Different ways of life

[kendor]

Different cultures have their ways to live their lives is it right to try to change how they do so? i'm thinking of the upcoming Iraqi Constitution and comments made by the media such as rights of women.
Now of course women have fought for their rights in this country and won.
I'm not being chauvanistic but making the point that shouldn't that be left for the women of that country to fight and if the west insists on Iraq giving them rights then that is interference? it's not that long ago that women had no rights in this country. before im called chauvanistic i'm all for equality and am merely making a point on the legalities of western influence into anothers culture. we may not understand their way of life but who is right and who is wrong?

 

[diydamian]

I believe the real problem is, we the west, are tryin to make the rest of the world live to our standards and beliefs. This is not because we are right, it's happening because our goverments and the big business that are financing them, see profit in exploiting poorer and less well organised nations. The pressure is on, oil is going to run out witin the next couple off centuries, whoever controls the oil will have the upper hand. Bush and his cronies will give you a million reasons to invade any country in the world, but just remember what that country has that he wants. Oil.

 

[AdamW]

Wow, how bizarre? I was thinking earlier on about all the words like "federal" and "constitution" being bandied about in Iraq, and couldn't help but wonder if the US is attempting to turn everything into a clone of the US.

I think that we broadly have two choices for countries where "undesirable" regimes have been removed:

1) a western-style democracy, aping the west as much as it can

2) a "foreign" system of governance.

The first is less alien to those of us who live in the West. We live in hope that it is therefore more predictable and we are less likely to run into problems with them.

It does concern me that the US doesn't seem to believe that anything other than a written-constitution and an elected president could possibly be a viable and successful system. However, from a neutral standpoint it is usually the most logical way to establish a system of law and government, on paper at least.

The UK is an obvious exception, but remember that we are culturally very sensible and could seldom be described as "excitable". The chances of a coup d'etat occuring in the UK are as thin as mylar.

 

[diydamian]

surely, a western style of goverment would be quite alien to a non-european country, therefore would it not be un-expected if the local populace resisted such a goverment? Is this reason enough for the west to empose its will upon such countries?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It does concern me that the US doesn't seem to believe that anything other than a written-constitution and an elected president could possibly be a viable and successful system.

Oh I don't know - they seem quite happy for there not to be these things in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait...

Still - maybe that is balanced out by the way that when they decide that a democratically elected government and president are "undesirable", they get rid of them, too.

So there we have it - no dichotomy at all. Either the US likes you, or it doesn't. If the former, you don't need to be democratic. If the latter, it doesn't matter if you are.