Quote:
Foxhole said
All I claimed is that Iraqis want democracy. The Iraqi turnout on election days, with the threat of violence being what it was, speaks for itself.
I stand by my assertion that American Muslims, overall, recognize the benefits of secular democracy, and want it to stay that way in the US.
|
The point that was being made was that if Americans don't like the notion of the Islamization of their country, it might be prudent to not interfere in Muslim countries and impose liberal democratic capitalism. I'm not talking just about Iraq, but there's a history of foreign intervention in the Muslim where Western states have supported puppets to thwart the ambitions of the people. This isn't just Iraq, but also Somalia, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc.
And in terms of "elections," again, there are plenty of examples where Islamists have one elections (Algeria, Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon) and those elections were rejected by fascist regimes with little outcry from Western states directed at these undemocratic actions. This exposes a fundamental contradiction within the approach of most Western states. It seems rather hypocritical to posit in justifying foreign interventions that were directed primarily for economic gains (Iraq) under the guise of promoting democracy when there are a plethora of Islamist movements that have proven successful in democratic elections. There's a logical disconnect between the two and it seems that the more plausible explanation is that Western states do not want their hegemony compromised at all and Islamism is clearly a challenge to that hegemony. The talk about democratization seems to be all rhetoric.