why not USA intersted in democracy for Africa than Iraq?
597869
Because, Americans know Africans will not play hit and run like they see in Iraq and other places. Africans will approach you and kill you, even if you are more armed and all they got is stone. ZULU style, or Mogadishu mob style. In an another words NO FEAR. That is why African citizens take their matters into their own hands against their oppresive regimes and rather have no law and government than a dictator.
296096
I bet u r not the only one asking this question.... As to whether democracy can work in Iraq, what we need to realise is that democracy can't be forced upon ppl. It is a system by the ppl, for the ppl. So, maybe it will. But to really see whether it does or doesn't, we'll have to wait till Iraq is rid of the foreign occupents...
327643
Democracy means that the people should call the shots. But in order to make important decisions, it is essential to be informed, to know what's going on. Certainly, the Iraqi people did NOT decide to have their country bombed and shattered by an alien nation, although they pretty much expected it to happen. \n\nDemocracy can even be harmful if those who make the decisions are hungry, or uneducated, or ignorant, or simply not fully aware of things. In a poor country, votes can easily be obtained in exchange for food, shot-term solutions or even promises. Democracy goes a long way; it's not just getting the people to cast ballots; it's showing them they way. \n\nSo, I don't approve of the US "spreading" democracy the world round, since they do it by first carpet-bombing the nation and then teaching them to vote. The US "freedom wars" are but an imperialist spree for an oil-thirsty nation. No one with anything resembling a brain would buy that "antiterrorist, preemptive, freedom&democracy" stuff.
241201
The U.S.A. went to Vietnam for almost the same reasons that it went into Iraq and Afghanistan, it is fighting an "evil ideology". Millions of Vietnamese died fighting for uniting their country under communism. In Iraq and Afghanistan, millions are not fighting the U.S.A. because U.S.A. is bringing democracy to those countries, to let the people decide. However, in Vietnam the U.S.A. did not allow their to be elections in South Vietnam, out of fear that communism might be voted into power. But I think the lesson is learned, that instead of denying democracy, they can allow it, and this will allow the people to give up fighting and decide their future. But we have to see if the U.S.A. will fully allow and accept the elections and democratization to flourish, or if the U.S.A. would simply set-up another puppet-regime through rigged elections.
1156101
I think you have a grasp on the situation in Iraq, we do have no business there in the first place and in all wars innocents are killed. Americans for the most part have no idea what war does to a country and its people because we have had none here since 1860. The death, the destruction that we have caused Iraq in the name of democracy is just wrong. I know that Saddam was not a  cool dude but we cannot and should not try to right every wrong through out the world. It just isn't possible.
872936
Because the US government believed that democracy can be imposed by force. Iraq was a country created by the Uk at the end of WWII in order to secure the ressources in separating the different communities: Chiites, Sunnites and Kurds were forced to live together under a dictator.\nNow that the dictator is gone, they have no reason to stay together.\nKurds wants to reunite with their people in turkey and kurdistan. Iran wants theirs and chaos has came.\nNo way out - Good luck !
193571
Iraq is slowly but surely turning into a self governing democracy that will in the near future be capable of defending itself and participating and working with nations worldwide economically and as an ally in the war against terror. the Iraqi people will be free to pursue the freedoms that we here in America have long taken for granted.Iraq does indeed have a bright future ahead and because they do our future here is America is brighter as well.~
688368
The U.S. sponsors Mubarak because he has oil, the Suez Canal, and is building democracy.  When real democracy does occur in the Middle East, it's going to be the anti-American candidates getting elected.  It's much easier to support a democracy-suppressing regime that is friendly to America than to try and overthrow a democratic regime hostile to American interests.\n\nThe reason we have this problem?  Bush's foreign policy.
1057138
I wonder why whever the Arabs have an input in Africa, war is prevalent? Somalia cannot have a viable government because the tribal affiliations.
933520
The insertion of troops was a major mistake. The entire region under Islamic influence from Morocco to Indonesia is far less stable as a result. The U.S. is increasingly seen as dictatorial by increasing numbers of people around the world. Our economy has been vastly weakened. We do not have enough troops available should other emergencies develop. The Civil War, denied by the Bush administration but acknowledged as being fully underway by the rest of the world, deepens daily and leaves American troops there as sitting ducks. There can be no victory in Iraq. Just as the British learned after World War I, the Iraqis will not be conquered. There is too much value underground (oil) and too much division above-ground. The only result of continued occupation will be increasing governmental debt for the U.S. and more dead and injured American soldiers. Military contractors such as Halliburton are being enriched. The Bush administration has no idea of what they mean by "victory", nor does Tony Blair in England.
179764
We may be the cause of a civil war in Iraq.  What the U.S. did was wrong trying to impose our type of government upon others.  Democracy is not for all countries.  Who has killed (or will be killing) more Iraqies?  Saddam or the U.S.(directly or indirectly)\n\nAlso, the U.S. wants democracy yet will not support Palestine's democratic results.  I do not agree with Palestine's point of view but, if they were elected, we have no say in the matter.  Bush wants democract only if the people elect those who Bush wants elected.
534835
one might be made to think so. democracy itself, is not all what others might want to adopt.for example, democracy exited long time ago in Africa before the west adopted it. democracy in Africa, was through the kings and chiefs. today in some parts of Africa, it still exits. African governments have adopted the western way of democracy, but does not work for them. so I personally, does not think so.\nit does not improve economical performances, but rather make people in power or in high offices to become more corrupt.
302852
Because of African dictators who take western hand-outs and use it for the own personal benefit rather than feed their own people. Poverty in Africa will never end due to this.\n\nAnd "The Champion" needs to catch a wake up. The US is at the forefront of giving aid to poverty stricken countries. It's not Bush's fault if the receivers don't use the cash wisely. The West should probably stop giving aid since it's only an incentive to "freedom fighters" to take over the poor country in order to get the aid.
462026
Democracy is the best of bad choices for government we have.For me, a benevolent dictatorship would be my choice. Democracy is too messy, takes too long to get going, or for people to understand, look at Iraq. Just too many disparate opinions have to be weighed for it to be effective. Sometimes, countries need a strong man{or woman} with a single vision. FDR and Lincoln come to mind in our history.
279132
It's been proven time and again that dictatorships don't work out for the west.  They have supported many of them in the past.  As part of their so called "cold war".  They propped them up to keep communism down.\n\nNow they've realised their mistake so they're trying to force west loving democracy on countries, which obviously can't work either.\n\nI think the number one consideration for the US is to be able to trade with a country.  So in that sense they would probably prefer a pro-west dictatorship.\n\nThe European's may be more inclined to let a anti-west democracy go ahead.  But I'm not sure there's such a thing at the moment.  Democracy and West are pretty much the same thing aren't they.\n\nps. I'm from Australia.  We gave kickbacks to Saddam Hussein just so we could sell some wheat.
293982
Because we're not about saving oppressed people.  There are millions of oppressed people in the world, and we don't do much for them.  We only use the rationale of tyrants and dictators oppressing their people when it suits our economic interests to apply pressure on the governments in power.  \n\nIts not about democracy- its about economics.\n\nLook at Darfur.  There's millions dead there, and Bush hasn't even blinked.\n\nIf these places had resources that they were being less-than forthcoming with to our country, you'd see us "helping" the oppressed people of their country.\n\nIf they don't have resources or economic value to us, they don't get help.\n\nQuite hypocrytical and opportunistic, if you ask me.  But that's the way the world works.
883273
Here's a question to the President:\n\nWho says that Iraq NEEDS to be a Democracy in the first place?\n\nLook at Saudi Arabia.  While they're certainly NOT the immaculate image of what a great country should be, the we're not locked in any sort of standoff with them.  Saudi Arabia is ruled by a Royal Family.  Jordan also is ruled by royalty, which the U.S. has pretty good relations with.  Yet Iran & Iraq, which both has/had oppressive presidents, we have problems with.\n\nMake Iraq a kingdom.  We won't have any problems with them then.  Of give them another type of government (there are dozens to choose from.)  I think trying to make them like the U.S. (which worked for us, but may not for them, since they DIDN'T revolt their leadership by themselves) could actually hurt them.  The last thing they want right now (I can only assume) is to have the exact same type of government they did under Saddam.\n\nNow, it's a given they won't be nearly as oppressed under the new leadership, but still, if I were an Iraqi, the last thing I would want is to see the word "president" on T.V.\n\nThis might be kind of far out there, but I actually don't think making them in our image is a good idea.