democracy vs communism in the middle east

[voltron]

Do you think we would be better off alowing these middle eastern countries to remain a communist dictatorship and just simply keeping there leaders happy with money.

 

[FA_Q2]

Why should we keep their dictators happy with money at all. Letting them remain as they are (not really our decision anyway) has nothing to do with aid to those countries. Aid is usually given to secure something that we want in return. Trade, Intel or something specific ect.

I would say that we have no real power over there anyway to change those governments. Those people are going to establish the government they want. Our involvement really does not change much in that regard. We should work with those governments insofar as it is parallel with our own interests. That does not mean seeding more aid to them. Aid should virtually cease, I don’t see much of a return on most foreign aid that is sent overseas anyway. Such things should be limited to actual allies.

Those governments that act as our enemies should be treated as such.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I would say that we have no real power over there anyway to change those governments.

We should have huge power given that the USA is the most successful and most powerful country in human history. But, we really have little influence because liberals hate America and so dilute its message and influence.

 

[voltron]

with democracy i think it becomes easier for terroist groups to meet and organize in there countries.

 

[daphillenium]

Why should we keep their dictators happy with money at all. Letting them remain as they are (not really our decision anyway) has nothing to do with aid to those countries. Aid is usually given to secure something that we want in return. Trade, Intel or something specific ect.

I would say that we have no real power over there anyway to change those governments. Those people are going to establish the government they want. Our involvement really does not change much in that regard. We should work with those governments insofar as it is parallel with our own interests. That does not mean seeding more aid to them. Aid should virtually cease, I don’t see much of a return on most foreign aid that is sent overseas anyway. Such things should be limited to actual allies.

Those governments that act as our enemies should be treated as such.

You said it right. With us giving "aid" to a certain party over there, there's always going to be someone else that views us as "evil" or the "enemy" because we're funding their enemy. I couldn't agree with you more that there isn't much ROI from our foreign aid.

Let's fix our country first. Then, we can truly show the world how a democracy is supposed to work by having our OWN thriving country.

 

[FA_Q2]

I would say that we have no real power over there anyway to change those governments.

We should have huge power given that the USA is the most successful and most powerful country in human history. But, we really have little influence because liberals hate America and so dilute its message and influence.

?
What does that have to do with anything I posted? What are you going on about liberals and the like? That has NOTHING to do with the power we wield over the form of governments that are established in the Middle East. Partisan politics is not what makes our influence there negligible. The fact that we are not governing them and we are not over there is what makes our influence negligible. It is akin to stating that China has influence over our constitutional republic. It does not because WE ARE NOT CHINESE. In that same manner, our influence over the government that is established in Iraq or Afghanistan is rather minimal because we are not Iraqi or Afghanistan.

What influence would you prefer we have? What difference in government do the conservatives have that would give us greater control over those foreign governments?

The USA, through its influence, power and trade DOES have a very big impact on the international actions of those governments. It does not have much influence on the type of government established. That is entirely up to the people of those nations.

 

[auditor0007]

I would say that we have no real power over there anyway to change those governments.

We should have huge power given that the USA is the most successful and most powerful country in human history. But, we really have little influence because liberals hate America and so dilute its message and influence.

?
What does that have to do with anything I posted? What are you going on about liberals and the like? That has NOTHING to do with the power we wield over the form of governments that are established in the Middle East. Partisan politics is not what makes our influence there negligible. The fact that we are not governing them and we are not over there is what makes our influence negligible. It is akin to stating that China has influence over our constitutional republic. It does not because WE ARE NOT CHINESE. In that same manner, our influence over the government that is established in Iraq or Afghanistan is rather minimal because we are not Iraqi or Afghanistan.

What influence would you prefer we have? What difference in government do the conservatives have that would give us greater control over those foreign governments?

The USA, through its influence, power and trade DOES have a very big impact on the international actions of those governments. It does not have much influence on the type of government established. That is entirely up to the people of those nations.

Responding to Edward is pointless. He lives in his own little world.

 

[Intense]

Do you think we would be better off alowing these middle eastern countries to remain a communist dictatorship and just simply keeping there leaders happy with money.

I think we should always seek to serve Justice. The further it is abandoned, the harder the reality.

 

[FA_Q2]

Do you think we would be better off alowing these middle eastern countries to remain a communist dictatorship and just simply keeping there leaders happy with money.

I think we should always seek to serve Justice. The further it is abandoned, the harder the reality.

What do you mean by that? It might sound nice but it is meaningless without the action behind it.

Are you saying that what we are doing in Libya and Iraq are good or that it is the proper thing to do?

 

[Katzndogz]

These middle eastern countries never were a communist dictatorship. It is entirely possible to have a communist dictatorship achieved through democratic means. Indeed most of them are.

 

[HUGGY]

These middle eastern countries never were a communist dictatorship. It is entirely possible to have a communist dictatorship achieved through democratic means. Indeed most of them are.

Communism would never work in the MidEast as a whole. Having a system where they distribute everything equally requires that you have something to distribute. Some of those folks have oil.. and one could say that a place like Saudi Arabia is technically communistic in that they give people money for doing nothing at all ...just because they live there. But many of those countries do not have oil or any means to get at what resources they have without outside investment. Places like that will never be communist.

 

[Katzndogz]

The closest the mid east came to Communism is when the Russians were over there. The mid east doesn't lend itself to communism which is why they are theocracies.

 

[FA_Q2]

These middle eastern countries never were a communist dictatorship. It is entirely possible to have a communist dictatorship achieved through democratic means. Indeed most of them are.

Communism would never work in the MidEast as a whole. Having a system where they distribute everything equally requires that you have something to distribute. Some of those folks have oil.. and one could say that a place like Saudi Arabia is technically communistic in that they give people money for doing nothing at all ...just because they live there. But many of those countries do not have oil or any means to get at what resources they have without outside investment. Places like that will never be communist.

Most of those countries are rich because of that oil. Unfortunately, I would call none of them communistic. That is a rather BIG upgrade from what they actually are. Places like Saudi Arabia and Qatar survive and pay their citizens because they essentially have a slave underclass that makes nothing and barely lives under the worst working conditions.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That has NOTHING to do with the power we wield over the form of governments that are established in the Middle East. Partisan politics is not what makes our influence there negligible.

Did you ever hear about "the shot heard around the world", about Jefferson's empire of liberty???

The world's idea is not Jefferson's idea because our liberals hate Jefferson's concept of freedom. Jefferson's idea is not spreading in the ME because liberals have killed it!!

 

[Intense]

Do you think we would be better off alowing these middle eastern countries to remain a communist dictatorship and just simply keeping there leaders happy with money.

I think we should always seek to serve Justice. The further it is abandoned, the harder the reality.

What do you mean by that? It might sound nice but it is meaningless without the action behind it.

Are you saying that what we are doing in Libya and Iraq are good or that it is the proper thing to do?

Well, first off, those Countries are Totalitarian Dictatorships. No matter the Brand Label of Governments, they each have a track record of either doing what is just or unjust, to one level or degree, or another. That registers with the Individual, again, in relation to degree, and which end of the stick the Individual is on. True there are principles that get confused in circumstance and translation, it is also true that there are principles that rise above circumstance and translation. Those are the ones we should build on. The concept of Justice may vary with circumstance, so we try to stick with the basics, and go with good example, which transcends, the propaganda. The more basic, the harder to twist around. It is hard in matters of conscience to reward good with evil, while claiming the straight and narrow, and not be exposed as tyrannical and hypocritical. especially when done in the light of day.
I was against what happened in Libya, we had a Government trying hard to comply with us. Considering all that was happening in the Region at the time, it made no sense.
Iraq? I would like to have seen most of the loose ends in Afghanistan cleaned up before considering anything there. It is what it is. Saddam did have a very loud mouth and was considered the biggest Military threat in the Region. Iran second, maybe. That was an either or, too. Any way it is diced, there are compound problems. Just a thought.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That has NOTHING to do with the power we wield over the form of governments that are established in the Middle East. Partisan politics is not what makes our influence there negligible.

Did you ever hear about "the shot heard around the world", about Jefferson's empire of liberty???

The world's idea is not Jefferson's idea because our liberals hate Jefferson's concept of freedom. Jefferson's idea is not spreading in the Middle East and around the world because liberals are killing it!!
They spied for Stalin . That was their very very anti American foreign policy, and in effect still is.

 

[Old Rocks]

Do you think we would be better off alowing these middle eastern countries to remain a communist dictatorship and just simply keeping there leaders happy with money.

Just what are you talking about? Which middle eastern nations are communist dictatorships? Care to name them?

 

[Old Rocks]

The closest the mid east came to Communism is when the Russians were over there. The mid east doesn't lend itself to communism which is why they are theocracies.

Huh? The Russians were over where? Other than Afghanistan, I don't think the Russians have ever occupied any other nation in the middle east.

And you definately have things a bit backwards. The tribe and ethnic groups in the middle east are very religious, which is why that communism has never caught on. They are clearly unbelievers.

 

[candycorn]

Do you think we would be better off alowing these middle eastern countries to remain a communist dictatorship and just simply keeping there leaders happy with money.

I would welcome anything other than a theocracy.

 

[FA_Q2]

The closest the mid east came to Communism is when the Russians were over there. The mid east doesn't lend itself to communism which is why they are theocracies.

Huh? The Russians were over where? Other than Afghanistan, I don't think the Russians have ever occupied any other nation in the middle east.

And you definately have things a bit backwards. The tribe and ethnic groups in the middle east are very religious, which is why that communism has never caught on. They are clearly unbelievers.

The Russians never ‘occupied’ anything because they chose to instead conquer it.