When the zionist neocons spread democracy to the middle east, did they base it on US democracy?

[Snouter]

Like when Bush gave it to Iraq, and Obama and Hillary gave it to Syria and Libya...do presidential candidates there go through an unfair vetting process of the "primary," "caucus" season and then do speeches to AIPAC? Or in contrast to the US oligarchy, did they actually spread democracy as most people assume democracy is?

 

[tyroneweaver]

I'm a Zionist neocon. And you'll never bring democracy to the ME.
So your thread is built upon a false premise.

 

[Publius1787]

Like when Bush gave it to Iraq, and Obama and Hillary gave it to Syria and Libya...do presidential candidates there go through an unfair vetting process of the "primary," "caucus" season and then do speeches to AIPAC? Or in contrast to the US oligarchy, did they actually spread democracy as most people assume democracy is?

Most people don't know what democracy is, else they would run from it like the plague. To your greater point of installing democracies in the ME, I agree: These people are too ass backwards to deserve anything that might foster rule of law and possibilities of economic advancement without a strong centralized dictator in charge. So as long as said dictator is friendly to us I don't care who leads them or cracks their skulls on occasion.

 

[easyt65]

"B...b....b...but BUUUUUSSSHHHH!"



Did the US support the 'Bay of Pigs' failed military coup to instill 'US Democracy'?
Did the US put Hussein, Noriega, Castro, and others in power with the idea that 'US-style' democracy would be created?

Yeah, how'd those work out?

WTF was Obama thinking when he dragged the US - on his own, without Congressional approval to do so - into the middle of a civil war between the perpetrators of 9/11/01 and a dictator to help Al Qaeida take over their own country? Did he really seek to instill a US-type democracy in Libya by backing Al Qaeida?

WTF was Obama thinking when he supplied, armed, trained, and protected Syrian 'rebels' / terrorists as part of his own private proxy war against Assad / Syria? Did Obama really want to instill a US-inspired democracy in Syria....or did he just want to redeem himself after his embarrassing 'Red Line' fiasco?

The point of this thread, however, is 'spot-on'. Liberating an oppressed, tortured, abused people from a brutal dictator / regime is one thing, but believing they will all become 'little America's is beyond naïve - its imbecilic.

YES, millions of people have come to this nation to escape poverty, oppression, and dictators / oppressive regimes.....and they all assimilate right away, adopting our culture, practices, etc, right? NO. They want the freedom...and free tax-payer-funded handouts, but mainly the freedom that allows them to do here what they would be stoned, jailed, or killed for doing in their own countries. Some, as we have seen, want to come here and set up the same governments / legal system they had where they came from - such as Sharia courts - while shunning our way...in THIS country. Some, as we have also seen, just want to kill us.

It is is moronic to believe if we liberate a people we should reasonably expect them to adopt everything about us, to form a US-style Democracy (which we have even abandoned as part of our 'fundamental change' that has been imposed). How has that worked out in the past?

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result each time.

Wanna kill / overthrow a dictator because it is the best interest of this nation's national security / survival? Are you SURE, knowing we have no control how it's going to go afterwards? Then do what you have to do...but we have proven to have sucked so bad picking OUR new leaders for THEIR countries that we should really just STOP.

Liberals whined and bitched for 8 years (actually going on 15 years) about Bush taking us to war when we had no business doing so (although he had Congress' approval to do so, unlike Obama's 2 wars). Where was their criticism of Obama for Libya and Syria? Obama backed Al Qaeida in one civil war and backed ISIS in another civil war against dictators. Again, WHY?! What was HIS 'end game'? Was it REALLY to liberate countries so 'democracy' could flourish? If that was the case, he failed miserably.

Our Politicians need to stop playing 'god' with other nations, though, thinking they can instill our (ex-) brand of democracy when they do not understand anything important about the people or their culture while trying to do so. That goes across BOTH aisles and is NOT limited to one party, as obvious.

 

[DGS49]

What you (easyt65) are saying is that these people are incapable of rational self-government.

And while it may be true, "we" have a history of assuming that if a dictator is removed and we work with the locals cooperatively, some sort of self-government can be implemented. And it goes without saying that self-government is superior (morally) to government by dictator.

But what we fail to take into account is that Western societies generally accept the principle that, no matter how fervently you want "your guy" to win the election, once the election is over and the votes are cast, you are stuck with whoever won. Try harder next time.

That attitude is not universal. In fact, the "normal" attitude is if your guy doesn't win then you have to do your best to overthrow that government, by force if necessary. That's where it all breaks down.