TRTL, I believe all instances should be judged individually and not approached with political partisan doctrines. The left is responsible for the drift away from the democratisation of the world insofar as creating social and political environments that encourage rogue authoritarianism to develop in the vacuum produced by the failure of socialism and by fighting to hold back any 'victory' perceived by the right aiding development of democracy and rule of law among nations not historically socially acclimated to anything but dictatorship. Lets not forget, at the time of WW2 there were only 6 democratic countries in this world. USA(1776), Denmark(1849), Australia(1901), Sweden(1907), Britain(1918), Canada(1931). The rest were variations of monarchy's, dictatorships, fascism, or communism. From 1945-1987, 20 more countries adopted democratic rule. After the fall of communism, 31 more countries adopted democratic rule. Since the effort in Iraq, 12 more countries including Iraq and Afghanistan have adopted democratic rule. This has not been brought about by socialism but, by the advantages of democratic rule and free market economies that float world trade. We have come this far and have a hard struggle ahead to secure for future generations of this world the right to stand on their own two feet with out being born into subjugation through socialist policies that encourage governmental dependencies that we find encouraged from with in todays democratic countries and the leftist promulgation of cultural Marxism.
I'm all for helping people. That's my work-a-day job as a social welfare worker. I never took it as my station to perpetuate dependencies on government services. Before that I was a soldier. The work is about the same. The left talk about shared resources and world aid but, that is all couched dependency. The only true independents will come from democracy, equal law, and employment opportunities as all countries work out markets and natural environmental advantages. Religious extremist seek to emulate the power structure from which they come. More authoritarian oppression. Those countries already know oppression. Too bad the extremist were not pro democratic. That would be assisting advantage.

part2 to TRTL.
So you say, the left can't be much of a hinderance considering such success. No they haven't. That's not where they've succeeded. The trade off for conservative success in democratisation has come at the expense of home government as more socialism is taken up. Government becoming socially responsible for the citizens rather than the citizens responsible for governing. The initial six democracies are becoming more and more socially authoritarian and what were once considered "inalienable rights" held by the people are being abrogated as state rights, rights given by the state and taken by the state as necessary. The government is doing this for your own good! Westerners have always understood the Soviet Union to be 'left-wing'. That is a grave error. The Soviet system has always been 'right-wing' and remains so today. Think about this. These 'right-wing' demagogues that are popping up like moles aren't doing so in response to a world movement of the 'right'. It's an accumulated effect of watching social and cultural values become null and void under the spread of universal socialism. Our societies are becoming so government dependent that we are in effect working for the government. Each year the time between when you finish working to pay off your taxes and begin to pay your self is getting longer and longer. And the things we really need are getting more expensive all the time. How much does your health care cost you, medications, dental care, education, housing, proper nutrition? How much money do you actually have at the end of a pay schedule and you've paid your bills? The dichotomy of the situation is we are selling democracy overseas while giving it away at home as fair exchange. It's not a fair exchange but it was the quiet deal for the money makers to be left to do what they do. Give over the home government to the social managers. If you have enough money you can purchase democracy even in Russia. If you have no money-you can have socialism. The state will care for you.

Aqvarivs, your observation about the ‘left’ is correct in many ways; it appears to be a recent characteristic of the radical ‘left’-- this sissy, pussyfooting attitude of the 'left' towards many of the problems confronting free secular democracies. Years earlier, the real left were passionate in what they believed in. They fought for causes and a few of them formed ‘terrorist’ gangs such as the Japanese Red Army and the Baader Meinhof Group.

However, your view of the world is based on the idealism that countries such as Britain, the USA and Western countries represents the good and just, their foreign policies is based on altruism. We have lived long enough to know that countries act out of (a) self-interest (b) self-interest (c) self-interest.

There are many, many examples of how the colonisation that took place in the 18th to the early 20th century by some Western powers was the cause of millions of death in Asia, America and even in Europe, due to famine, war, epidemic, etc.

Cecil Woodham-Smith, an authority on the Irish Famine, wrote in The Great Hunger; Ireland 1845-1849 that, "...no issue has provoked so much anger or so embittered relations between the two countries (England and Ireland) as the indisputable fact that huge quantities of food were exported from Ireland to England throughout the period when the people of Ireland were dying of starvation." Ireland remained a net exporter of food throughout most of the five-year famine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Irish_Famine

The Gulf War was fought by G. Bush (senior) to safeguard the oil supply of the USA rather than to liberate Kuwait.

The war in Iraq was basically fought to reward the businesses that supported G Bush’s election campaign and to grow rich at the expense of the suffering of the Iraqi people. No weapons of mass destruction was found!

c'td

c'td

“Halliburton has already raked in more than $20 billion from the Bush-Cheney Administration for work in Iraq, and they were awarded some of the first Katrina contracts," Lautenberg said in a statement. "It is unseemly for the Vice President to continue to benefit from this company at the same time his Administration funnels billions of dollars to it. The Vice President should sever his financial ties to Halliburton once and for all.”
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Cheneys_stock_options_rose_3281_last_1011.html
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=6008

Small wonder that extreme right-wingers like George Bush of the US are the ‘best of friends’ of Islamic fascists, Saudi Arabia, which also has the largest known oil reserves in the world. Whereas a democrat socialist and president hopeful Barack Obama knows and understand the current Islamists threat; if elected he would take unilateral military strikes against Muslim countries preaching and harbouring terrorists. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/03/politics/main3130600.shtml

It is common knowledge that mainstream Islam today is Wahabism; practiced, preached and promoted by Saudi Arabia. All over the world, Saudis fund mosque, madrassahs and schools to promote radical Islam. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) founded by Hamas sympathisers are funded by the Saudis.

“ …CAIR complain about Muslims' rights being abused in the West, while Muslims and non-Muslims have no real rights in Saudi Arabia. There is something unbalanced in this equation.”
http://www.islam-watch.org/AdrianMorgan/Sickness-Wahhabi-Islam-is.htm

Philip Tang, I'm not that shallow to believe in universal altruism and I would lay that emotive at the feet of your sissy leftist. I also am not equally as shallow intellectually to think that every action is based solely on screwing the other fellow. I prefer the middle road, of doing something to get some thing in return and mutual benefit. Equal benefit would be subjective. Going back into history to prove a point works for both sides of any argument today. History is full of counter arguments. History tells us where we have been. It doesn't prove out any realities regarding this day. A lot of people harp on about Haliburton but, forget to mention the nearly 200 other companies and corporations in Iraq or Afghanistan working at trying to provide a service that will help the Iraqi/Afghani in the long run get up on their own two feet. Establish legal systems, governing institutions, policing education, policy and active training. Rebuilding destroyed or neglected infrastructure, waste management, hydro/electric, sewage treatment, securing trade, promoting business, etc.,etc.. That they are earning a profit (hopefully)is the capitalist reality. The reason Haliburton was singled out for special attention by the Democrats was as a way to work a crowbar under the Republicans foundation and pry open what was perceived as a political lock on the American political scene and foreign policy. Finding questionable but not prosecutable errors in any corporation is not difficult. It was a poor tactic and rather rushed to be successful revenge for the Starr report and Clinton's impeachment.
Now, if the Democrats had taken the high road and gone to Bush early days and asked if they could in some way help by working with the Iraqi/Afghani to assist in establishing democratic governance they would of had a true victory, rather than the no party-no power situation they must build from today.
And Philip, Saudi Arabia was a good friend to the Clinton Administration as well.
I'm not in favour of any religious council on anything. Unless it's on religion. And only religion.

The following is Christopher Hitchens opinion on Islam and Islamists.

It is a YouTube classic with Christpher at his caustic best. Definitely worth the price of admission;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY8fjFKAC5k