The two main parties in Pakistan are the Muslim League and the Pakistan People's Party. There are a number of smaller parties as well, including the Jamat-i-Islami (an Islamic party). The two main parties are pro-business, conservative politically, and drawn from different parts of Pakistan's elites: the ML is drawn from a slightly more rural land-owning constituency, and the PPP from a slightly more urban constituency. But these differences are moot. Both obey their US masters. Both engage in horse-trading and vote-rigging. And neither will pass on nuclear secrets any more than Musharraf would (A.Q. Khan, who was selling nuclear technology, was a key figure in Pakistan's nuclear program when the ML was in power, when PPP was in power, and when the army took over). My point is that whether there are democratic elections or an military autocrat, nothing substantive will change in any arena."Harold" said:Not to be contentious, but democracy is the last thing the West needs in Muslim countries. Algeria elections placed the mullahs in power several years ago. They were soon overthrown by a military coup. Mussaraf in Pakistan was hardly elected democratically. If democracy were to come to Pakistan then al Queada would likely have WMD. The house of Saud walks a fine line to maintain power. They fund the radical Wahabbi sect of Sunni Islam and export it over the world to appease the radicals. No Democracy would be about the worse thing to have in the Middle East.
Democracy is no cure all for political problems. It can be justified when there is a widespread ownership of property without a great disparity in its distribution.
Now suppose the Middle East was composed of democratic regimes. The corrupt rulers the US has kept in place would vanish, the US would lose its military bases, and the supply of oil to the US would become more problematic, as well as its pricing in US dollars. These last two the US cannot tolerate: it has a junkie's addiction to oil, which, with its tottering economy, it must buy with worthless greenbacks. This is why the regimes are autocratic. With democratic regimes in place -- and hence the US chucked out -- the moslem extremist elements would stop acting, as the removal of the US military and corporate oil presence are key strategic objectives. Moslem extremism is a reaction to the US presence and its constant meddling in the region. This has to be seen clearly.
Yes, but the US policy of keeping small, corrupt and privileged elites in power -- whether the House of Saud or the Sabahs in Kuwait -- brings about disparities in wealth and income in the Middle East. Furthermore, these elites are forced to recycle worthless greenbacks through the US financial system.Democracy is no cure all for political problems. It can be justified when there is a widespread ownership of property without a great disparity in its distribution.
Israel is a strategic asset for the US. It's true that US evangelicals support Israel, it's true that Democrats often depend on the Jewish vote in key urban constituencies, and it's true that politicians of both parties often find campaign contributiions from pro-Israeli groups helpful, but these neither singly nor collectively constitute the key driving force behind US support for Israel.As to Israel, it is simply beyond dispute that the US largely supports Israel regardless. This dynamic as far as the Republicans are concerned is driven by the dispensationalism of evangelicals.