N.Y. Times:
Democracy in the Arab World, a U.S. Goal, Falters
By HASSAN M. FATTAH
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates, April 9—Steps toward democracy in the Arab world, a crucial American goal that just months ago was cause for optimism—with elections held in Iraq, Egypt and the Palestinian areas—are slowing, blocked by legal maneuvers and official changes of heart throughout the Middle East.
Analysts and officials say the political rise of Islamists, the chaos in Iraq, the newfound Shiite power in Iraq with its implication for growing Iranian influence, and the sense among some rulers that they can wait out the end of the Bush administration have put the brakes on democratization.
“It feels like everything is going back to the bad old days, as if we never went through any changes at all,” said Sulaiman al-Hattlan, editor in chief of Forbes Arabia and a prominent Saudi columnist and advocate. “Everyone is convinced now that there was no serious or genuine belief in change from the governments. It was just a reaction to pressure by the international media and the U.S.”
Link
Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.
Previous item: Faltering of Arab Democracy Is Seen
Next item: Faltering of Arab Democracy Is Seen
By candide, April 19, 2006 at 6:29 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Islam is totally unable to accept democracy, as Christianity was for 15 hundred years. Christianity has at last been repudiated by ex-Christians. But there are no ex-Muslims. Nor will there likely be any.
Report thisBy anonymous, April 10, 2006 at 7:21 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
The commander-in-chief made war on Iraq to rid it of WMD and to punish Saddam Hussein for cozying-up to Al Qaeda, or so he told us. When those reasons turned out to be fraudulent, he had to come up with something else; ipso, ergo, bringing democracy to Iraq became the rationale, because he wasn’t about to fess up to the real motive for the invasion - oil & empire.
Report thisBut say that from the beginning his reason truly had been to democratize Iraq. Would that have justified this war? No more than bringing Christianity (by force) to the indigenous peoples of the world justifies past European conquests Without exception, all such acts of aggression have been and are motivated by greed and lust for power. What about this making over a conquered people in the image of the conqueror; say, converting to the conquerors’s religion or democratizing? That’s so the invaders can feel good about themselves, just in case they begin to wonder, “What the hell are we doing here, fighting and dying?” Also it’s so that the folks back home won’t begin thinking that maybe their loved ones died in vain. One way or another, every such conquest in a variation on a single theme - The white man’s burden. What a racist crock!
By Hilding Lindquist, April 10, 2006 at 10:32 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
What’s the old saying? Be careful what you wish for, you may get it?
Because Bush #43 learned his anthropology, history, psychology, and sociology from sermons in the churches he attended after sobering up, he believes the keys to understanding the human condition are found in the Bible (Judaic-Christian version, please).
It seems that he actually believes that the individual human being will have a life transforming experience if he or she comes to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. (He did, so why not everyone else? That’s egalitarian isn’t it?)
And, of course, anyone transformed to a higher level of consciousness will adopt Western and Christian values.
Surprise, surprise. For a whole lot of people on this planet, gaining freedom is being able to settle old scores against their oppressors and enemies. And seeing as we have had a few generations go by with people not being able to get even ... well, pulling the cork on the bottle is bound to let off a bit of compressed energy.
Now the question is, can we get the cork back in the bottle before the whole case explodes, or otherwise control the chain reaction?
Report this