Is it the responsibility of the USA, UK, and others to bring "democracy" to the rest of the world?

Question

Would Iraq be more stable and peaceful G.W Bush had left them alone and Sadamn was still in power.

I get the feeling that Iraq and Iran need brutal dictators likeSadamn and the Shah to control the brain washed fanatics that we now fight.

The war is about revenge and it is tribal.

Would the whole middle east be more peaceful and stable if we had just left them alone? People outside the Middle East are the ones who sold Sadam the weapons to invade Kuwait. People outside the Middle East and outside of Africa sell the weapons of war that has killed millions in Africa and in the Middle East.

Does not the label, "Terrorist" also fit those who sell the weapons?

If my questions are offensive......I do have free speech.

The people of Iraq and Africa are not protected under the U.S, Constitution or the laws of the UK. They get sent to a "detainee camp" if they speak out like I just did.

Answer 1

Look in the real world.

Who advance in time first?

Who's being left behind with time?

If the so-called glorious past civilization was so successful.

Then why were the community being left behind with time?

Living in misery like cave-men from the twilight zone in moving backwards in time?

Luke 6.39-40,41-45,46-49

So who betray the community?

With  self lack of knowledge?

Luke 22.3-6

With "My way"

In short-changing, conning and deceiving in broad daylight in kicking them on the butts with their self lack of knowledge?

Luke 4.4-7

What do you think?

Answer 2

why?i am an iranian but i like the people of America...most of the news coming here is false.are your news,clips all true?look at it differently

Answer 3

There is an argument for stability.  I can give you that much. But stability is not peace.  The absence of mass conflict is not what peace is.  Peace is when no party desires to overthrow or get out from under another party.

But are you telling me that mass graves which have been found are not reason enough to have done this for those people?  Forced rapes, killings, hands and tongues cut off are all the reason we needed to be morally justified to intervene.  Additionally Saddam never really followed the cease fire agreement of the first gulf war.  There was ten years or so that the US could have went in there at any time because of that alone.

The thing is under certain regimes, it is impossible to revolt without external help.  

The people in the middle east are people just like we are.  I believe that.  Now just because they have dealt with harsh realities through out their lives does not mean that is all they are capable of.  Ideas like that are what lead to slavery.  

As for weapons dealers they will always exist.  It would be unimaginable NOT to supply weapons to people who needed to fight off oppression and corruption.

Answer 4

no let it develop on its own

Answer 5

no, it is the US and UKs responsibiliaty to take care of their own citizens and not f'ck up other regions.

the shah, as you mentioned a brutal dictator, was backed by the US and inserted into power with US aid. In fact, Iran was having elections before the US and UK intervened and disposed of him, giving rise to Shah Pahlavi.

This isn't unique to Iran, look at Vietnam (Ho Chi Mien wanted Vietnam to become a democracy before the US backed french imperialism), Most of south and central america shares a similar history of democratic, but anti-globalization figures coming to power, then being disposed of with US aid so a pro-US globalization figure can come into power.

Many think the US is out there to spread democracy, but this is a farce. a sick joke. the US is responsible behind many, many brutal dictators, for the sole reasons of economic and hegemonic interests.