that's on the march in the Middle East

"The claim that democracy is on the march in the Middle East is a fraud. It is not democracy, but the US military, that is on the march… What has actually taken place since 9/11 and the Iraq war is a relentless expansion of US control of the Middle East, of which the threats to Syria are a part.

The Americans now have a military presence in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman and Qatar -- and in not one of those countries did an elected government invite them in.

Of course Arabs want an end to tyrannical regimes, most of which have been supported over the years by the US, Britain and France: that is the source of much anti-western Muslim anger. The dictators remain in place by US licence, which can be revoked at any time -- and managed elections are being used as another mechanism for maintaining pro-western regimes rather than spreading democracy."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1434183,00.html

Well, those "managed elections" in Iraq aren't anything new, either. The UK did the same thing during their first Iraq occupation attempt;

Britain tinkered with elections in the new state of Iraq to set up and control Feisal (Hussein's son) as ruler; Britain set up Abdullah (Hussein's other son) in Jordan; ibn Saud, who kept causing problems with Abdullah, was given Saudia Arabia; and Britain managed to mollify France by parceling out Syria and Lebanon.
http://www.garretwilson.com/books/peaceendallpeace.html

Iraqis have lived this lie before

Haifa Zangana writes: "In Iraq we don't just read history at school - we carry it within ourselves. It's no wonder, then, that we view what is happening in Iraq now of "liberation-mandate-nominal sovereignty" as a replay of what took place in the 1920s and afterwards. On April 28 1920, Britain was awarded a mandate over Iraq by the League of Nations to legitimise its occupation of the country. A decision was taken to replace the occupation with a provisional Iraqi government, assisted by British advisers under the authority of the high commissioner of Iraq.

Any protest against the British-imposed monarchy was regarded as the work of "extremists". The British retained their power, through military bases, advisers and control of oil. oppressive regime...Elections were managed, corruption was widespread, bombing and military force was used against popular uprisings, chemical weapons were used against the Kurds."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1249508,00.html

At the very least, there can be little question that the Iraq invasion and occupation has destabilized the region (as the neocons, who had long assumed that chaos would be their ally, hoped it would). But the Bush administration must know that genuinely free elections in its various client and allied states would likely sweep Islamic parties, including in some places the Muslim Brotherhood, into power. Not exactly a dream for them.

So, in Iraq, they created a "democracy" so weak (a gridlock-inducing two-thirds vote is needed in the new National Assembly even to form a government) that it would be unlikely to rule successfully over anything; (IMAGINE having a 2-3rds vote required in the USA for a President! :wow:) while no administration official spoke up when Tunisia's military strongman, in another U.S.-allied regime, won re-election with 94.5% of the vote (a total that might have made Saddam Hussein proud).

A must-read:

Playing the Democracy Card
How America Furthers Its National Interests in the Middle East

The United States flaunts the banner of democracy in the Middle East only when that advances its economic, military, or strategic interests. The history of the past six decades shows that whenever there has been conflict between furthering democracy in the region and advancing American national interests, U.S. administrations have invariably opted for the latter course. Furthermore, when free and fair elections in the Middle East have produced results that run contrary to Washington's strategic interests, it has either ignored them or tried to block the recurrence of such events.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2005/03/democracy_card.html

...behind the rhetoric, Bush’s vision of exporting democracy to the Middle East and other parts of the world falls way short of the very same democracy standard America routinely employs to dismiss election results, castigate despots, and put states on notice.
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/13683/

A day that will live in infamy

Coming on top of the Bush administration's lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al Qaeda terrorists, the claim that the US conquest of Iraq is an exercise in democratization that has provided inspiration for people throughout the region is the most grotesque deception of all.
http://www.dawn.com/2005/03/20/int11.htm

[Karenina]

1. Hmmm...

:kick:

[ck4829]

2. Definitions of Freedom

To the Average Person 'freedom' means Democracy and Equality.

To the Neo-Con 'freedom' means access to oil.

To Bush 'freedom' means that he is free from all of those people asking him 'tough' questions.

[rucky]

3. kicked & nominated n/t

[LibertyorDeath]

4. yeah that march is a goose step

[beardown]

5. Expensive march too

The regressives often say that overthrowing an oppressive government and having democratic elections would serve to prime the pump of democracy in the Middle East which is why it's worth thousands of soldiers' lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. What they overlook is we already had conquered an oppressive nation and held democratic elections...Afghanistan.
If the Middle East was just waiting for a lynch pin conquest to bust out with democracy, then why didn't we just do the job right in Afghanistan where they did have strong ties to terrorists and we could do it without the thousands of deaths and hundreds of billions of dollars of cost?
The regressives have elevated grabbing at straws into an Olympic event.

[LynnTheDem]

6. Two words; TURKEY...ISRAEL.

They're "darn good democracies", as bush calls them, and they've both been around for a few years. How come THEY haven't been that lynch pin?