What does the face of Middle Eastern democracy look like? Right now it's ugly, angry, and surrounds a large hole that emits variations of the phrase: "Death To Infidels." All of this over a cartoon? The mass will is often scarier than the designs of the rulers of those masses. Awarding the vote to a mob who would use it to behead Christian converts, order hits on politically-incorrect cartoonists, support anti-Israeli terrorism, and prohibit women from showing their faces in public is imprudent. The clamor for Middle Eastern democracy--majority rule--is misplaced. It won't stop terrorism, emancipate women, eradicate anti-Semitism, or allow cartoonists to lampoon Muslim violence. Rather than giving power to the people, the Middle East needs to give power to the person. Rights prevent majorities from imposing their will on minorities. Before those flinging Molotov cocktails at random Western embassies get the vote, they should demonstrate a respect for the rights of minorities to say what they want, worship the god they want, and print what cartoon they want in the newspaper. King Numbers can be just as oppressive as any King Muhammad.

Ah yes, the "religion of peace" strikes again...

Shouldn't this kind of activity signal to anybody paying attention that these people will not soon be able to grasp the concepts of democratic societies?

They consistently appear intellectually challenged and socially retarded and continue to live by mob rule. And unless they are lorded over by some dictatorial tyrant they are uncontrollable.

So, why don't we just leave them be and if and when we see them in our neighborhood and they act up, exterminate them.

I always like reading the comments section when asdf comments. We think exactly the same. These "animals" need to be exterminated. We need to just nuke the areas over there, convert the leftover people to christianity and take their oil. They are the ones who need to bow down before us. Another Crusade to take back the Holy lands anyone?

Let me answer that rhetorical question of asdf. We can't just let them alone because our collective decision-making structures are not completely rational. By the time they get into our neighborhoods there will be no way to gather the will to stop them. Look at France. asdf is making a key liberal mistake and assuming complete collective rationality in some future state.

Well, Herr Doktor, we can’t continue to fight them on their terms and on their turf. We may maintain some temporary control but, as has been the case in Iraq, we would need to keep an unlimited presence of troops abroad to do this. This is not a good long term option.

And ‘in our neighborhood’ was used figuratively to mean that we would keep them out of this country by any means necessary and only if they enter and act up, would we take care of securing order and, if necessary, exterminate them with extreme prejudice.

I do not advocate managing terrorism on our soil by any means at all. And the only time I would agree to take the fight to them is if they directly threatened our interests somewhere else in the World.

What it comes down to is that many of these people are quite mad and we can not change hundreds of years of inbred madness no matter what we do.

So, I agree with James about taking the oil as at this point it should be the only reason we're in that part of the World spending blood and money.

asdf-"..our interests somewhere else in the world.."
what would you see as our interests?

"We can't just let them alone because our collective decision-making structures are not completely rational."

Um... I'm confused. As far as I can tell, DocMcG is arguing against ASDF's position and for the position he advocates on middle-east intervention by saying that asdf's position is the rational one, but that (because our collective decision-making processes are not rational) we can only have an irrational solution.... presumably leaving his as the best of the irrational...? I must be very confused indeed. Anyone want to clear this up for me?

I think DocMcG is saying that projecting into the future (ASDF's "if they show up here we exterminate them") it would be a mistake to assume that w/e govt we have then would be capable of acting in our interest in doing that dirty deed. Therefore, Doc is implying that the current governors we have and those who agree with his views on how to treat the Mideast ARE rational in the here and now in insisting we go into Arabia and attempt to beat 1.3 billion muslims into submission.

I think that Doc seems to equivocate on the scope of the term "our" when he mentions "our collective decision-making structures." Doc is implying two scopes to apply rationality to. On the one hand is the collective of the modern liberal western political elite and bureaucratic structures, including our own various "decision-making structures" (Congress, Exec Branch, CIA, NSA, Homeland, FBI, Pentagon, etc) and all those who tune out and so by default go along with the rule by that elite. Then there is another collective, a much smaller one that has cornered the rational in politics (ala Strauss or Schmitt or Hobbes, you can pick your fave theorist of this), particularly since they see the threat of the greater majority's irrationality. It is to that group that Doc is agreeing with in their mideast policies.

And it is that group that is currently in power, and will be for the long duree it seems given the likelihood of a Clinton, McCain, Guiliani pr someone like them presidency in 2008.

asdf is right, as i said in an earlier post, millions of germans had to die before they seen the light,that nazism was wrong. i think the arab world will have to suffer the same fate. these people just dont get it. maybe after the destruction of 90% of there lands will they understand that peace is the only way to live.

"these people will not soon be able to grasp the concepts of democratic societies?"

Besides saying this is just bigotry, I would point out that democratic values don't just take hold over night. There were signifigant parts of the US that were ruled by mob violence and kangaroo courts 150 years ago (which in some cases lasted until the 20th centruy). A democratic society with some "mob violence" would be much better than a totoltarian or theocratic state.

You would be correct and I agree with your opinion and the fact that, from the beginning, our country was not a democracy and that the evolution to a democracy took some time. But, the seeds were planted by founders who wanted to cast off government by the monarchies of the countries they emigrated from and who knew there was a better system to be had.

Eventually, even Europe came around.

I think this could happen in many of the Middle Eastern countries and in some African countries where we see turmoil and chaos resulting from political and religious unrest. But, there is an ingrained mentality in many of the predominantly Muslim countries that has taken hold over centuries of rule by caliphs, monarchies, religious fanatics and dictators that have prevented any understanding of the roots of democracy. In that sense, they are still fairly primitive.

I’m not saying t that it will never be. And now that the concepts of democratically based governments have been seeded, it could likely be that we’ll see more democracies spring from unstable regions. But it will take time for the people of these countries to develop the social and organizational skills to be successful.

Bottom line is that our money and troops will not make it happen any quicker, if at all.

I note that violent protests did not break out in Iraq, though they did have peaceful demonstrations.

I appear to be the only one.