Should the US support democracy in all cases?

The Iraqis recently elected an Iranophilic government. The Palestinians have voted for terrorism. In Egypt, the Islamists finished a close second to Hosni Mubarak's ruling party and would've finished much better if they had been allowed to contest more seats. In Saudi Arabia, it's safe to say that the results of democratic elections would bring about something resembling the Taliban. The Pakistanis would probably elect a hardline, pro-terror, anti-American, anti-Indian government if they had the chance.

So my question is this: Does it make sense for the US (or other Western nations) to support democracy in all cases? Should this always be a moral imperative? What's so great about democracy if the people vote for repression? In my opinion, the most important thing we should be encouraging is for governments to reign in their militants and establish security. After that, we can encourage them to expand liberty and human rights. I think we should only encourage democracy after the other conditions have been met.

I say yes but reservedly so. I think we should offer democracy but we shoudn't push it down their throats.

The United States does not negotiate nore do business with Terrorists.
Period.

Jerry said:

The United States does not negotiate nore do business with Terrorists.
Period.

Click to expand...

And what exactly does that have to do with anything?

Kandahar said:

And what exactly does that have to do with anything?

Click to expand...

"Support" = money, cooperation within the U.N., perhaps military aid......it could include a great deal more.

A democracy which votes in terrorism does not get our support, in any way, to any degree, ever.

"Should the US support democracy in all cases?"
No. Not in "all" cases.

Jerry said:

"Support" = money, cooperation within the U.N., perhaps military aid......it could include a great deal more.

A democracy which votes in terrorism does not get our support, in any way, to any degree, ever.

"Should the US support democracy in all cases?"
No. Not in "all" cases.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, I completely agree. What we really should advocate is more liberty, rather than more democracy. Frequently, but not always, those ideas coincide.

Jerry said:

The United States does not negotiate nore do business with Terrorists.
Period.

Click to expand...

We do business with the Saudis? Do they not funnel billions to terrorist organizations and did they not fund the Taliban?

scottyz said:

We do business with the Saudis? Do they not funnel billions to terrorist organizations and did they not fund the Taliban?

Click to expand...

Ya, and that sucks.
I would like to dream of a perfect world.....I would like to think that our dealings with the Saudis has a greater purpose.....oh well.

I guess the Bush doctrine is just a bunch of crap. Not suprising, really....he is a politician, after all.

As long as someone is leading them around they will never learn, it will only teach them to become a “freedom fighter” clawing with survival of the fittest out of the crib. Do not get squeamish when they start goose stepping like a Nazi, especially if they saw their brotherhood getting away with it. At some point they must face the consequences of a bad decision, or they will never learn anything good. You can’t safety proof everything; they must get burned at some point, and the hell shocked out of them.

No. Democracy is not compatable with every culture in every region in the world. Democracy is not the cookie-cutter perfect system the U.S. makes it out to be..just look what democracy delivered in Palestine.

No. Democracy is not compatable with every culture in every region in the world. Democracy is not the cookie-cutter perfect system the U.S. makes it out to be..just look what democracy delivered in Palestine.

Click to expand...

Do you think some countries are better off run by some kinda dictator or totalitarian regime?

i voted yes
it seems to me if the governed have the power to vote out the governors, than they are more apt to have the country they want it to be. as a result they are less likely to be oppressed and than manipulated into hating its neighbors or other countries

yes Hamas being elected is a bit disconcerning, but not surprising in that region. Will have to see if Hamas chooses to shed its violence for power through politics instead.

FinnMacCool said:

Do you think some countries are better off run by some kinda dictator or totalitarian regime?

Click to expand...

I do. Saudi Arabia is a good example of this. The monarchy is certainly not progressive in terms of human rights or freedom, but the Saudi democrats would be much much worse.

I do. Saudi Arabia is a good example of this. The monarchy is certainly not progressive in terms of human rights or freedom, but the Saudi democrats would be much much worse.
__________________

Click to expand...

What makes you think that?

FinnMacCool said:

What makes you think that?

Click to expand...

A look at the experimental municipal elections in Saudi Arabia is evidence of this. The Islamists that were the big winners are more repressive than anywhere else in the Arab world. It's simply not a society that's going to elect an Islamic Gandhi.

A look at the experimental municipal elections in Saudi Arabia is evidence of this. The Islamists that were the big winners are more repressive than anywhere else in the Arab world. It's simply not a society that's going to elect an Islamic Gandhi.
__________________

Click to expand...

Kinda like us then?

FinnMacCool said:

Kinda like us then?

Click to expand...

Huh?

It seems to me that Saudi Arabians are influenced by religion the same as american voters are. Thats why I said that.

But anyways nothing can turn out good with a dictatorship or a totalitarian regime. Perhaps democracy wouldn't work very for us but it would for them. If their elected officials shows opposistion to us, it only reflects poorly on us and our actions rather then theirs.

FinnMacCool said:

It seems to me that Saudi Arabians are influenced by religion the same as american voters are. Thats why I said that.

Click to expand...

American people aren't voting en masse for politicians demanding the enslavement of women and the beheading of homosexuals.

FinnMacCool said:

But anyways nothing can turn out good with a dictatorship or a totalitarian regime.

Click to expand...

It would be much worse with a Saudi democracy.

FinnMacCool said:

Perhaps democracy wouldn't work very for us but it would for them. If their elected officials shows opposistion to us, it only reflects poorly on us and our actions rather then theirs.

Click to expand...

I didn't even mention opposition to the United States in my previous statement about Saudi democracy. I just said that human rights and personal freedom would suffer greatly, even compared to the monarchy. How would that "work for them"?

Democracy itself is a rather broad and abstract term as we apply it in reality. It only becomes clear when it is qualified; such as American democracy or British democracy or Canadian democracy because each of these countries have a different idea and expression of the word. Yet as nations none of these nations is a democracy. They are in reality a republic, a constitutional monarchy and a common wealth. The best we can say, in our case for example, is that we are a republic with democratic institutions. We Americans often confuse the word democracy with the concept of freedom or Independence because for us that is what the word represents. But in the case of others they may define it some what differently. It usually means an elected government but even governments we see as repressive use elections and the word democracy itself, The Peoples Democratic Republic (East Germany and China, for example).

So perhaps it is better if we support the idea of freedom rather than that of democracy. But we shouldn't be spending our money or putting our military into every situation where we feel foreigners need freedom. Those who want it must attain it on their own. We have our own problems that need to be solved before we go around being bleeding heart "do-gooders" at the drop of a hat. Our people should be more important to us than those in other lands.

We should use our influence, money and military force only when it is in the direct benefit and interest of the American people as a whole (as opposed to certain groups or classes of American people). In the case of the Iraq war, for example, (which appears to be the inspiration behind this thread) I could support this war if it meant that a victory would benefit the American people directly as in lowering the price of oil but when you tell me our people are dying to attain the freedom of these foreign peoples I cannot support this action. These Arabes have lived under a form of dictatorship since the nation was founded in 1927. If they do not have the intestinal fortitude, after 80 years, to fight for their own freedom without our people dying then they simply don't deserve it. George Bush wanted to be a wartime president and he made his wish come true. But he also became a natural disaster president when the worst national disaster to ever hit this country happened during his presidency. There are still thousands of American victims suffering from the effects of Katrina and Rita, it is six months after the disaster and still progress is slow, funds are nowhere to be seen. It is a disgrace that our own people have to live in limbo and worse poverty than before and we are the richest nation in the world. To hell with the foreigners let them fend for themselves. Support you own people, they deserve it. If you feel that the Iraqi people or the Iranians deserve you support more than your fellow Americans go over to those countries and enlist your services as an individual for their cause but don't ask the rest of the nation to do this when we haven't cleaned up our own house.