Forums

[Spanky]

T-Rex:

"It's odd that you guys think we should take out Hussein, without regard to the poor prospects for replacing him with someone or something much better, but jump to that line when the subject is Pakistan. If we can install democracy in Iraq, why not Pakistan? Do you think Pakistanis are unready for democracy or something?"

Saddam Hussein was an evil nasty dictator that was against us. He was using all the power of a large state against our interests. In addition, he has a pretty educated population that is not overwhelmingly fundamentalist religious. Prior to his dictatorshiop it was a relatively affluent educated country. So there was a chance that Democracy could be better and not much of a chance of things getting worse. In addition, the majority of the population is Shiite so a government that forms there is unlikely to support Al Queda which hates Shiites as much as it hates the US.

Mushariff is a Pro-American dictator that is helping us on our war on terror. His population is highly uneducated, poor and full of relgious fanatics. If a national election were held a pro Al Queda government might get elected. Pakistan is the perfect example of why you need economic development before democracy. Pakistan needs to develop more economically before it will can establish a stable democracy. If it goes democratic before economic development is will probably just become a theocratic state.

Saddam Hussein's policies before and after the Gulf war were making the country poorer. So the long term chances of a stable democracy were nil. Mushariff has instituted free market reforms, that have led to growth, and which in the long run will lead to an affluent society that will lead to Democracy.