B.

As people are so fond of pointing out in Iraq “democracy” is not synonymous with democratically elected. (or look at HAMAS) You elect a socialist with ties to Cuba in the early 70′s and you will most certainly gain the attention of those who think Communism and Socialism are the greatest evil. After all, is that not what International Relations is, a “Greater Good” or “Least Harm” calculus that is always hedged by those with power? The Cold War was a time of political Realism and “national” security. Now, we have a much more liberal system of International Relations that is more “human” security driven. What was thought of as solid foreign policy 30 years ago is not the standard now.

You can go back far enough in EVERY countries history and find political decisions that do not meet modern muster. Of course the easiest target (if only because of its prevalence) is the US. We, along with most of the world, don’t believe that protectionism is best for the world. Therefore the US will continue to have its “nose” in everyones business. Often by invitation often by UN mandate occasionally unilaterally and always economically. That is the liberal world we live in. A world that does not recognize boundaries the same as just 20 or 30 years ago. (See Responsibility to Protect or Sovereignty as Responsibility)

So if your argument is that the US does little to promote democracy internationally I would humbly suggest that democracy starts at home and requires democratically elected officials but that is not the only tenet. Then, I would point out that realism is no longer the standard but it once was. Holding history to the standard of modern liberalism or post-modernism is an exercise if futility and does not pass academic rigor. But, these are blog comments, not an academic papers. So you can equivocate about US “support” for the Taliban, the Saudi’s or Pinochet 30 years ago.

Some like to call this “equivocation” or post modernist review (or rewrite) of history the Chomskyfication of International Relations.

I often find myself wishing that the US would divest itself a great deal from the international scene. But, I know that that is not the world we live in. We are now and becoming more interconnected everyday. This blog is a testament to that very point.(I am an American living in Ireland posting on a Jordanian’s blog!!!) And EVERY TIME the US interferes in anyone else’s affairs there will be those that welcome us and those that don’t. There will be good decisions for the short term and those that make us look ogreish and elite in the long. The US can only rely on the good sense of others to judge the US fairly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_security

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism

PS…I will tell you that “religion does not control policy in America” because it is true. Also to look at one group and say that “they” (Minorities, Gays, whoever) were the deciding factor in elections that involved hundreds of millions is either a case of confirmation bias or just plan not knowing the facts. It’s like saying it’s the wings that fly the plane. Or the wheels that drive the car…forgetting the symbiotic nature of the contraption.

This is the problem with Arab political discourse – it is poorly informed and frankly mildly hysterical. In 1941 there was no democracy in the world outside the White English-speaking world (apart from Sweden and Switzerland). The British and French did not give it to their colonies. The Fascists and Communists did not care for it either. Only America believed in it. And America made the rest of the world adopt it. So your claim is absurd. Why did they bother? Chile had a continuous “democratic” government from the time of Napoleon to Pinochet. Allende was nowhere even close to Chile’s first democratically elected government, much less the whole of Latin America which has been intermittently “democratic”. The US did not lead that coup, but they allowed it once Allende went over to the Soviets and started importing East German and Cuban security “advisers”. Good for them. Pinochet is accused of killing *or* torturing only 3,000 people. That makes him one of the least bloody dictators in history. He has not been found guilty of any of those charges. Although of course he is.

Hareega:”I won’t go too far, see how the US supports Saudi Arabia although their government has SCORED THE WORST AMONG THE ENTIRE WORLD in human rights and democracy issues. Citizens in Syria have far more freedoms than in Saudi Arabia yet America stands against the Syrians.”

I doubt that Syrians do as it happens. Who scored Saudi Arabia the worst? The US supports whatever government is there. They did not pick the Saudis. They do not like the Saudis. But rather than overthrow them, they work with them. Big deal. What do you think they ought to do?

Hareega:”The US supported Taliban and Saddam Hussein at the time they were brutal regimes yet stood against them later although the regime was still the same undemocratic regime…. so it’s not about democracy.”

The US never ever supported the Taleban. They never like Saddam much either although they mildly preferred him to Iran. They turned on him when he invaded Kuwait.

Hareega:”Don’t tell me religion does not control policy in America, without fanantic religious people George Bush would have never dreamt of being in the White House let alone be re-elected.”

And yet America’s “fanatics” do not behead people on the internet. Nor do they blow themselves up in market places. Even if it were true, and it is not, America does not have a problem with fanatics.

Hareega:”ALL minorities voted against him (African Americans, Latinos, Jews, homosexuals) yet he managed to win the elections because he said Jesus was his idol character in the primaries in 2000.”

That is not true. Bush was noted for his attempts to get Blacks and Hispanics to vote for him. Jews did in reasonable numbers as well.

Hareega:”I’m Chrisitian myself and a believer but it sucks big time to see a war criminal saying he’s inspired by Jesus and the bible and acts like an angel inside America while he’s acting like a moron outside it.”

Bush is not a war criminal and calling him one doesn’t make him one.

Hareega:”No US politician can criticize ISrael and succeed in any kind of major election which should make you think why is criticizing a foreign country like ISrael so unacceptable in US politics while criticizing other foreign countires is never a problem, given that those foreign countries are at least as democratic as ISrael is?”

A good question but considering that Jews are only about 5 percent of the American population it is not their electoral clout.

I won’t go too far, see how the US supports Saudi Arabia although their government has SCORED THE WORST AMONG THE ENTIRE WORLD in human rights and democracy issues. Citizens in Syria have far more freedoms than in Saudi Arabia yet America stands against the Syrians.

The US supported Taliban and Saddam Hussein at the time they were brutal regimes yet stood against them later although the regime was still the same undemocratic regime…. so it’s not about democracy.

Don’t tell me religion does not control policy in America, without fanantic religious people George Bush would have never dreamt of being in the White House let alone be re-elected. ALL minorities voted against him (African Americans, Latinos, Jews, homosexuals) yet he managed to win the elections because he said Jesus was his idol character in the primaries in 2000. I’m Chrisitian myself and a believer but it sucks big time to see a war criminal saying he’s inspired by Jesus and the bible and acts like an angel inside America while he’s acting like a moron outside it.

I’m not surprised that Jews vote for Deomcrates, Democrates have always supported Israel. No US politician can criticize ISrael and succeed in any kind of major election which should make you think why is criticizing a foreign country like ISrael so unacceptable in US politics while criticizing other foreign countires is never a problem, given that those foreign countries are at least as democratic as ISrael is?

I don’t like Hamas either, basically because I don’t like a religious group to take over a country and deceive its people that they are the righteous ones and they have the right to rule, and that what ISrael is as well.

“All this support comes becoes of their belief in the final days when Jesus comes hence their support for Israel and their support for candidates who support ISrael.”

Is that really what you believe? I mean there is evidence enough out there to support that theory. But there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence to say otherwise. The US supports Israel because it is the only country in the Middle East that has a working representative democracy. We also support Turkey…but that is not as controversial and is not quite as well functioning (see problems joining the EU).

This idea the the US is controlled by any religious doctrine is silly we have a codified secular government. The least religious party just won a majority in both houses. When they were not in “power” (a relative term in US politics) they still had around 45% of the seats. The Republicans are not all religious fanatics either. In fact most are not. Most try to distance themselves from characters like Pat Roberts and Jerry Falwell (The US brand of religious extremism.). Most in the US view this “Christian right” and there ilk as silly and pandering.

You might find it interesting to notethat Jews in the US vote Democrat, not Republican.

Do not take my statements here as blind support for Israel. I am Anti-occupation and anti-HAMAS. You can be both. I have vastly more criticism for the Israeli machine than I do for the Palestinian. (mostly because there is not yet a coherent machine to criticize.)

I just want you to understand the folly in your statement that US Israel policy has something to do with some “end of days” scenario. Quite frankly religion does not enjoy that much control over policy in the US.

Well most oil is underground. It will not be bothered by nuclear explosions at all. The fall-out may be a problem but that depends on which way the wind is blowing and can be cleaned-up pretty quickly anyway. You know, apart from the people who live there, no one else is likely to be much upset by a nuclear exchange in the Middle East. Kuwaitis may suffer more cancers and their hair may fall out, but their oil will be safe.

Ayyob:”They don’t like the fact of Iran having Nuclear Warheads but they know they don’t have the right to stop them from making them.
As someone menioned before, the only reason Iran wants the weapons is to have some more power in negotiations and to be weighed as Pakistan and India are.”

First of all, Iran does not have any right to nuclear weapons at all. It is a signatory to the NPT which forbids Iran to even take the first step towards developing nuclear weapons. Iran is breaking this treaty. Pakistan is hardly important at all and the fact that they have nuclear weapons does not change this. They are a failed state. Everyone can and does ignore them except when they want something from them.

Hareega:”I don’t care if Iran has nuclear weapons if ISrael has them, I hope no country on earth would have them but if a country like Israel has nuclear weapons other countries also have the right to.
It’s funny how the news media in the US is trying to convince Americans that Najad is trying to bring the judgement day, the only person acting like judgement day is coming is Bush.”

Well no they do not have that right if they freely and voluntarily sign a treaty promising they will not acquire them. Which Iran has done. It has to abide by the Treaties it has signed. And Israel has not by the way. Bush is hardly acting like Judgement Day is coming. He has been amazingly restrained with what he has done. Just ask yourself, if Ahmedinajadi had the power and armed forces that Bush has, what would he have done with them? Well you’d be speaking Persian for a start I expect.