|
It's a shame the Middle East never developed a true secular democracy due to the interference of Western imperialists 
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2015 06:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 00:23 |
|
|
Ardennes posted:Well they did do their best to make sure it didn't happen in a quite a few notable cases. Really? I can't think of any. galagazombie posted:You joke, but Democratic regimes the world over have a habit of being destroyed by western interests. Not saying theres some evil anti-democracy council siting around a dark boardroom, but you can often see how Western things like nonsense borders in Africa or Banana Republics in South America screwed them over in the cradle. The west doesn't even have to keep doing it. Once you've set ethnic group A against religious group B they'll hate each other drat near forever, and even if you change your mind you can't really get them to stop. Which is a lot of what we see in the 3rd World today. You realize this applies to pretty much everybody right? Like if you generalize the terms it describes every single regime in human history. icantfindaname posted:it didn't even get far enough to hope for that, the ME was finished when the arab states were chopped up by britain and france. it was doomed to anarchy after that So ultimately the responsibility for this whole mess lies with expansionism during the Ottoman Empire. I guess I can live with that.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Iran during the 1950s, and irrevocably loving up Iraq during the 00s are usual starting places. Also, turning a blind eye to Mubarak didn't turn out to be a very sustainable strategy. Mohammad "but they elected me dictator!" Mosaddegh quote:Mosaddegh convinced parliament to grant him emergency powers for six months to "decree any law he felt necessary for obtaining not only financial solvency, but also electoral, judicial, and educational reforms".[36] Also how does overthrowing a military dictator and replacing him a weak caretaker government that actually held democratic elections count as interfering with democracy?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2015 07:19
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:This is, to say at a minimum, an incredibly strange reading of the coup d'etat And this is an incredibly snide and dishonest way of reading my post. Ardennes posted:Emergency powers during an emergency didn't make him an actual dictator considering what was happening, and also once he was replaced Iranian democracy was completely a dead letter. If you want to say Iran at that time wasn't a true liberal democracy, that is fine, That is exactly what I'm saying actually. There is no proof Mossadegh would have give up his absolute powers, and to say otherwise is simply trying to argue a counterfactual. Not to say he was in any way a bad leader, it just puts him on the same level as Nasser. Also Iran did have a chance at democracy after the revolution, but the Ayatollah had more paramilitaries on the street and the willingness to use them so welp
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The type of powers Mossadegh was requesting though weren't on par with the type of state that the Shah built though, and to be honest Mossadegh was in a pretty weak position and was expecting to be overthrown from either from the left or the right for a while. Sure, Iranian democracy was more of a concept at that point than anything, but circumstances moved far further way from it due to the coup and the new regime. Yep, I totally agree. quote:Ah but there is a difference between saying "only the West" strangled democracy versus they have played a major part in strangling it. You can criticize the relationship of the US and the Saudis without saying Iran are the "good guys" or that the Saudis need to be sanctioned/bombed. That said, even with the Ayatollah, for most people (non-royals) it is better to live in Iran than Saudi Arabia. Except I haven't heard a good argument on America strangling democracy in the Middle East other than Mossadegh maybe resigning his powers and that Bush didn't do a good enough job in Iraq. I actually agree about Saudi sanctions but to say the US taking the cheap oil in exchange for looking the other way is responsible for its current state is hella disingenuous. quote:As for the US, it is rather unclear what the current administration wants at this point since so much of our foreign policy seems to be a big question mark. I think Bush kind of poisoned the well on the US having a "decisive" foreign policy for a good long time, especially in the Middle East.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 00:23 |
|
|
Ardennes posted:That said, I get the realpolitik explanation for it, just a spade needs to be called a spade at a certain point. I have no illusions that Putin deeply cares for the Syrian people either. quote:Bush should take most of the blame no doubt, that said it is rather unclear what our objectives even are at this point (even from the point of sheer curiosity). That said, in the case of the US maybe a lack of clarity isn't the worst thing. I think a lot of it is people (especially in the government) realizing that the US is not the unstoppable juggernaut of progress they want it to be, but that overwhelming pressure kinda works if you focus in on one spot at a time. Like the US policy in the Middle East seems a bit muddled and weak, but American foreign policy in East Asia is anything but. Bro Dad fucked around with this message at 08:34 on Sep 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2015 08:31
|
|