"Peace" Protestors

[dancingdoggie17]

Originally posted by Bluey
Depends on who you talk to.

Control of Iraq's oil would make a great tool to kick OPEC's arse.

And the 'The US can buy all the oil it needs' type arguments are pretty shallow. They can buy it but pretty soon they will have no control over any sources.

Those arguments are shallow. Suddam Hussein was one of the countries refusing to take US$ for oil. Because the USA is completely privatised they buy much more than they make and trade. Therefore, they are not recieving much money from other countries in exchange for their goods.

So by suddam refusing to take US$ they had to trade more with Iraq to get the money. If every country did this it would force the whole US enonomy to change and start making more things to export. Alot of European countries are now asking for Euro's.

So the US cannot buy as much oil as they want because sooner or later they will need to trade more with these countries in order to be able to pay them.

 

[Fred]

Originally posted by Lestat
Was ANYONE protesting when Saddam was killing his own people. The media didn't even report any civilian persecutions by Saddam, till after the Gulf war.

Where were the protesters?


The US stood by and watched when Saddam gassed 5000 kurds in 1988.

Where were the protesters?

Not only stood by and watched, they vetoed a UN resolution condemning Iraq for the use of chemical weapons.

Where were the protesters?


Stood by and watched when the Shi-ite south were slaughtered after they revolted, in 91.

Where were the protesters?

So where were the morals of the 'coalition of the willing' back then.

Where were the protesters?

It goes both ways Fred.



Do you truly believe that??

Do you believe that aboriginals deserve compensation for there mistreatement by white settlers, in the past 200 years??

Isn't it a case of better late then never????

I can't see the connection with the aboriginals and Iraq. The former is a whole new topic. This is about Iraq.

It seems the protesters are happy for the U.S. to do nothing, no matter how bad the consequence. But as soon as they do something, out come the protesters. Heaven forbid - you'd almost think there was an anti-american group out there that appears no matter what the cause.
That's why I said better late than never. It almost sounds like you would have agreed if the U.S. had acted in your earlier examples.

 

[Fred]

Originally posted by Bluey

Control of Iraq's oil would make a great tool to kick OPEC's arse.

Control of a resource and occupation are totally different.

 

[skilts]

Originally posted by Fred
I can't see the connection with the aboriginals and Iraq. The former is a whole new topic. This is about Iraq.

It seems the protesters are happy for the U.S. to do nothing, no matter how bad the consequence. But as soon as they do something, out come the protesters. Heaven forbid - you'd almost think there was an anti-american group out there that appears no matter what the cause.
That's why I said better late than never. It almost sounds like you would have agreed if the U.S. had acted in your earlier examples.

More cheap debating tactics, eh Fred? Disregard any relevant connections made to the subject-at-hand and bag someone for being off-topic. You are unable to help yourself, are you?

Fred replies: It doesn't matter to me what you think. I ignore people like you.

I don't know why you bother to contribute to these boards. It seems you do a perfectly good job of administration. Maybe that's your strength? You are an adequate clerk.

 

[Katthawk]

Eh! Anyone know where the rules on the debating tactics are?

I seem to have misplaced them. Some people apparently have them and won't share.

 

[Fred]

Originally posted by skilts
More cheap debating tactics, eh Fred? Disregard any relevant connections made to the subject-at-hand and bag someone for being off-topic. You are unable to help yourself, are you?

Feel free to point out to me the connection between the treatment of aborigines 200 years ago and Iraq now, preferably without the cheap putdowns if you can.

 

[Energiser Bunny]

Originally posted by The Ewok
"The left would trample over 1000 poor people to throw a rock at 1 rich man"

true dat!

I think these protestors are actually please when they hear news of Iraqi civilians being killed, it gives them more reason to whinge & moan & hate America, more reason to carry on like the feral bushpigs they are.

 

[skilts]

Originally posted by Fred
Feel free to point out to me the connection between the treatment of aborigines 200 years ago and Iraq now, preferably without the cheap putdowns if you can.

Both involve violent invasions and appropriation of land combined with trampling on the rights of ordinary citizens. See, that wasn't too difficult. Would you think that the term 'cheap putdown' would be value free and not editorialising? Or would you think it could be interpreted as a 'cheap putdown'? Hone those clerical skills Fred.

Also, the connection between the current situation and that of Hitler and Poland lies not in the reasons for the invasion but in the methods used to pre-justify it. The Poles are attacking Germans/The Iraqis have WMD they're going to sell to terrorists. Build up a situation by a tissue of lies and misinformation, leaving a 'reasonable' person with no alternative but to invade. Then let your version of Goebbels loose. Have to say our latterday Goebbels have achieved a stunning victory in your case.

Like Hitler, Bush was elected in extremely dubious circumstances and allowed his ego to get the better of him. He also was barking mad, as is Bush. And Bush is the person with whom you wish to align us?

Don't know why I'm bothering with this, as you assert you never read anything I write. Sigs are not the only things which are a waste of space.

 

[Lestat]

Also, the connection between the current situation and that of Hitler and Poland lies not in the reasons for the invasion but in the methods used to pre-justify it. The Poles are attacking Germans/The Iraqis have WMD they're going to sell to terrorists.

The following is a quote from Herman Goering. He was a nazi propagandist.

Here's a Nazi lesson on manipulating public opinion.

"Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. That works the same in every country"


DEOS THIS SOUND FAMILIAR???

 

[Michele]

Originally posted by Diego Forlan
Evidence please?

Diego, to what do you refer,

1, The "Assryian Catholic church" wanting to get rid of Insane.
(It was on the ABC earlier this week. The priest and parishoners spoke to the media.)

2. "Agreeing with John Howard"
(Ditto)

3. "Oil rich nation"
(Yes, Iraq should be a relatively wealthy country, but an evil dictator is in charge and surrounds himself in luxury and palaces whille his countrymen starve.)

4. "Sanctions".
(Sanctions were imposed by the UN to bring about a change in the Iraqi thinking - similar to santions forced upon South Africa, but Insane doesn't care.
In fact, he merrily traded on the black market with surrounding Arab neighbours. Tanks laden with oil lined up at the different borders, obtaining huge amounts of money and all of it going to Insane and his very insane and evil sons.

Have a good look at Iraq? With the legal oil-for-food/medicine sanctioned by the UN. does Iraq and her people seem well fed, with sufficient medical supplies? The question must be asked, where IS the money? Why is the world still having to feed the Iraqi people if the money was used as it should be.)

5. "Money into Swiss bank accounts"
(This was discussed in the media in the last 2 weeks. Debate raged around if the Swiss would freeze Insane's accounts; would they allow access to the accounts? And their answer was a resounding NO. All the hallmarks of how long the Jews had to fight to regain money and valuables stolen from them in WWII

With Insane's very illegal operations, tankers taking oil over the borders and through the gulf, do you really believe Insane shares his profits with the Iraqi people?
It was estimated, because of the amount of tanker movements, he is obtaining $3 BILLION every year.

Now you might understand his reluctance to give up his seat of power and all that it entails.

Read the Bulletin (March 26) just to see how evil he and his sons, particularly Uday really are. Executing a man while he not only forced his brother to watch and also but laugh at the same time.

One of his sons-in-law told of how he beat a man until his brains came out. Insane later had both sons-in-law exectued because he didn't trust them.
His paternal cousin is nicknamed 'Chemical Ali'. It was he, who unleashed the nerve gas on the Kurds, killing thousands.

Have a look, if you can stomach (I am not having a go at you) the footage of the aftermath of those attacks.
It is truely disturbing and absolutely horrific.
Where was Bob Brown, "Rent-a-crowd" Steven Jolly, the unions, the Greens and lastly the peace wackers.?

AND YET SOME WONDER 'WHY' AUSTRALIA BECAME INVOLVED.

 

[Katthawk]

Compelling stuff Michele.

I can only say that some people are very idealistic in hoping that 'bad' people somehow will find their way out of doing evil.

It is just not enough to sit and hope that by telling everyone that peace is good that everyone else will see this.

Bloody frustrating and no it wasn't a pun. Can I not use the word without it being seen as something else. Gawd I am getting sensitive.

 

[Mobbs]

I have my issues with Bob Brown too, but don't paint him as being as entirely misguided. He's done good work in other areas (eg Tibet).

 

[Michele]

Originally posted by Lestat
Are you aware that there a numerous despot leaders that are currently killing there civilians. Unfortunately Saddam isn't the only one.

Only last weeks, Sharon (and his forces) killed a 13 month old baby. How do you feel about that Frosties. How many UN resolutions have condemned Israel for its treatment of Palestinians. Do you even know??

You seriously believe that we support Saddam because we're anti-war.

Look at the people in Iraq. They don't support Saddam.

Yet they are not reacting to the allied troops as saviours. Why do you think that is?? (Please don't give me a quote that I heard General Franks say at last nights press conference).

1. Agree. So I think we should sit back in our loungerooms, grab another tinny and shake our heads in dismay, then turn the telly on to something more realistic, say Big Brother or Millionaire Batchelor. Perhaps Survivor, now that's real.

2. ONE 13 mth old baby.
Well tell me because I can't understand their minds an their way of thinking !!!.
Why do young Palestinan men, strap bombs to their bodies, charge up to place where there are certain to be miltitary personnel, say a market, or a restaurant or a school bus and proceed to blow themselves and all around to smithereens?

And the punchline - their families are paid $10,000 blood money by no other *drum roll* SADDAM INSANE and his band of henchmen.

Did it ever occur to you that IF the Palestinians stopped bombing the Israelis, something, just something might be achieved - like PEACE.
Even Britain and Northern Ireland came to that conclusion.

3. Now I get my chance.
How do you propose "we" get Insane to hand over his WMD. The full council of UN proposed and endorsed Resolution 1441 recentlyand quite somtime ago, two other resolutions, 678 and ?

And guess what, the world is still waiting.

The ONLY reason that Insane allowed weapon inspectors back into Iraq was because of the pressure imposed by the US and the other permanent members of the UN.

So you tell me, how do you get Insane to comply? Wait until he drops dead of old age? Or until he decides to unleash those horrific WMD.

4. Too easy!
Imagine you are an Iraqi, living in Iraq. And you don't like Insane, in fact, you detest Insane. But he executes people for "crimes" like stealing soap.
Wouldn't you be just a liitle unsure, just in case the US pulled out leaving you and your family exposed to a ruthless evil regime.
Human shredders; cutting out of tongues; beating a person until their brains came out; raping women; torturing CHILDREN in front of their parents to force an admission; bombing your own population, particularly in the last Gulf War, to gain press coverage. And lastly, using nerve gas.
Need I go on.

Anyone who is not against Insane, must also have their own sanity questioned.

War is not 'nice'. It not not meant to be 'nice' But sometimes it is necessary to bring about a conclusion.
Just think, today you could have been speaking Japanese.


Your argument is lacking much because you omitted to say, that the Iraqi people are sold so much propaganda. They have no idea exactly why the US is there and exactly what the US want. They cannot click on to CNN or cable or dial up the internet to see how it is unfolding. Or watch a jounro "embedded" with the miltary, breathlessly saying, "we are now 200 k from Baghdad. 100k, 60k etc
All they know, the US are in their country - and that wouldn't please Insane.

But wouldn't it be great if those people could wander over to a polling booth and VOTE for a candidate - any candidate. Just like what happens in the US, Britain, Australia and Denmark - just like you do. It is called FREEDOM.

And that is what citizens of those 4 countries take for granted that is not open to the people of Iraq.

So you tell me - for Insane and an evil regime.
Or for coalition and Freedom.
And now remind me, just why are those IDIOTS protesting against?

 

[Lestat]

1. Agree. So I think we should sit back in our loungerooms, grab another tinny and shake our heads in dismay, then turn the telly on to something more realistic, say Big Brother or Millionaire Batchelor. Perhaps Survivor, now that's real.

Isn't that what your doing. Sitting back in your lounge room, grabbing a tinny and shaking your head in dismay.

If you feel so strongly, why aren't you in the Middle east, doing your bit to destroy 'insane'????

And you failed to answer my question. Where were you before the gulf war. Where were you when Saddam gassed the Kurds in 1988? Where were you thoughout the 80's when Saddam was persecuting his people.

Where were you when Saddam was using chemical weapons against Iran. Where was your criticism then???

And what about the other countries where dictators are persecuting there people. Why are you so silent there??

Hypocrite!

Well tell me because I can't understand their minds an their way of thinking !!!.

Of course, has nothing to do with 50 years of occupation, persecution.

There were NO suicide bombings untill the 90's, yet why don't u do some research, and look at how many Palestinian villages have been destroyed, how many Palestinian homes have been blown up, how many Palestinian refugees have been displaced.

A whole nation stolen, because of the 'guilt' that Europe felt after the holocaust.

So you think its ok to kill a 13 y.o baby because palestinian terrorists target Israeli civilians. Civilians mind you that have stolen the land, and homes of palestinians. You feel thats ok??

And the punchline - their families are paid $10,000 blood money by no other *drum roll* SADDAM INSANE and his band of henchmen.

So this upsets you so much does it??

Yet you have no problem with Israel recieving 4.5 billion dollars a year (plus 12.5 million a year in loan guarantee's) from the US, to bolster up there illegal occupation of Palestinian lands, and killing of palestinian civilians.

Plus the millitary arms used against stone throwing youths. You have no problem with that do you. Once again, you are a hypocrite, and your double standards are a disgrace.

10,000 per suicide bombing is abhorent, I agree. However, why do you have no problem with the US arming and paying the Israeli terrorists in uniforms...the IDF.

Did it ever occur to you that IF the Palestinians stopped bombing the Israelis, something, just something might be achieved - like PEACE.

lol

You obviously don't know much about the history of the ME do you.

For 5 years 95-99 (the oslo years)there were no bombs. And do you know what happened??

More illegal settlements were built, actually the building of illegal settlements increased to a point never seen before. More illegal settlements were built after the Oslo peace process was signed, then the total between 1967 and 1993.

More palestinians removed from there homes, more killing.

So please, learn something before you sprout out the same propaganda. Do some research!

Just a question??

When did the first suicide bombing by a palestinian ever occur? What year???

So you tell me, how do you get Insane to comply? Wait until he drops dead of old age? Or until he decides to unleash those horrific WMD.

You are truly full of it.

What did you think the inspectors were doing in Iraq from 91, till 98. What, twiddling there thumbs.

They totally destroyed Iraq's nuclear weapons programs. They disarmed Iraq. Have you ever heard of Scott Ritter. Why do you totally ignore his reports. He was on the UNSCOM team, and has stated time and time again that Iraq was 85% disarmed.

Agreed it was not 100% disarming, however the inspectors were making progress.

And why didn't the allies remove Saddam from power in 91, when they had the opportunity.

Please dont say that they did not have a UN mandate!

Imagine you are an Iraqi, living in Iraq. And you don't like Insane, in fact, you detest Insane. But he executes people for "crimes" like stealing soap.

More of your double standards.

The same occurs in Egypt. Yet why not attack Egypt, cause the dictatorship in Egypt (Mubarak) is pro-US.

The same occurs in Saudi Arabia, yet why not attack Saudi Arabia. Because the dictators (house of Saud) are pro-US.

You can add every arab country to that list. Why not attack them all.

Slightly hypocritical don't you think.

Honestly, do you know anything of the dynamics of politics in the ME??

And Israel do all those things that you have listed, to the Palestinians. Yet you make out the Israeli's are the victims??

How many times have UN organisations found the Israeli's guilty of violating the geneva conventions??

Yet you have no problem with Israel. You have zero credibility!

Your argument is lacking much because you omitted to say, that the Iraqi people are sold so much propaganda.

Yes, but there not the only ones. Its a shame that you recognise Iraqi propaganda, yet the own propaganda you've been fed goes right over your head. I'm not sure who I pity more!

They have no idea exactly why the US is there and exactly what the US want.

And obviously neither do you!

They cannot click on to CNN or cable or dial up the internet to see how it is unfolding. Or watch a jounro "embedded" with the miltary, breathlessly saying, "we are now 200 k from Baghdad. 100k, 60k etc

hehehe

So you believe that you can click on to CNN to see how its unfolding. Your a fool, a naive fool. Do you truly believe that CNN is telling you the truth.

Journo's embedded with the millitary. Read that sentence out loud again.

Do you truly believe that these jouno's are able to give an 'unbiased' report, while being embedded in the US military.

Think about it. Its not that hard.

All they know, the US are in their country - and that wouldn't please Insane.

And tell me. what do you think you know??

All we know is that the US are in their country. And that would please Bush, Howard, and all the republican warmongers.

What do you think you know? You don't know sh*t. You don't know how the war is unfolding. All you do know is the the US and military want you to know, via those journalists that are 'embedded' into the US military.

However, you supposed to be living in a 'democratic' country. Where the Iraqi's are known to be living under a sadistic ruler. Yet we're both fed the same levels of propaganda. Quite sad isn't it.

But then there are fools like yourself that cannot recognise this. People like you make it easy for murderers to operate in this world.

But wouldn't it be great if those people could wander over to a polling booth and VOTE for a candidate - any candidate. Just like what happens in the US, Britain, Australia and Denmark - just like you do. It is called FREEDOM.

hahahah

Yes, like those people in Florida. They were obviously allowed to vote for any candidate. Right??

Yes, FREEDOM is a wonderful thing is it not.

So you tell me - for Insane and an evil regime.

Its not much of a choice is it.

Lets have a look at the choices.

And evil and insane regime - Saddam Hussien.

Or another evil and insane regime, under forriegn rule of the US. Another dictator puppet of the US (similar to the role Saddam Hussien played, back when people like you believed he was the good guy - pre gulf war). The lesser of two evils. or Is it???

Lets have a wager. Lets see if democracy will be instilled into Iraq. Just as democracy is in place in Afghanistan. Democracy in Kuwait hey.

The US have a long history of placing pro-US dictators in countries, including Iraq (in 1969).

What makes you think it will be different this time???

 

[myee8]

I do think democracy will be possible in Iraq and Afganistan. Of course it won't be easy as there will be lotsa bumps along the way, but not everything goes according to wot u want in life, plus who said it would be easy anyway? So as long as they eventually involved it's citizens or exiled ones too.

 

[Lestat]

I do think democracy will be possible in Iraq and Afganistan. Of course it won't be easy as there will be lotsa bumps along the way, but not everything goes according to wot u want in life, plus who said it would be easy anyway? So as long as they eventually involved it's citizens or exiled ones too.

I agree, democracy is possible.

However, America will never allow democracy to flourish in either Iraq, or Afghanistan.

It is not in there interests.

Like, what would happened if a totally free democratic election in Iraq, led to an Islamic fundamentalist govt in Iraq. What then? Would the US scrap the election results, and start again, as in what happened with the French in Algeria??

Its for these reasons that America will never spread democracy in the middle east. They have far to much to lose.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. It is much easier to control a dictator, then it is a democracy.

Just look at Turkey (a 'military' democracy, if that makes sense), and Qatar (dictatorship).

Both the populations are against the war. Turkish parliment voted against supporting the US military machine, yet Qatar have the main US base in Qatar.

Democracy in the ME is the worst thing that could happen for US strategic goals.

 

[Diego]

Originally posted by Michele
Diego, to what do you refer,

Sorry to go off topic for a sec, but could you refer to him as D.Forlan or just Forlan..becasue thats my real name and it confused the hell out of me for a second. I thought you were talking to me.

Sorry..carry on.

 

[Lestat]

Here Michelle.

Have a read and learn something. Learn something about the lies that you are so quickly ready to swallow!

Read something that our media, for some reason, fails to report on!


Coalition faked it, says UN
By Louis Charbonneau VIENNA


A few hours and a simple internet search was all it took for UN inspectors to realize documents backing US and British claims that Iraq had revived its nuclear program were crude fakes, a UN official said.

Speaking to Reuters on condition of anonymity, a senior official from the UN nuclear agency who saw the documents offered as evidence that Iraq tried to buy 500 tons of uranium from Niger, described one as so badly forged his "jaw dropped".

"When [UN experts] started to look at them, after a few hours of going at it with a critical eye things started to pop out," the official said, adding a more thorough investigation used up "resources, time and energy we could have devoted elsewhere".

The US first made the allegation that Iraq had revived its nuclear program around September last year when the CIA warned that Baghdad "could make a nuclear weapon within a year" if it acquired uranium.

US President George W. Bush found the proof credible enough to add it to his State of the Union speech in January.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) official said the charge that Iraq sought the uranium was to be the "stake in the heart" of Baghdad and "would have been as close to a smoking gun as you could get" because Iraq could only want it for weapons.

Once the IAEA got the documents – which took months - French nuclear scientist Jacques Bautes, head of the UN Iraq Nuclear Verification office, quickly saw they were fakes.

Two documents were particularly bad. The first was a letter from the president of Niger which referred to his authority under the 1965 constitution. That constitution has been defunct for nearly four years, the official said.

There were other problems with the letter, including an unsuccessful forgery of the president's signature.

"It doesn't even look close to the signature of the president. I'm not a [handwriting] expert but when I looked at it my jaw dropped," the official said.

Another letter about uranium dated October 2000 purportedly came from Niger's foreign minister and was signed by a Mr. Alle Elhadj Habibou, who has not been foreign minister since 1989.

To make matters worse, the letterhead was out of date and referred to Niger's "Supreme Military Council" from the pre-1999 era – which would be like calling Russia the Soviet Union.

After determining the documents were fakes, the IAEA had a group of international forensics experts – including people from the US and Britain - verify their findings. The panel unanimously agreed with the IAEA.

"We don't know who did it," the official said, adding that it would be easy to come up with a long list of groups and states which would like to malign the present Iraqi regime.

The IAEA asked the US and Britain if they had any other evidence backing the claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium. The answer was no.

IAEA chief Muhammad Al Baradei informed the UN Security Council in early March that the Niger proof was fake and that three months with 218 inspections at 141 sites had produced "no evidence or plausible indication" Iraq had a nuclear program.

But last week US Vice President **** Cheney repeated the US position and said that Al Baradei was wrong about Iraq.

"We know [Iraqi President Saddam Hussein] has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has in fact reconstituted nuclear weapons," he said.

Reuters

 

[carn_the_nmfc]

Originally posted by myee8
I do think democracy will be possible in Iraq and Afganistan. Of course it won't be easy as there will be lotsa bumps along the way, but not everything goes according to wot u want in life, plus who said it would be easy anyway? So as long as they eventually involved it's citizens or exiled ones too.

Well said myee8

 

[clucas91]

Name one successful Arab democracy in the last 50 years.

 

[Yianni]

Originally posted by The Milkman
What are those ways?

Gee, you'd think we would have agreed on this by now!!

C'mon, let's get a consensus people!

 

[The Milkman]

Originally posted by Lestat
I agree, democracy is possible.

However, America will never allow democracy to flourish in either Iraq, or Afghanistan.

It is not in there interests.

Like, what would happened if a totally free democratic election in Iraq, led to an Islamic fundamentalist govt in Iraq. What then? Would the US scrap the election results, and start again, as in what happened with the French in Algeria??

Its for these reasons that America will never spread democracy in the middle east. They have far to much to lose.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. It is much easier to control a dictator, then it is a democracy.

Just look at Turkey (a 'military' democracy, if that makes sense), and Qatar (dictatorship).

Both the populations are against the war. Turkish parliment voted against supporting the US military machine, yet Qatar have the main US base in Qatar.

Democracy in the ME is the worst thing that could happen for US strategic goals.

I'd have to do some digging but I read an interesting article about democracy in the Middle East. It was from a pretty conservative American site (the National Review) and the author said that democracy shouldn't necessarily be the goal of the Middle East, pointing out the reasons you listed. He also stated that Saddam Hussein was the democratically elected president of Iraq. So, democracy isn't necessarliy a good thing.

The author said that, instead, the countries should work towards giving their citizens liberty. His point was that a monarchy that gives its citizens freedoms while not letting them "vote" for the king is better than a government like Iraq's where the president is voted in and the summarily puts the screws to its people.

 

[Lestat]

http://smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/31/1048962702907.html

 

[fabulousphil]

Originally posted by clucas91
Name one successful Arab democracy in the last 50 years.

Arabs and democracy do not go together, can anyone give me any reasons why democracy doesnt work in the middle east.

The only free democratic country in the ME is Israel.

 

[myee8]

Originally posted by fabulousphil
Arabs and democracy do not go together, can anyone give me any reasons why democracy doesnt work in the middle east.

The only free democratic country in the ME is Israel.

True, and even then Israel is predomintly a country of Jews and not Arab types. Perhaps it's the fanaticism of the extremists that prevent democracy?