--- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > [...] > > It is a good idea to spread democracy to the nations in the Middle > > East, as "democratization". It was supposed to stabilize the > > political milieu in the area. However, the Americans are finding it > > difficult to lose American soldiers for a cause not directly linked > > to the American agenda. In addition, the war is getting too > > expensive to continue without direct benefits to the American people, > > aside from the corporations involved in running the military complex > > > > If it is such a good idea, why don't we get the King of Jordan to step down peacefully, and > why did we support the Shah in Iran, who was so unpopular that the Ayatollah Khomeini was > seen as a welcome change?
By definition, these governments are monarchies which are considered politically conservative and acceptable. In my opinion, a monarchy is a traditional form of government which is more efficient than democratically run countries. However, when the people become more educated and can make better judgements for themselves, then it would be an evolutionary step to adopt into a parliamentary or democratic system. This is how England and the US have developed into.
