Why isn't Kuwait a Democracy?

Good question.

It's been 13 years since they've been liberated. My guess is the powers that be don't really want a democracy and the people who live there don't have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to them.

Invade!

Make them be a democracy, regardless of what they want! Look what it's done for us...

If they start developing WMD and make specific threats against the USA and/or its friends, they might be a democracy sooner than they want to be. We have not had any quarrel with Kuwait, however, and the friendship seems to be mutual. In fact they are our ally in the Iraq conflict as we have temporary bases of operations squarely in the middle of that little country.

(As an aside, Kuwait is a typical Middle Eastern patriarchal society and by our standards, their society is pretty repressive. But they are not cruel and brutal to their people or guilty of unconsionable human rights violations. And Kuwaitis as a people do okay. They are also fun people to be around as are Iraqis.)

Either you don't know what democracy is, or you just like making stupid comments.


Friendship wiht the Emirate, not with the people.


You might want to look at Human Rights Watch's report on Kuwait.

The US allies In Me.
Isn't it just a bit hypocritical to demand that Iraq become a "Democracy" but tolerate Kuwate and Suadi Arabia being repressive dictatorships?

Isn't it a bit childish to believe the same foreign policy should be applied to every situation?

Fug YOU
Your dumb-ass insults don't change the question.

Why is Bushco supporting many dictatorships yet brutally insisting that the people of Iraq accept what Buscho terms as "democracy".

Another "friend" of Bushco that is a brutal dictatorship is China.

I answered your question. You're just too dense to realize it.

Asshole
If that is your answer then I invite others reading this post to
comment upon who is dense here.

Are you as much of an asshole off Net, as well?

If so, you better get Health Insurance.

Why isn't 'Kuwait' spelled properly?

We're 'murrcuns, we can spell it any goddamn way we want to! You guys are next, you commie mooselover!

Does that mean that he's a commie who loves moose, or a lover of commie moose?

Fear not , comm-radd, the true 'murrcuns'll lynch y'all too! Gawd done 'pointed Bush ower prezdint, and jaysus's gonna roll on in in his monster truck an take all the true believers to their each own double wide in the SKY while the unb'leevers, an commoniss, an homersekshuls an ayyyrabbs BURN!!!!

Ok, stopping now, this makes my head hurt!

The purpose of this thread seems to be that Bush's new justification for the war - namely, that democratizing Iraq is some kind of moral neccessity - is bankrupt, because Bush ignores, and even supports, dozens of dictatorhips.

See: Uzbekistan.

When someone comes up with a cogent rebuttle to this simple, fundamental fact, let me know. Also, when pigs fly.

Toodles.

Your original statement that "this thread seems to be that Bush's new justification for the war - namely, that building a democratic Iraq is some kind of moral neccessity - is bankrupt, because Bush ignores, and even supports, dozens of dictatorhips around the world. " is flawed to begin with.

Bush's justification for the war was and remains that Saddam posed a real threat to both the US and our allies through supporting terrorism and harboring WMD with intent to possibly distribute them to terror organizations. I don't recall any "moral neccessity" being a reason to invade Iraq.

US foriegn policy is not fair. It's about what's best for the US and sometimes that means we support some despicable regimes. We can use our support of Saddam in the 80's as an example. Saddam was fighting a war against the fundamentalists in Iran who were receiving aide from the communist Russians. It was an extension of the cold war and a power play to keep Russia in check as well as the Ayatollah.

I don't claim America has clean hands in it's relations with foriegn governments. We have OUR best interests in mind, not theirs. We did not get to be the world power we are by playing fair.

But even not playing fair we have been as fair as any world power in the history of the world. Americans do have conscience and it will allow us to go only so far. We have had some corporations that have done despicable things to other peoples, but as a nation, as a government of us, in modern times we have been restrained and far more benevolent than aggressor.

No, it isn't.



Kinda.

Originally, his main justification was that Iraq possessed an arsenal of WMDs. That included chemical and biological weapons, a reconstituted nuclear effort, as well as missles with ranges far in excess of UN restrictions.

He was so sure that he decided to invade Iraq immediately - without waiting for the UN inspectors finish, and despite Hans Blix's assertion on Febuary 14th that Hussien was now co-operating.

He was wrong. Period.

Then, for a while, rhetoric switched to Iraqi terrorist connections. We can bludgeon that poor, dead horse carcas a little more if you wish, but it is pretty clear by now that those connections never existed.

He was wrong again. Period.

Now that both justifications for the war have been proven bankrupt, the Bush administrations rhetoric has shifted to exploit the humanitarian angle. They claim that we are fighting for Iraqi freedom. The war has been shoved into the context of some great war between good and evil, tyranny and democracy, etc, etc, etc.

As I, and others, explained earlier, this argument sends the retardo-meter off the scale because Bush supports similarly repressive regimes all over the world.



Thats because it wasn't.

However, its become Bush's current favorite.



I think your paragraph above speaks to a fundamental divide between conservative thought and liberal thought.

This much is clear: America supports despotic regimes when it suites our interests, ignores despotic regimes when they don't affect us, and uses despotism as a justification for military action when it is convenient for us.

When deciding on American policy, the fact that these regimes cause human suffering on a mind boggling scale isn't even part of the equation.

Conservatives think this is okay. Liberals do not.

This is compounded when the conservative masses - in a display of unbridled ignorance and self-contradiction - buy wholesale into the argument that we must "free" or "liberate" Iraq from opression.

I understand that hypocrisy is an inevitable part of international politics. That is how it has always been and this is how it will always be. But I think this hypocrisy must be avoided, or at least minimized, when it leads to the suffering of innocent people.

There is no way that the war in Iraq - and the tens of thousands that have died because of it - falls into the neccessary hypocrisy catagory. And thats my beef.

You might want to clarify who you are addressing with that last post, Pistoff.