Sep 16, 2006 10:01:41 PM cite

The explanation is very simple: the western world is aggressive against them. A normal response to aggression is aggression. It is universal, not just limited to humans. If a lion bites another lion, it will be bitten back. Noam Chomsky was once asked the following question: "How do we stop terrorism?" He answered: "Stop participating in terrorism" There are a lot of countries that are not targeted by terrorists, like Switzerland, Norway and Lithuania and many others. Why not? Because they don't do terrorism. "Spreading freedom and democracy" is just a floscule, a propaganda slogan, used to convince people to support terrorism. An example of such propaganda is Bush's "They hate us for our freedom". If that was the case, The Netherlands would probably be attacked by terrorists on a daily basis. We, the human race, have made great technological advances, but sociologically we are still savages. Research has shown that the sense of justice is not unique to humans. Even apes have justice mechanisms. However, chimpanzee do not have a sense of belonging to a chimpanzee species. They do not treat chimpanzees from another herd any differently than other species. They only protect and treat justly (according to their own sense of justice) chimpanzees from the same herd. Everybody else is a competition and an enemy. We, humans, have to some extent developed appreciation for humans in general and for human life. That world view has not gained a lot of traction yet. The animal need for belonging to a specific group and treating everybody outside of that group as competition and enemies still prevails. Examples are numerous. All over the world there's hatred and fighting based on ethnic, racial, and religious differences. Being humane is rational and rationality is not very popular yet. A lot of times different groups treat other groups relatively justly or lives in peace with them just because of their own safety. If, on top of that, some group feels invincible, they tend to care even less about other groups. Examples are all great empires throughout the history. Romans did not care much about human rights of barbarians, they enslaved them, even though they had an advanced judicial system. Napoleon and Hitler invaded practically all of Europe. Europeans/Americans enslaved black people from Africa just because they were techniologically inferior and therefore considered no threat. As a matter of fact, great colonial powers had colonized almost the whole world. They felt invincible. Today, there is practically just one great colonial power, which is The United States. The United States feels invincible and sees the whole world as its playground. It has no regard for rights of other peoples or for human lives. Other countries and peoples are regarded as just pawns in a chess game and a pawn in a chess game can be sacrificed for positional advantage. The motivation is always profit. In order to reach its goal The US will install dictator, overthrow a democratic government or a dictator it previously installed or do anything else it considers effective. This has been going on since WWII ended. Naturally, people in these countries are not happy with that and they fight back however they can. Let us reverse the roles. Today, a vast majority of Europeans are against the actions of The US. Should Europe invade The US and install a government that would protect the interests of European countries? If your government should start doing things you don't agree with, would you want your country invaded by, say, France, or Russia, or China? No, you would want that to be an internal affair. You would want to protect the souverenity of your country. Now, let us consider psychology of the matter. Behavioral psychologists have two methods of modifying behavior, positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement. Negative reinforcement is punishing bad behavior. If you punish bad bahavior, that behavior will eventually stop due ti fear of punishment. Positive reinforcement is rewarding good behavior. If you reward good behavior, eventually good behavior will replace bad behavior because of desire for reward. Can these two methods be applied on nations? Let us assume that the retoric of George Bush and his gang is actually sincere, i.e. that they really want to spread democracy and freedom. How come it does not work. Because they, obviously apply negative reinforcement. "If you don't do what we want you to do, we will attack you." So far it does not seem to work. All these "experiments" show that negative reinforcement does not work. Quite the opposite, the more negative reinforcement is applied, the more bad behavior it results in. Are there any examples of positive reinforcement. Well, there is a huge experiment going on right now in Europe. The European Union offers membership (a reward), which has a lot of benefits, to european countries which promote democracy, freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence with their neighbors (good behavior). Does it work? Absolutely. Many countries have made great advances just to please The EU. The benefit of membership has been a great motivation. Therefore, it seems highly unlikely that the US government is sincere about its motivations. Just not getting involved would have been much more effective. Many countries, as your own, Canada, can serve as an example to other nations. But, if we look back a couple of hundreds of years or even much less, these countries have not been so democratic or free. It is a process, which takes time. The same progress is inevitable in other countries too without foreign involvement. Iran, for example, was a much more democratic country some fifty years ago than it is today. It was a secular society. How come we are witnessing a reversal of this process? The involvement of The US in Iran has caused an aversion towards the western world, and The US in particular, which gave rise to radical islam, and Iran is today and has been for quite a while an islamic state. I could go on for pages and pages, but I think this is already enough.

by Fikret

Sep 14, 2006 3:05:31 AM cite

Perhaps what the people see in fact is Fear, Manufactured for the benefit of Agenda being exported to their land. Perhaps what the fear what they know less than what they are used to. And. Perhaps they fear what they have seen of history and reject it in favor of their own determination. We [the West]are an omnipotent bunch who have failed to listen to the reality of the rest of the world. Perhaps the reason I am writing this answer now, is a start.

by RedSevenOne

Sep 13, 2006 10:22:00 AM cite

I think the case in Iraq will provide a practical answer to this question. Iraqis felt sad and oppressed under dictatorship of Saddam, But the western Leader G. W. Bush, proved to be even worse!!

by sharaf

Sep 12, 2006 4:01:17 AM cite

We cant force democracy on a people who dont want it. That kind of defeats the purpose of it makes us no better than their 'oppressive dictators.' The Western World which wants to spread our way of life? Now you're just sounding like a Puritanical crazy who wants to impose their own lifestyle on everyone else. Not cool.

by Sami

Sep 11, 2006 6:51:11 AM cite

you answered why that is so, therefore know why. Because you have no respect or consideration for other ways of life in that you push your way on to others. people resist forceful change. so if you stop "wanting " to "spread" yours the world may attain a more peaceful state. nannymary

by nannymary

Sep 9, 2006 7:58:39 PM cite

I live in the Western Hemisphere however I believe understand part of the reason for resistance to our way of life. More often than not, our "Democracy" is nothing more than disguised capitolism. Look at who is really involved in bringing our form of prosperity to other nations. Somehow I don't think other peoples are willing to have their lives dictated by economics as we do.

by notcriswell

Sep 9, 2006 5:49:12 PM cite

Without economic freedom there is no true political freedom. When the power to issue money has been centralized under commercial banks, which create money out of thin air and saddle, people, businesses and govt. with debts...then how are you free??? www.freedomtofascism.com Both communism, corporate fascism and wars are financed by bankers

by Atma

Sep 9, 2006 5:05:05 PM cite

You should divide your question properly. First part of your question implicates why you just observe this behaviour in non-democratical countries. The second part would be why they are behaving like this although we try to help them by spreading our values and political and economical system. Split in 2 parts, we may answer them easier. The public opinion is always contructed by the informations you have access to. Because of the very few, very censored and very simplified informations the people in such countries receive by media and institutionalized education, the only logical consequence for them is to demonstrate and negotiate the ways of the western world. The question I would suggest you to ask yourself is:"How can I be sure to receive all information required to have a complete understanding of this situation?" Regarding your second question, I would say that there is a problem with OUR behaviour to them. When they follow the news, they see things like the Iraqi War, the dead Iraqis, the bombings, the unstability of the whole country. And they ask themselves of course why we always talk about things like freedom, peace and wealth and how you should follow our path to receive them - but DO things like this. The questions you should ask are : "Is this the right way? Are we allowed to stretch our values in the pursuit of a higher reason? Or should we trust in the strenght of our principles and let these countries become democratic by their own? Are we allowed to help them on their way?"

by fenfire

Sep 9, 2006 5:04:37 PM cite

Because no individual likes to be pushed around by others, especially not outside "others". As we have seen in Iraq even the overthrow of a brutal dictator can lead to worse conditions than were preent prior to "democratisation". Folks just want to be left alone. By governments, individuals and especially by others who "know" that they'd be better off under a new regime.

by mrjarrell

Sep 9, 2006 4:50:49 PM cite

not living in fear all the time?the States-the biggest"democracy spreading" power in the world is living in constant fear and is forever on an alert of some kind ("We're safer,but we're no safe" - Bush) because of their attempts at bringing an often terribly corrupt way of life to states and countries that must evolve into democracies by themselves. Democracy was not forced upon the United States or Britain- it was born through inner struggle within the country. These "foreign countries" react so angrily because from theri point of view, and my own, they are being forced into a regime change by another country through the invasion of their own. These shambolic attempts at bringing democracy to countries that are not yet ready for them inevitably involve needless bloodshed, no democracy, civil war and the birth of a whole new generation of so-called terrorists. If another country invaded yours and instigated a regime change and killed your whole family in what is termed "collateral damage", i'm pretty sure you wouldn't stand idly by either.

by sixpart

Sep 9, 2006 4:48:08 PM cite

If you define 'our way of life' as not living in fear, you may need a reality-check. Most current policies of the countires calling themselves democracies, are being formulated out of fear (terrorists, religious fanatics, immegrants, etc.). There is a zenophobic fear of other cultures and how they might effect the world. There is a denial of the fact that most individuals have very little impact on how they are governed and are stampeded into precipitous and often self-destructive action. Corruption of power and money seems to feed on this fear and leaves policies in the hands of self-serving promoters of parties, religions, corporations, etc. Champions of democracy only have the moral right to lead by example and that means a lifetime of perfecting themselves, not imposing a flawed system on the rest of the world.

by pahlrs

Sep 9, 2006 4:23:38 PM cite

Because often those oppressed countries have no infrastrucutre, whether welfare or industry, to a proper extent. To help suppress rebellion, and to unite the nation, dictators often use visible obviously powerful nations, typically the United States, to keep the populace focus elsewhere. It is tactic often shored up with religion, thus creating nationalistic fervor. We aren't even immune to the tactic in the States, the equation is merely reversed.

by jblock

Sep 9, 2006 3:38:53 PM cite

Hello Chris, I have a couple of questions you may want to ask yourself, befor assuming that "the western way of life" it's what it seems to be... - Have you ask your self, who is behind those dictators?? supporting them with money, weapons... among other things? - Is this the only time this things had happend? or does this kind of trying to "spread the western way of life" actually targets some few people interests?? - Why is the western world so interested in "helping" just selected countries? - What would you do if someone gets into your home telling they want to help and suddenly starts taking over to the point that you aren't able to decide your self anymore how to lead your household. You have to ask permission to live your house, and wherever you go, you are been controlled and obseved by people carring guns and been rude to you?? Check this you may find some answers... http://www.rmbowman.com/ssn/terror3.htm

by Sandritita

Sep 9, 2006 2:04:26 PM cite

Who is going to spread our way of life? people that want to make this world a fairer place or people who are interested in creating new markets? Do we accept the ways of others even if we don´t necessarily agree with it, do we understand other ways of life? If we send businessmen we´ll get what businessmen create, we already have to fight for our rights in our societies and most of us grew up in a capitalist society, so we should have a better understanding. We are rich in the western world, yet we play with fears, panics and uncertainty, as if we are constantly struggling. No one in our society should worry about food, housing and medical care. In many so called dictatorships the people either have or not, but they know the enemy. The western world is full of traps and its representatives have no respect for traditional values that have nothing to do with dictatorships but a more helpful and caring society. We spread our way with weapons, but we don´t stand for what we promise, we come to get rid of the dictator only to impose values that go against what people believe in, get the oil, create markets, or establish a pro western government, that supports ideas we currently have, that supports our current values. And whom do we vote for, a Mr. Bush and other ingnorants, or lets say moneymakers. It would not only scare me, but I would try to stop em, cause democracy seems to look good for us, looks good on paper and in propaganda, but what is our intention to "help" and who is trying to "help".

by TTT

Sep 9, 2006 1:32:36 PM cite

Saying that many people in foreign countries are aggressive towards the Western World for wanting to spread democracy and save them from dictatorship is plainly and truly wrong. The majority of these people would gladly welcome democracy wih open arms but, the western world is only interested in bringenmeaning enforcing democracy to a few and selected countries, for reason known only to their Governments. The reason I am saying this is, why choose Irak and do nothing in Zimbabwe? Why Afganistan and not also Sudan? What about Ethiopia? I could go on and on but if you take a second look at the countries mentioned you will probably figure out the answer yourself. People in these countries, meaning some people, then react aggressively because they know that the Western World is not really interested in spreading democracy, they are actually not interested in the destiny of these people and know that they will always be the underdogs.

by Magkad

Sep 9, 2006 1:30:00 PM cite

Antoschka - Ekaterina Moshaeva: Capitalism is not democracy. You cannot mix it up. A lot of capitalistic countries do so called democratic politics. But this is not politic democracy. Intelligent people understand this. And in the countries where the politic regime is a dictatorship or monarchy or another system, can make their own politics with newspapers, media, which support it. And they build up a picture of an enemy. I am Russian, I grew up in the time of the Cold War, at the end of it, thank God, but it was long enough. And I was in North Korea, it’s a totalitarian regime, and it is much crazier, as a clown I would call it a buffoonery, as Stalin’s regime, that his private cult. And there is a cult of Kim Il-Sung which is more idiotic, more buffoonery. And they built a very dangerous picture of capitalism and democracy in North Korea. Of course, every political structure has a weak point, and we are observing it through a big magnifying glass, which magnifies the weak point a thousand times, and we show it to the people. And people were not educated. We live now in another time, we have computers, and we can even do a click and see what is going on there. We can become this […]. When people in China for example, [Google make this people who have a big interest in news, make this not possible]. What is this? We are civilized people, but we do this. And so big concerns help not a capitalistic country, but they support a regime. It is absurd.

by Antoschka - Ekaterina Moshaeva

Sep 9, 2006 1:30:00 PM cite

Abbas Beydoun: This is extremely difficult question. First of all there is internal culture which is threatened and there is also a social system which is threatened in the countries where there is no democracy. In such countries not only politics plays a role and most of these countries belong to non-western cultures. Of course the regimes in these countries take the responsibility of that in order to defend their existence and to create a culture of fear from the west and from any other attacking culture. We should also draw attention to the historical side of this issue, because the west was not always fair with the other nations. The west colonized these nations and destroyed their culture and create dictator regimes, so the reputation of the west is not really good in these countries, because there is an internal feeling that the west did not really care for the future for these nations and the west preferred dictator regimes on democratic governments.

by Abbas Beydoun