To what end?
Another one person, one vote, one time kind of thing?[/quote]
Honestly, I have not followed up on this one. But I am curious. Last thing I heard that he was kicked out of office by parlament. That’s why it was a question.
I would say that the UK is one of many types of democracies, despite the fact that the CIA refers to it formally as a “constitutional monarchy”. I like the Wikopedia description: an evolving federal parliamentary representative democratic monarchy.
Anyway, the real question, IMO, is how are you going to get the leaders of middle eastern nations to relax their grips on power and permit their peoples to experiment, or even choose some “other system” of government?
[quote=“Tigerman”]Anyway, the real question, IMO, is how are you going to get the leaders of middle eastern nations to relax their grips on power and permit their peoples to experiment, or even choose some “other system” of government?[/quote]Get off of the oil. Once we kick that habit, their revenues disappear, and then they have to start making deals with their populations.
[quote=“Truant”][quote=“ratlung”][quote=“jdsmith”][quote=“ratlung”]
Good question. I don’t know. I can only speak for myself. I am wondering is democracy that important that you have to bring it to people by force? There are plenty of other systems out ther that work fine. [/quote]
Name one or two.
[/quote]
Out of the top of my head. Hmm Monaco, and United Kingdom[/quote]
Singapore. A democracy on paper, but far from it in practice.
I think it’s wrong to equate democracy with freedom.[/quote]
Singapore may be a democracy, but the question that should be asked involves whether the People’s Action Party in Singapore is a democratic party or not? In my opinion that answer is no --it is a cadre-party. Many party members at the grassroots level, but Lee’s “300” run the town. And when Lee wanted his son to become PM after Goh, the “300” nodded their heads and did nothing – despite their dislike of the current PM (he slapped a fellow high-ranking PAP member in the face.)That being said, their (the PAP’s) “city-planning” skills and progressive “human resource” policies should be commended and emulated in Taiwan.
Yeah I think we are on the same page there Chewy.
Singpore would run exactly the same whether they had elections or not, so it’s really just a formality so they can call it a democracy.
That’s easier said than done.
And not all of those nations have oil.
True, easier said than done, but how often is such a clear, technical solution to a deep-set political problem available? And one with so many positive side-benefits to boot. Tough to pull off, but we’re lucky to have such a solution available.
I doubt it. The ME without oil revenues would be a nightmare of worldwide proportions.
I doubt it. The ME without oil revenues would be a nightmare of worldwide proportions.[/quote]
Agreed. I’m sure the grassroots populations in Saudi Arabia would be much less willing to negotiate than the House of Saud. From a development perspective, lots of the oil revenues in countries such as Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman etc. go into manpower training of the local populations. These governments also have implemented “localization” policies for management positions to lessen the reliance on expat labor. Many management jobs for local professionals (the middle classes) would disappear overnight. Without oil, the poverty and development problems would increase ten fold IMHO.
No, I don’t think so. Without funds, it’d collapse in on itself rather than exporting vile ideologies. At the moment, it’s able to export nightmares worldwide. Economic collapse would worsen that for a time, but compell the people of the region to solve their problems. That’s something military might isn’t as able to do.
yeah, that or complete friggin chaos.
Let’s roll dem bones and take dat risk. 
I call this type of thinking the “Star Trek” solution (anyone familiar with earth’s timeline according to the show will know what I mean). In the real world and outside of the lots at Paramount, it ain’t gonna happen.
Despite the fact that liberals of all shades like to go after the oil industry, it has improved living conditions for many people in many emerging countries. Look at the various multi-national oil projects in Chad as an example of this – a certain percentage of oil revenues must be “pumped back into the communities” and earmarked for development purposes.
Yeah, “We’re going to completely abandon you and let you unfuck yourself.”
I thought the left didn’t like experimenting with people?
Let’s take all their money away and see what happens.
PDTP
As opposed to “Let’s Put a Rifle Barrel to their Heads and See What Happens?” Check out the development indexes on major oil producing nations. Sure, it can a boon, or a curse. If governance structures aren’t already in place, it tends not to favour their development. If the government can afford to govern without consent, it will. If it needs taxes, it makes deals. 
And as far as social experiments go, this one’s strictly “hands off.” Leave it up to them, it’s their house. That’s classical republicanism down the line… not screaming socialism.
Yeah, we’re doing a lot of that on the street jaboney.
Come on.
You say they deserve freedom and yet deny the best possible way to give it to them.
Can freedom be given? You can set up the infrastructure for free elections and representative gov’t, but without significant inputs from those freed the system will just be co-opted.
One of the worst aspects of an oil economy is the lack of capital building enterprises associated with it. Crudely put, you stick a pipe in the ground and cash flows out. Not much to it. Elevated forms of governance, with all the rights and freedoms we so enjoy living under and arguing about, evolve out of the requirements of interdependency. When deals need to be made, means are found to make them. When you’re sufficiently important–not necessarily powerful, perhaps just an important cog in the system–you get to start striking deals with the powers that be, and to become enough of a power to carve out a reasonably comfortable niche. Far as I know, save for maintaining your own private army, that’s the fount of primary political freedoms (negative freedom/ freedom from).
Arms remove tyrannts and wipe the slate clean; they do not create any sort of positive freedom. Don’t have the source, but the logic of the insight says it well enough: “Everything that arms can do has been achieved in Mogadishu.”
Well, an army on the ground (and in the air) has freed the Afghans and Iraqis. To do what? Fall back into old ways of doing things, for the most part. Rifles to heads seem to be necessary, in both places, to maintain the degree of negative freedom thus far achieved, but doesn’t seem to be helping (and may be harming) efforts to build the society to come.
Can you blame them though? Do they have any other experiences to fall back on?
THIS is precisely why the troops need to remain for an extended period of time. For stability…
I don’t think I agree with that notion. Of course, ideally all Iraqis would rise up and together set themselves to creating a new nation built on on the wonderful bases we know are necessary. However, that apparently wasn’t going to happen. And I don’t want to revisit previous arguments about urgency… However, arms have, in history past, achieved a great deal in Europe and in East Asia. The question is whether or not a similar success can be had in the Middle East. Some say “yes”, others say “no”.
I disagree. As bad as the situations may be now, it was, I think, far worse before. I expect this to be difficult, and I expect setbacks often. But, MUCH has been accomplished, even if much still remains.
Its too early, IMO, to pass judgment.
Ideally, they would have risen up to all pull together. Not likely, though. And yeah, arms have accomplished a great deal: “Where there are good arms, there are good laws.” But that only applies where arms are reasonably cheap, reliable, effective, democratic, and when men have strong reasons to put them down. As the regional economies, institutions, and civil society currently stand, too many have too little incentive to lay down arms. Fixing that requires nation building on a scale that nobody’s yet managed; the military knows well that it’s not equiped for the job, other actors have long since left, and there’s little security in which to work beyond the Green Zone and various pockets. Which either makes for a long, long, difficult job, or demands very imaginative solutions (not yet in evidence on any side).
As for the current situation, while in many ways an idealist, I’m far too firmly grounded in the darker realities of Machiavellian and Hobbesian politics to regard chaos as an improvement. :s
People tend to forget so quickly.
The reason the U.S. failed to enter WWII sooner than it did was…
war protestors and lack of public support.
The sort of people who protest the war in Iraq don’t like to be reminded of this, but the evidence holds up pretty well. “Peace” might be a nice concept, but, it’s not what you mean to do, it’s what you do.
How much longer would you like the Middle East to be a breeding ground for people who commit terrorist attacks on YOUR country? Shall we wait for Iran to nuke one of the major cities in Europe? (sure, they’d like to attack the US, but they’re long range nuclear capabilities weren’t good enough last time I checked - London is a much more probable target?) Your hometown? Your family?
What would be the last straw before you say: “that’s it - I’m going to fight these people”?
What are you going to wait for?