Was George Bush right about spread of Democracy

Well, now it looks like dictatorial regimes across the Middle-East are in danger of collapse. There are protests and riots against the government in many countries, but so far I have not heard of any in Iraq (interestingly Iraq is now more stable than many of it's neighbors).

Now back in 2003, Bush gave a speech predicting the spread of democracy throughout the world.

Among other things, quondam president Bush asked:

"as changes come to the Middle Eastern region, those with power should ask themselves: Will they be remembered for resisting reform, or for leading it? In Iran, the demand for democracy is strong and broad…. The regime in Tehran must heed the democratic demands of the Iranian people…. The great and proud nation of Egypt has shown the way toward peace in the Middle East, and now should show the way toward democracy in the Middle East"

It should also be noted that the Lebanese "Cedar Revolution" which threw out theoccupying forces of Baathist Syriawas somewhat inspired by the ouster of the Baathists in Iraq and The Libyan government halted their WMD program shortly after the U.S. attacked Saddam Hussein's regime.

His methods of spreading democracy were not so good. The people must want it, no one should force a new system of government they don't want on them.

No. Democracy isn't a worldwide value, I don't know why western culture assumes that everyone wants a democratic government. That, and the method through which the U.S has been "spreading democracy" is the least democratic I know of. Have they ever thought about asking the country they're invading their opinion on the matter? Or does the lack of democracy in said places brainwash the people, requiring a direct intervention from the U.S?

makes you wonder if we just waited a few years, things might have taken care of themselves.....comp_atkins

His methods of spreading democracy were not so good. The people must want it, no one should force a new system of government they don't want on them.

Grodus5

No, he most certainly was not. :x

True democracy in Iraq would probably have put anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr in power. It most certainly wouldn't have put former CIA-backed terrorist Iyad Allawi in contention.

Bush never wanted true democracy in the Middle East. He wanted pro-American dictators installed by contrived "pick a puppet" elections, like the ones in post-invasion Iraq.

As soon as a Middle Eastern democracy produces a popularly elected president who threatens Israel or American oil interests, that president will wind up like Iran's Mohammad Mossadegh.

I don't think what he said had any effect, but I think his goals were noble.

The roots of democratic revolution were seeded in Egypt, Algeria, and Libya far before George W. Bush came into office. Furthermore, the countries that he did invade (Iraq and Afghanistan) are no more democratic than they were in 2003.

Maybe time will tell a different story, but I strongly doubt that Dubya can take any credit for democratization of the Middle East (although he can be blamed for increased instability.)

The roots of democratic revolution were seeded in Egypt, Algeria, and Libya far before George W. Bush came into office. Furthermore, the countries that he did invade (Iraq and Afghanistan) are no more democratic than they were in 2003.

Maybe time will tell a different story, but I strongly doubt that Dubya can take any credit for democratization of the Middle East (although he can be blamed for increased instability.)

Media_geek20

Elections in Iraq aren't democratic? Lawl.

What democracies has he created? A failed one in Afghanistan and a forced one in Iraq?

Egypt is not a democracy yet... and Lybia will not unseat their dictator without direct help from the US...

So far no country has actually become democratic; in fact Libya is probably providing the perfect media cover for the Egyptian generals to take control. mucgoo

This is almost certainly true.

And because those Egyptian generals were chosen for their loyalty to Hosni Mubarak, nothing has really changed.

It's also worth pointing out that many of those generals (including Omar Suleiman) are linked to the CIA's rendition program. If those generals DO remain in power indefinitely, it will probably be with the covert assistance of the CIA, MI6 and Mossad.

It's a safe bet that Western and Israeli intelligence agencies are hard at work trying to ensure that whatever government comes into power in Egypt will differ from Mubarak's only superficially.

I dont credit Bush with any of this.

People are sick of lving like they are and want to be free.

Alot of people think the mid east is hopeless and the people won't stand up for themselves..guess they are WRONG:P

He was right about the fact that the people living there weren't too happy with the regimes under which they lived.

That said, the ultimate outcome of these uprisings is still to be seen, and I don't know of any evidence that Bush's actions in the Middle East served as a first push that led to what we're seeing today.

lol bush and the people behind him have aided tons of dictators to power including saddam hussein and hosni mubarak yet stilllloveLamp

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]makes you wonder if we just waited a few years, things might have taken care of themselves.....Engrish_Major

He was right about the fact that the people living there weren't too happy with the regimes under which they lived.

That said, the ultimate outcome of these uprisings is still to be seen, and I don't know of any evidence that Bush's actions in the Middle East served as a first push that led to what we're seeing today.

GabuEx

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

He was right about the fact that the people living there weren't too happy with the regimes under which they lived.

That said, the ultimate outcome of these uprisings is still to be seen, and I don't know of any evidence that Bush's actions in the Middle East served as a first push that led to what we're seeing today.

whipassmt

ooo ya sure he predicted it...

every president is a puppet for the global elites...

Here have fun with this Doc and take what you want from it and look everything up if ONE thing seems untrue to you.

the obama decaption full version

then while your at it you can watch this one to

The fall of the republic full version

got more if you like...

ooo ya sure he predicted it...

every president is a puppet for the global elites...

Here have fun with this Doc and take what you want from it and look everything up if ONE thing seems untrue to you.

the obama decaption full version

then while your at it you can watch this one to

The fall of the republic full version

got more if you like...

k2theswiss

Democracy by definition cannot be "spread." It starts from the ground up (that is, it's the "little people" who make it happen); if it's "introduced" from other countries or brought about by those already in power then it's destined to fail. Kinda like communism, but on a much grander scale.

Better not to spread democracy at gunpoint.

[QUOTE="k2theswiss"]

ooo ya sure he predicted it...

every president is a puppet for the global elites...

Here have fun with this Doc and take what you want from it and look everything up if ONE thing seems untrue to you.

the obama decaption full version

then while your at it you can watch this one to

The fall of the republic full version

got more if you like...

Ace6301

I'm two minutes into "The Obama Deception" and still have absolutely no idea what the movie is even trying to tell me. Any highlights? I don't feel like watching a two-hour deal when its editing and direction is this crappy.

If a democratic election in Egypt puts a Muslim Brotherhood-dominated government in power, how enthusiastically will the cheerleaders of democracy embrace it?

I'll answer my own question: They'll probably treat it the way they treat the democratically-elected Hamas government in the Gaza Strip---with economic strangulation, political isolation and assassination of its leaders.

If a democratic election in Egypt puts a Muslim Brotherhood-dominated government in power, how enthusiastically will the cheerleaders of democracy embrace it?

I'll answer my own question: They'll probably treat it the way they treat the democratically-elected Hamas government in the Gaza Strip---with economic strangulation, political isolation and assassination of its leaders.

Stesilaus

Most cheerleaders of democracy, as you put it, mean something broader than just one person one vote. Democracy requires an open, pluralistic society to mean much and most people think of democracyin that context. The Gaza Strip can hardly be considered an open, pluralistic society. You are going to end up with tyranny there regardless of whether it is Hamas, Fatah, or some other bunch of clowns. The only question is whether the tyranny is going to be more or less amenable to your particular world view.

Of course, the root problem is that it is very hard to get from these autocratic authoritarian regimes to what people mean by democracy when most of the necessary social elements are underdevloped or do not exist.

George Bush's method of spreading democracy was inherently UNdemocratic.LordXelNaga

If you want to give someone props, please direct it at Mark zuckerberg. Thank you.

Use the search button next time you thread stealer!

makes you wonder if we just waited a few years, things might have taken care of themselves.....comp_atkins

This exactly. Those governments fell due to the massive increase in communication that the internet provided, not because of any politician.

Bush went about it totally the wrong way. As someone has said people in that region had reached a threshold that's why they threw out their dictators. It would have happened whether Bush invaded Iraq or not. Kind of like what happened to communist blocks in Eastern Europe. We didn't invade those eastern communists blocks in Europe but Democracy took hold in those regions anyways whether we invaded or not.

No, he most certainly was not. :x

True democracy in Iraq would probably have put anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr in power. It most certainly wouldn't have put former CIA-backed terrorist Iyad Allawi in contention.

Bush never wanted true democracy in the Middle East. He wanted pro-American dictators installed by contrived "pick a puppet" elections, like the ones in post-invasion Iraq.

As soon as a Middle Eastern democracy produces a popularly elected president who threatens Israel or American oil interests, that president will wind up like Iran's Mohammad Mossadegh.

Stesilaus

Those are the perks with being the most powerful country in the world, looking after one's own interests unabated. It may not seem right to you, but its a helluva lot better world than being under Nazi Germany's control, or Soviet Russia for that matter.

The U.S. does more good in this world than bad (BY FAR), but it is going to do what's best for the U.S. and American people most of the time (though not always). The majority of countries the U.S. has helped are far better off than they otherwise were or would have been.

The cedar revolution was caused by the assassination of Rafik Harriri. Nothing else.

New World Order - One world government.