"Don't Know" wrote in my comments section: "You criticized the U.S. for trying to export democracy. what else should we have done?"
Answer: about a billion other things you could have done.
If U.S. is serious about establishing democracies in Middle-East, I have a simple plan to start the process:
1) Stop supporting region's dictators and tyrants, including (but not limited to) Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE and Likud hoodlums in Israel.
2) Establish a more balanced approach to the region's main conflict, Israel and Palestine.
3) Support and fund democratic oppositions in region, instead of creating puppets like Ahmad Chalabi, Hamid Kharzai and Reza Pahlavi.
These three steps would be a great start and sign of good faith for the people of Middle-East to start looking as U.S. A. as a friend and not the enemy.
Posted by Pedram at April 22, 2003 06:32 PMI'm not sure his comments deserved such a reasoned response! One could add, if Bush is serious about stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction, he could
1) make the US arms industry more transparent and accountable, and pressure allies, particularly Israel which has a highly secretive nuclear and chemical weapons program, do do the same.
2) Put diplomatic pressure on his friends in 'new europe' to stop violating UN embargoes.
3) pursuade the Russians not to leave great stockpiles of nuclear material lying around their country.
The threat of WMDs getting into the wrong hands is caused by deregulated and secretive arms industries, largely in countries we (UK, US) have good diplomatic relationships with. We have the power to stop this, by exerting diplomatic pressures and even sanctions. But we are simply not serious about it.
Posted by: Beatniksalad at April 23, 2003 05:35 AMI wish I knew how we could start doing these things, Pedram. I mean, what can the average US citizen tell his elected offical he wants. I think what the US wants in the region is stability, they want to be able to have dealings with a stable government. Take Iran for example, I might be all wrong but I don't think the US would care if it dealt with the Mullas or an elected government as long as we could negotiate peace. Something about a religious based ruler with nukes scare the crap out of me.
Posted by: Dave at April 23, 2003 09:15 AMDave - You asked "what can the average US citizen tell his elected offical he wants"? My reply: average US citizen should first look at the entire electoral process in this country and elect other average US citizens before they can be asked of anything. How can you ask someone who won't understand your circumstances, comes from a previledged background and has been elected by the top 1%, to react to your demands? As Tommy Douglas said, citizens of "mouseland" need to first stop electing cats to run their affairs. Not white cats, black cats, spotted or stripped ones. Afterall, they are all basically cats and cats will run the land the way it is good for the cats.
Posted by: Pedram M. at April 24, 2003 05:17 AMAs an average US citizen, I feel quite powerless when it comes to voting. Bush was bought, not elected. I contact my representatives and they send me nice letters explaining why they will not listen to me, (ie. no war in Iraq.)
I am impressed by the number of folks who got out and protested. If those same people would all make an effort to reduce consumption, and when need be, make purchases from smaller companies, not the big corporations, don't you think an effort such as that (boycotts) might be the only way to influence governments? All they care about is money.
Posted by: Laura at April 24, 2003 09:14 PMLaura - I'd recommend pushing major electoral reforms, particularly as it relates to campaign financing. Also, if large corporations feel a boycott like you suggest will seriously harm them, they may restrict the market even more and force the small guys out completely. Remember, they also control almost all productions and means to produce most of what we consume.
Posted by: Pedram M. at April 25, 2003 11:08 PM