It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Hidden Dangers of Democracy Crusades Overseas

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 08:18 AM
I just stumbled on this very interesting OP/ED article from an editor over at UPI, Arnaud de Borchgrave, from January 21, 2005. In it he describes how not only that democracies mean different things to different peoples, but also that it could be even more dangerous for the US to institute through force democracies in certain countries. Then it hit me like a lead balloon: "Oh my God, we are only going after the countries where democracies would potentially bring to rule US-sympathetic majorities. This has got to be the reason that Saudi Arabia is not attacked, for elections there would bring into power extremist forces that see Osama bin Laden as the real freedom fighter, and not Bush." In Iran, it's the pro-American youth, and in North Korea, it's the starving masses. In Iraq it was the Shiites, and in Afghanistan it was the Shiite moderates (although in this case not a necessarily a majority).

From the article:
If freedom, mentioned 27 times by Bush, means authoritarian governors must learn to trust their people and allow them to vote leaders in and out of power, that is precisely what Algerian leaders did in December 1991. A free election gave a majority to Islamist extremists. Algeria's military declared the results null and void and a civil war broke out that killed some 100,000 people in the following 10 years.

A free Western-style election in Saudi Arabia would almost certainly give a majority to extremist slates that see Osama bin Laden as a freedom fighter. In Pakistan, President Pervez Musharraf had to rig free elections to prevent pro-Taliban and pro-al-Qaida emerging as a majority in parliament. As it were, the clandestine fixing didn't prevent extremist politico-religious parties -- whose leaders are friends of Taliban chief Mullah Mohammad Omar and bin Laden -- from winning majorities in two out of Pakistan's four provinces. They also happen to be the two provinces that share a common border with Afghanistan.

Lest there be any doubt we wouldn't like the results of free elections in countries that are now in the friendly-to-U.S. column, the Pew Foundation's survey on global attitudes, found bin Laden voted as more trustworthy than Bush by huge margins in Jordan and Morocco. In Muslim countries with a total population of 450 million, bin Laden also edged out Bush on the trust scale.

The White House keeps forgetting that for all Muslim countries, America and Israel are look-alikes. And when Vice President Dick Cheney warned in an interview on the day of Bush's second inaugural that Israel "might well decide to act first" and bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, the Muslim world believes in a nanosecond this is a green light for Israeli bombs away.

The bottom line: It would appear evident to me that the administration will seek to install democracies only in those places it finds where US-sympathetic forces are the currently the underdog, whether they are a majority or not.
And this is about freedom. Yep. Uh Huh.

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 09:06 AM
We did this before: look back into the history of the Middle East & our Cold War rhetoric from the 1950's. America and Russia doled out aid & forced puppet sattelites countries in a divy up fashion. All of our geo-political problems today can be traced back to those policies then....every hot point that required or was elected to be a military adventure in our life times has had it's genesis in US installment & support gone aschew.

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 09:47 AM
That is right we did it before and then people in the US that are bush supporters still believe all the lies about "good muslins" wanting democracy US style.

This people have their believes and traditions and they have their Icons and their way of life and it will never, ever is going to be like American wants.

They will never give away their religious believes for the western believes.

They hate outsiders intervention and meddling with their affairs, and that is what the US and other countries has done to them all their lives and specially since they had oil.

When they are ready for a change they will doing themselves without anybodie's intervention.

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 05:05 PM
Good points, Bout Time and Marge

Again, according to the article, that's at least 225 MILLION people (1/2 of 450 million) who trust Bin Laden more than they do Bush. Yep, better be REAL choosy who gets free elections and who doesn't. No chance that plan will backfire, at least not if our intel maintains its current high standards of dependability. [/sarcasm]

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 05:26 PM
Not everyone wants a dynamic Democracy such as ours. Some cultures are steeped in tradition and ritual, and our sense of democracy disturbs that. That's not to say that those that don't want democracy are slaves, but they should have a democracy in which they can maintain their strict culture, traditions, and rituals. Think of these culture, rituals, and fundamentalism as a hedgefund against moral volatility and decadence.

[edit on 24-1-2005 by a3s73rg30ne]

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 06:24 PM

Originally posted by a3s73rg30ne
Think of these culture, rituals, and fundamentalism as a hedgefund against moral volatility and decadence.

Yeah, that's why I think America will never attack Iran. They got rid of all their TV's...

new topics


log in