Bush has a vision of bringing democracy to the middle east, is that such a bad thing?

Question

I have read so many bash bush statements with little explanation or facts to that point of view. I don't agree with everything bush has done, but he is not perfect. either is anyone else. the clinton adm. weakend our millitary and intel agcys. the bad guys got stronger and bush is doing what he believes is right. As an american do you think only americans are entitled to freedom and prosperity, dictatorship leaves little too no chance for that.

Bashers, I'm ignoring you. wish you well thow.

Answer 1

The goal is not bad.

The means used are ineffective and largely counter-productive.

Democracy, or any form of free government, only works where people are more united than divided. It only works where people are willing to work together to resolve problems, where the decisions made by the majority actually do resolve the problems, and where people are willing to accept those decisions made by the majority. In only works where most people are ready and willing to get along.

Iraq is not ready. The populace is not ready to be at peace with itself, and it's not ready to accept the decisions made by others. Heck, even the US barely rises to that standard on some days.

Iraq is not ready. And trying to force them to accept an idea and a model that they are not prepared to sustain is worse than a waste of time and lives. It defeats the goal, by trying to force something that must be chosen willingly.

Answer 2

When looking at whether an action is right or wrong, I do not believe that we should consider the stated reasons for that action, unless there is some clear evidence that supports their reason for action.

By support, I mean clear support. If a person is holding a gun to another person's head and I shoot the person holding the gun, it is clear that if I said "I shot him, and my aim was to protect the other person", then most people would consider I had done the right thing, provided that the person I was protecting was innocent, and I did not previously know the person holding the gun. (so I had no other possible reason to kill him)

In such a case, there would be little doubt that my stated aim was honest and true.

In the case of President Bush, I doubt many people would see the same clarity and honesty in his stated intent.

Generally speaking, there are only rare cases where acts that are normally wrong, such as killing another person, could be justified.

I believe a preferable way to look at morals is based in the character of an act (ie killing is wrong), or the consequences of an action or inaction.

In the case of the middle east, I doubt anyone would agree that the consequences of Bush's actions have been positive, when all is weighed up, nor do I think that the individual acts carried out as part of his "bring democracy to the middle east" movement could be described as morally right.

So if we look at the sum of consequences thus far he has wronged, if we consider the likelihood of good consequences in the foreseeable future he has wronged, and if we loko at the actual individual acts of killing and hurt, there are many other wrongs that have come from his "vision".

In saying that, I am placing a significant value on each life lost or destroyed, and am taking into account the failure to improve the living standards of anyone involved, US citizens included.

If you accept the above, I have outlined 3 different ways of considering right and wrong and shown as best as I can (without writing a book) that Bush's actions are not 'right' under any.

Good question. I hope I have explained, as best as possible the reasons why some people feel moved to distrust Bush's words, and perhaps even 'hate' the man.

Answer 3

You claim to be unbiased. So do I. I wish that Bush could bring democracy to the Middle East. But the fact is thousands of years of history show that this cannot and will not happen. How many innocent people, American or otherwise have to die before we realize that democracy is impossible. A puppet state with an iron clasp rule, that is possible, and I believe is what is truly being sought here. If the objective was to overthrow Sadam, that could have been done with a big reward and a handful of men. I believe the real objective was the control of the second largest oil reserves on this planet. I for one do not wish to see our sons and daughters die in battle so a handful of aristocrats get more powerful and much richer. Can you truly not see the writing blaring off the walls? Or do you truly think it is a coincidence that both presidents that started wars with Iraq and our current VP are all big oil?

Answer 4

You need to read more and become more informed on issues. Turn off FOX and Rush and read. Clinton did not weaken the military, that is a lie. Bush however did, under Bush new recruits in the Marines is down by half. The Guard is down by over half.
Sept 11th. was the greatest failure of our government in the History of the Republic. Bush was told we would be attacked, he was told they would use planes and he was told that the terrorist were already in this country. By PDB, came out in Congress Investigation. In America we fire failures like Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rummy. If America were a corporation they would already be gone. If you would take the time to be more educated on issues you would know Iraqis hate democracy, they prefer a Islamic Republic like Iran, that is fact. Ask them. I did. Iraq is in civil war now and that will last 10 years, thank Bush. We have over 19,000 wounded and 2604 dead, thanks to Bush. In Iraq no matter what we do Iran will control Iraq in the end, Iran controls the Shiite religious leaders now. BTW, check out Afghanistan, North Korea and North Viet Nam for the Democracy we "installed" there. BTw, Clinton was 1000 times better than Bush and Clinton never went back to Congress and aks them to pass new laws or change the laws he broke while president, now did he.? Bush has broken two laws already as the appointed President, since he lost Ohio, he was not elected to that office.
That is also fact.

Answer 5

His heart is in the right place but...
Democracy is not right for all people. Most of the people in the Middle East are Muslim. Their laws are based on religion--their religion. Who are we to try to tell them they are wrong?
I am sure the monarchy of England 230 years ago thought their governmental structure was the best in the world, too. But 13 colonies decided otherwise. The colonists did what was best for them. Although it took a war to prove the point, eventually, England learned to accept it. Now that did not mean that the US was right and England was wrong. It simply meant that the two different groups of people chose to live differently.
I think it is time for America to stop trying to bring other countries around to our way of thinking, and simply accept that there are differences among us. If the people of a country need our help, they should say so. Otherwise, we should really mind our own business.

Answer 6

i desire which you're kidding. at the start, he did no longer pass to Pakistan. He visited Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the rather some smaller gulf states. everywhere he went, he replaced into won warmly via the leaders that he helped solidify power. he's hated interior the Arab streets and he prevented vacationing the inhabitants centers via fact of rioting concerns. the human beings who have been demonstraing against Bush weren't in basic terms Islamists, yet additionally Democracy advocates who sense that they have been betrayed via the Bush administration. while he first began his administration, he spoke approximately his plan to "deliver democracy" to the middle East. He has further conflict, extra erosion of democracy, and consolidation of the governement powers over the human beings (e.g. Saudi Arabia). additionally he replaced into rebuffed via the Saudis while Bush stated expanding oil aspects to help the yankee public. how are you able to in all danger positioned a great spin in this holiday?

Answer 7

Lots of dictators were elected under Democracy.
Take for example Hugo Chavez( If you consider he a dictator) he was elected and reelected in a democratic process.
Don't confuse "democracy" with justice and remember that any country have the right to intervening with other unless this one is a real threat to it.
I don't believe in the concept of forced "democracy".
An old movie "Tea for the August Moon" confront this idea.

Answer 8

He's a liar and a thief!
bush never intended to bring democracy to Iraq.

The bad guys are stronger now than they have ever been, our civil liberties have been eroded. 200-500 soldiers a month are being injured and maimed for bush's lie.

Our economy is in the dumps. the national deficit is higher than it has ever been.

Shall i go on describing the WORST presidency in American history?

Answer 9

Bringing democracy to the middle east?! All that is going on now is Corporate greed trying to get as much funding as possible at an unheard of rate. We got Sadaam.....we found no WMD's.......they experienced public elections. They have established a new democratic government.

THERE IS ONLY ONE DICTATOR LEFT IN IRAQ.............BUSH!

Answer 10

The problelm American people have with this little "democracy" vision is that it was not his true reason for going to the middle east. He was hell bent that we were there for WMD's which were not there. Than all the sudden in mid stream oh we are fighting for democracy. That is what a lot of Americans have problems with.

No I don't think it is wrong to bring democracy to the middle east. But you know what that was not our problem. It it was up to the middle east to fight for their own democracy just as we did. Once the troops leave Iraq is going to lose their democracy because they didn't not fight for it nor will they be able to defend it.