The first election was the Iraqi election. Iraqis lined up to vote both in January and December despite numerous threats from insurgents and terrorists. Prior to the U.S. invasion, Iraq was ruled by secular dictator, Saddam Hussein. We watched Iraqis holding up their finger with black ink showing pride in their right to vote. Most Americans felt happy for the Iraqis. However, after the election dust had settled and the winner of the vote was revealed, most of the excitement turned to shock. The Iraqis had elected a fundementalist Shiite group to power with strong ties to Iran and open hostility towards the United States. This angered the Kurds, the Sunnis, and the moderate Shiites. And events have unfolded since then, it appears the Iraqi government is going to continue being more and more hostile to the U.S. and more and more fundamentalist like Iran.
In Lebanon, shortly after Harriri was killed, many Lebanese took to the streets to protest Syria's involvement in their country. This became known as the "Cedar Revolution". Some argue that the Lebanese only gained this courage after watching democracy take hold in Iraq. Either way, both pro-Syrian and anti-Syrian protests took place in Beirut and other places in Lebanon. This, together with heavy international pressure resulted in Syria withdrawing all its military and intelligence troops and their secular government out of Lebanon. With the Syrian withdrawl, the Lebanese needed to choose new people to fill the newly opened government positions. This led to the first election in Lebanese history. Many in the west took this as a very positive step for democracy in the middle east. However, after the election results came out, the international community was less then pleased. The armed shiite militant group, Hezbollah, won many seats in the Lebanese parliament. Hezbollah has been deemed a terrorist group by the U.S. Hezbollah has defied many international requests for it to disarm and stop its deadly attacks against Israel.
As elections were taking place in both Iraq and Lebanon, Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak, announced Egypt's first multi-party elections in the country's history. Mubarak is a secular dictator. He gives his people no rights and no political freedom, however he does not support al qaida, he does not support strict Sharia law, and he is no threat to the U.S. Mubarak ran against a banned, but tolerated, Islamist group known as the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood is a fundamental Islamic group which favors imposing Islamic law in Egypt, and has links to Al Qaeda and the Jihadist movement. They have a strong following in Egypt despite being an officially banned group. Many democracy-loving Americans were happy to see multi-party elections take place in Egypt. However as the race between secular dictator, Mubarak, and Islamic fundamentalist, Muslim Brotherhood, went on, many Americans were unsure who was the lesser of two evils. While Mubarak ended up winning the Egyptian elections, the Muslim Brotherhood won an extra 28 seats in Egypt's parliament, which gave them 74 seats total. This gave them significantly more power in that country. The Egyptian people willingly elected Islamic fundamentalists to represent them. Many international observers were disappointed with the result of the Egyptian elections due to the increased power of the Muslim Brotherhood.
In the summer of 2005 non-Arab Iran had its presidential elections. The elections were only symbolic since in Iran the President has no real power, especially in reguards to foreign policy. Iran had previously elected reformist Mahmoud Khatami as president, but he stepped down after all his attempts to bring reform to the country were rejected by the unelected ruling mullahs. The race was between 'reformist' Rafsanhani and hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I use the word 'reformist' in quotes to describe Rafsanjani because he was a very corrupt individual. Rafsanjani was very close to the mullahs and the revolutionary guards which enforce Iran's theocratical regime. Ahmadinejad, on the other hand was a part of the revolutionary guard and has even stronger ties to the ruling mullahs. Ahmadinejad's views were much more conservative and much more fundamental then that of Rafsanjani. Iranians went to the polls over the summer and elected hardliner fundamentalist, Mahmoud Ahmadinjad, who has since escalated a nuclear standoff with the west, closed down many independent media stations in Iran, and called for another nation's destruction.
The most recent election in the Arab/Muslim world was the Palestinian elections in January 2006. The corrupt, but mostly secular Fatah ran against the terrorist group Hamas. Fatah has at least publicly supported Israel's right to exist and has publicly made efforts to make peace with Israel. Hamas, on the other hand, refuses to disarm, refuses to enter peace negotiations with Israel, and continues to call for Israel's destruction and an Islamic state in "all of Palestine". Hamas advocates the imposition of Sharia law in the Palestinian territories and has already publicly said they will seperate boys and girls in Palestinian schools. On election day, the Palestinian people elected Hamas to 76 out of 132 parliamentary seats, giving them a clear majority in the parliament. Hamas is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Israeli and Palestinian civilians. Hamas' win in the Palestinian elections kills any chance for peace between the Israelis and Palestinians.
In 2005 (and first part of 2006) there were 5 major elections in the Arab/Islamic world. First in Iraq, then in Lebanon, then Egypt, then Iran, and lastly the Palestinians. Despite the major differences of circumstances behind each election, the outcome in all of them were the same: the people elected a hardliner, an extremist, a fundamentalist, or a terrorist group to represent them. Much argument goes on about the people in the Arab world wanting to live under democracy. 2005 proved that citizens of Arab/Islamic countries do not deserve democracy. In every election the people elected those who are hostile to the U.S. and the western way of life. It is very likely that any Arab elections in the future will yield the same results. The secular dictators, like Saddam and Mubarak, were best friends of the United States and the West. These secular dictators kept their people under control and opposed al qaida. If we remember, under Saddam Hussein's rule, we never saw any of the bombings or any of the Islamic extremism we are currently seeing in Iraq. Saddam kept that bullshit under control. So did Mubarak and so does many other secular Arab dictators who currently rule in the middle east. Most of these dictators have been more than willing to give us oil and they have almost always taken our side against Islamic terror groups like al qaida. With Bush's push for democracy in the middle east, more and more of these pro-U.S., anti-terrorist dictators are being taken down and replaced by extremists like Hezbollah, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, many of which openly support cutting off oil to us and al qaida's jihad against America. America has the right to protect its interest. Rather than invading a country to remove a secular dictator and replace him with an islamist, we should be attacking the islamist states and forcibly installing secular dictatorships. I know that sounds a little extreme, especially since America is the founder of modern day democracy and our history of supporting democracies across the world, but we must remember that we are dealing with a completely different type of people. We are dealing with people who, despite popular belief, have proven to embrace fundamentalism and terrorism. In order to protect the rest of the world's democracies, we must allow secular dictators to rule all Muslim countries. I would never have written anything like this a year ago or even 6 months ago. But given the results of the past 5 elections over the past year, I believe what I am saying is justified. The Arab world has been relatively quiet for generations, thanks to the secular dictators in charge, and now that Bush is trying to change that, he risks helping al qaida by allowing democracy to develop in the middle east.
Syria's President Confirms: Arab World Can't Handle Democracy
Democracy in Egypt
Iranian Elections
Hamas Now Represents the Palestinian People
The Solution to the Iraq War
Full List of Palestinian Political Parties
Hamas Minister: Is Violence a Palestinian Disease?
Muslim Brotherhood Wins 28 Seats in Egypt's Parliament
World Leaders Stunned at Hamas Victory
Lebanon Elections Put Hezbollah in Power
The Hamas Charter
Full List of Assasinated anti-Syrian Clerics
Return to Home Page
Location: Unknown
Comment:
Hi, I read your article, and have a few comments concerning it. I
notice
you welcome comments (as per the 'Comments' button at the bottom of the page).
You say - "America has the right to protect its interest"
First off, who gives America this right? Hasn't America just TAKEN this 'right' ?
Why does America have the right to protect its interest if it hurts
people
in other countries?
If the people WANT Hezbollah in power who are we to say they can't
have Hezbollah?
What would you think if the ARABS decided who YOUR president is?
Would you think that were fair? No you most certainly wouldn't.
These Arab people aren't just stupid... they are voting for parties
that would be GOOD FOR THEM, but BAD for the US (because, like you mentioned
they would stop exporting all of their oil to the US).
If you insist that the US has the right to impose what it wants in the
part of the world by saying "we know whats best for you" does that not
mean the SAME THING can be done to the US? Could not CHINA, CANADA, and the
EUROPEAN UNION decide that "The United States is fucking over its own
people, lets invade and then give the Americans a JUST government" ?