Demosophia

Scott,

A lot of the problem of terrorism results from the bad regimes and dysfunctional societies of the Middle East. I don't think anyone disagrees with that (with the possible exception of the regimes themselves if they are truly self-deluded).

Why the bad regimes are limited in this parenthetical to only being those regimes that are not U.S. allies is mind boggling to me. It is the unrepresentative nature, the corruption, the brutality, etc. of the regimes that make them evil, not the fact that some of them are anti U.S.
This is exactly the problem with the whole liberal hawk spread democracy argument. The neocon policy and the war against Iraq and what people like yourself seem to be advocating have nothing to do with promoting democracy or human rights but are just obsessed with making Arab and Muslim regimes controllable and U.S. friendly. Guess what, most of them already are! Guess what else, if any regime in the Muslim world was truly democratic it would necessarily not be pro U.S.

That will continue to be the case as long as U.S. foreign policy remains pro-Imperialism and anti-Islam.

Of course, the bad regimes in the Arab world are partly the product of U.S. foreign policy since the U.S. has historically supported bad regimes as long as they were pro U.S. bad regimes. Please note I only said partly, in large degree the problems of any nation (including the U.S. by the way) is basically the result of its own actions. This is a basic element of the faith of a believing Muslim.

I don't believe either candidate cares about creating democracy in the Middle East.

I wonder, Scott, if you think it makes sense to invade and occupy Arab countries, with tens of thousands of civilians dying in the process (hundreds of thousands including the sanctions years, which you should) in order to install secular democracy because you're so sure that is the best form of government, then why shouldn't I, if I believe a representative elected government which implements Islamic Law to be the ideal government, believe that western nations should be invaded and occupied to install such governments in those lands, even if hundreds of thousands of civilians would be killed in the process?

Incidentally, while I do favor such a representative Islamic government, I DO NOT believe that war against people that do not desire it is the proper way to form such governments. I adopt the position of the Qur'an and of the Prophet Muhammad (saw).

A lot of the problem of terrorism results from the bad regimes and dysfunctional societies of the Middle East. I don't think anyone disagrees with that (with the possible exception of the regimes themselves if they are truly self-deluded).

Surprisingly, I find that a lot of people do. When I question them I find that their definition of "democracy" is rather idiosyncratic, and based primarily on the flawed notion of socio-economic equality rather than civil and political freedom. Point taken that there are some US allies that are just an non-democratic as our enemies. Looking more carefully at the situation actually reveals that the so-called "friends" have populations that trend toward anti-Americanism, while the "enemies" (like Iran) have populations that trend towar pro-Americanism. I think there is a perfectly straightforward dynamic at work here. The "friends" deceitfully maintain their position by professing outward alliance with the US, but exploiting anti-Americanism as a way to retain power. The "enemies" have elites that also exploit anti-Americanism, but no longer have the credibility and support of an American alliance... and have lost most of their popular credibility.

The inability of the Bush administration to use this situation to our advantage in the War on Terror is an example of their political incompetence. The problem is that the Kerry regime would be an order of magnitude more incompetent.

I wonder, Scott, if you think it makes sense to invade and occupy Arab countries, with tens of thousands of civilians dying in the process (hundreds of thousands including the sanctions years, which you should) in order to install secular democracy because you're so sure that is the best form of government, then why shouldn't I, if I believe a representative elected government which implements Islamic Law to be the ideal government, believe that western nations should be invaded and occupied to install such governments in those lands, even if hundreds of thousands of civilians would be killed in the process?

It certainly makes sense in view of what I think to be the realistic alternative. But also consider that if Iraq proves to have a successful transition to democracy the ability of our "friends" in the region to maintain repressive regimes will be seriously impaired. The facts that allowed them to ignore reform recently in the Tunisia summit were all related to their resting their rationalizations for repression on the anti-Americanism within western societies, and the rationalizations of the Islamists. With adroit political maneuvering we ought to be able to turn this to our advantage, but again I really question this administrations political skills to do that. I can't vote for the alternative, but I could have voted for an alternative had a credible one arisen.

Incidentally, while I do favor such a representative Islamic government, I DO NOT believe that war against people that do not desire it is the proper way to form such governments. I adopt the position of the Qur'an and of the Prophet Muhammad (saw).

Isn't any democratic revolution, not to mention war, always against the people who oppose democracy? If you're claim is that the majority in a particular nation oppose transition to democracy, how would you know their true will accurately, if they're repressed politically and civilly? There are indirect means, I suppose, but they aren't particularly accurate. Do you suppose the people of Myanmar are opposed to political freedom? My guess is NOT, but it's hard to prove.