Power in the middle east

Thanks to my opponent for this debate. I got one word why Western countries are not about democracy and it is: Imperialism The most lasting legacy of imperialism in the Middle East and North Africa following World War I was the creation of states where none had existed previously. Out of the former Arab provinces of the Ottoman empire emerged Iraq, never unified previously. A result of wartime alliances and tribal rivalries, the creation of Saudi Arabia and the sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf. In addition, Turkey became a state by repelling a British-encouraged Greek invasion and establishing its independence. These new states, other then Turkey, Iran, and the newly formed Saudi Arabia, remained under foreign occupation or, in Iraq's case, tied to the former occupier, until the decolonization area following World War II. As a result, the nature of national identity and the basis of allegiance to these new states has varied and occasionally been challenged, leaving open the question of Islam as the ongoing basis of loyalty for most Muslims. Turkey itself has seen since World War II the renewed strength of Islam in the public sphere, in part a byproduct of its democratization process. Syria and Iraq underwent strenuous secularization driven by Baathist socialist regimes, but the American overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq in the name of democracy may lead to a new regime strongly influenced by Shii Islam and strengthened ties to Iran, which the U.S. has designated as part of the "Axis of Evil." These experiences illustrate the ongoing complexity of the process of state formation and creation of national and religious loyalties, processes set in motion before World War I but only fully attempted afterward. They demonstrate that the impact of European imperialism on the broader Middle East has persisted and has yet to be resolved, with new dynamics put in place by the United States' intervention in Iraq whose consequences will be far-reaching and possibly contrary to the goals articulated by Washington before the invasion. In a conversation VP Joe Biden said: About the future of Iraq, Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) asked Nir Rosen of the NYU Center on Law and Security what advice he would have for the U.S. going forward in Iraq, given Rosen's extensive first-hand experience in the country. Rosen declined to respond, saying he felt "uncomfortable" giving advice to an "imperialist power": BIDEN: Based on what you've said, there's really no hope — we really should get the hell out of there right now. I mean, there's nothing to do. Nothing. ROSEN: As a journalist, I'm uncomfortable advising an imperialist power about how to be a more efficient imperialist power. And I don't think that we're there for the interest of the Iraqi people. I don't think that's ever been a motivation. [...] BIDEN: [If we withdraw], the good news is we wouldn't be imperialists in Iraq, from your perspective. ROSEN: Only elsewhere in the region. (laughter). … There's no positive scenario in Iraq these days. Not every situation has a solution. Watch it: [flv http://video.thinkprogress.org...] I how gave a arguement that democracy is not western countries purpose in the middle east. I await my opponents response. http://science.jrank.org...