Quote:
Originally Posted by billethkid
A few days ago I read a post on the subject of Syria that suggested in each case where a dictator or "bad" guy was removed/toppled there was no clear identity of who/what would take over.
Afghanistan/Iraq....still trying to figure out who is in charge of the country. Egypt.....look who got in after that change....and how long it lasted....and now still in turmoil.
It certainly appears, like it or not these countries may well have been better off with their dictators or bad guys. They were a known entity....like it or not they kept the country stabil (a relative condition) under their form of governing.
Look at N. Korea, Iran et al.....run by folks we do not approve of for very many reasons.
I was in East Berlin shortly after the wall came down. The biggest complaint from the citizens of East Germany was, under communism, like it or not, they knew where the next days bread or other needs were going to come from and when. Under the new rulses of freedom they were not happy as there was no order. In their case they were fortunate as there was no doubt the situation would eventually evolve to a Germany that was in place.
In the Middle East there is no assurance that what gets into power will be any better, if at all, than what was ousted.
Can anybody look at the images of the children in the bombed out areas with no food or dwelling and say they are better off? They will be in time? Of course not.....the reality of the people is being over shadowed by the power of the few as usual.
Before we start touting regime change we should at least get back to a point where we can demonstrate we can take care of our own before we start selling a better way of life to others.
The old saying of the devil you know is better than the one you don't know is so very appropriate in these countries as demonstrated by what has followed ousting the incumbent leadership.
And even talking about regime change in Syria is rather farsical and naieve without knowing what comes after....like Egypt/Afghanistan/Iraq/et al.
Isn't it obvious?
btk
|
Trust me...ONLY a government friendly to the US gets to run these countries. They're being destabilized, their governments removed, becoming militarily impotent...for a reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarryRX
A very thought provoking post! We believe that our system of government is the best. We cannot understand why everyone else wouldn't want to be just like us. Yet they look at us and see that all of our freedoms has made us a morally corrupt nation (their point of view, not mine). They see we have a justice system that often seems not to work too well, a healthcare system that gets less for every dollar spent then almost every other 1st world country, and an education system that graduates illiterates, and a society that seems to produce a whole bunch of crazies that like to shoot up malls and schools. They, for whatever reason, are willing to give up a lot of freedoms to trade for stability. I'm not sure that we aren't moving in the same direction with the 12 year old Patriot Act, NSA eavesdropping, etc. so, to finally answer your question, I don't think we have seen the spread of democracy that was predicted with the "Arab spring". We have just seen one petty tyrant replaced with another.
|
So, after all that...what is so great about our system?
The more important point...they have no organized military. They can't fight us. Someone plays chess...