Reply to Thread New Thread |
![]() |
#1 |
|
Monkey see, monkey do - literally IMHO:
Bahrainis took to the streets for a third day of pro-democracy rallies as Yemeni demonstrators clashed with police and the Associated Press reported the first- ever protests in Libya against leader Muammar Qaddafi. |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
|
Yes, I'm trying to keep track of all the protest and seemingly steps to regime changes in that region. Interesting times, For every country there that becomes even slightly more democratic, means good things for the US in the long run. As to the domino effect... When one country overthrows its own government from the inside, that can lead to other nations doing the same. When a government is overthrown from the outside, however, the effect is less positive. For example, the government of Iran became more hardliner after the second Iraq war. There have been protests against this increased oppression from the Ayatollah, but the increase in oppression may not have occurred in an environment where America isn't literally sitting next door. There's also reason to believe that Iran would be less interested in developing a nuclear program with a less threatening environment. |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
|
Our interests and the interests of citizens living in the Middle East are not always aligned. Many of the oppressive regimes that currently rule the Middle East serve our interests possibly better than democracies would, but democracy definitely serves the interests of these people better than authoritarian governments do. |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
|
Yes, the Saudis are not now, nor ever been our friends, and it is a very oppressive regime. If they do get overthrown, several American business interests won't be very happy about it, but the people of Saudi Arabia would likely rule things less strictly than the family of Saud. |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
|
You're correct about our immeadiate welfair. But any democracy in that region will be less likely to provoke other nations nor be a hotbed for terrorist activity. Therefore, better for us, and the world, in the long run. For example, if Israel started getting more aggressive, a democratic regime might actually begin funding terror against them. By the same token, if we invaded another country in the region, that could also lead to more terror being funded by a democratic regime. |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
|
The Saudis are our friends, but they're just not very trustworthy ones. The ruling family has helped us some in fighting terror; however, Saudi Arabia remains one of the largest funders of terror. This funding usually comes from other prominent families in Saudi Arabia. |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
|
Sort of... It largely depends on regional conflicts. |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
|
The ruling family is also one of the largest supporters of radical, terrorist Inan schools here in the US, along with others of the wealthy Saudis. From all that I can see, they only support us when and where it supports their interests, not ours. And yes, they are definitely Machiavellian in their motives. Granted, so are the American businesses that support them in turn. Democracy is generally the last thing on either of our minds when it comes to U.S. - Saudi relations. |
![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
|
Ok, valid points. We should actually butt out of much of the situation with Israel, and allow the issue of their building on disputed land to be settled without our money, military might and without helping them so much in the UN with this. Sure, we've given some words about being 'displeased' with building on disputed land, but nothing really substantial. |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
|
|
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|