mitch, i think you can argue that India was effectively westernized by England.

So a nation must be western to be able to become free and democratic? That is exactly the racism Mitch is writing about! You're basically saying that Arabs, at least in the middle east, are less than we are. Less wise, less kind, less capable and less responsible. That is the essense of racism.

It also gravels my ass to hear people say "but there's never been democracy in the middle east" as though that means there never could be. Two hundred thirty years ago, not one citizen of Colonial America had ever lived in a free democracy. Not one of their ancestors had come from such a place. At that time in the world, such a nation was only a pipe dream. I'm sure there were plenty of loyalists who said "Govern ourselves? No King? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. It'll never work." But the Founders succeeded. To assume that only white males of European descent could possibly create such a government,(or even want to try) is about as rank and arrogant a bit of racism as I can think of.

Calm down MLP i said nothing of the sort, did i ever say, "a nation must be western to be able to become free and democratic?" To simplify the answer for you, so you don't misinterpret another simple sentence, "no."

i just pointed out that there was possibly a "westernization" of india through the colonialization, a foundation that could have been laid that would help nourish a democracy (ie. a fair justice system, independent press, educational system, transparent goverment, etc.)

Can democracy flourish in the Middle East? Yes, no doubt about it.

It's good to see fulc come around and start to support President Bush. There is hope.

I guess if you go far enough west you'll hit Japan.

not so fast kermit, i am still trying to figure out how you give someone the present of democracy, but present it in the wrapping paper of war.

"how you give someone the present of democracy...in the wrapping paper of war"

Ask the Germans, Japanese and Italians.

Ask the South Koreans; imperfect as their democracies have been, they'd not have existed without *two* wars. As their democracy improves, ponder the alternative.

Ask the Danes, Norwegians, Dutch, Belgians, Greeks, Balkan Slavs, Luxemburgers, Thais, Malays and French; democracy was not restored to them by diplomacy.

Try Taiwan, Pakistan and Indonesia. All are dicey democracies at best - but without one war or another, all would remain irredeemable totalitarian cesspools.

Wanna count cold wars? Add the Poles, Hungarians, Czechs, Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Bulgarians. Beyond the Poles, the Hungarians and the Baltics, none of them have liberal democratic traditions. All of them are democracies.

Let's add hot, cold and shadow wars together; Slovenia was freed from the Nazis by war, freed from Tito by the Cold War, and defended its newfound democracy by beating back the Serbs.

Doh - and lest we forget, our own democracy was the product of a war. And we fought another war, among other reasons, to bring democracy to 12% of the population.

The question is not "can you 'impose' democracy by force". It is "Who teaches history to people who grow up to be leftists?"