Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 You all remember the theory...plant a democracy in the middle of the Middle East and it will spread. Well, now we have Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and Bahrain all undergoing change in a democratic direction... I know it's a revolting thought, but was W right about the inevitibility of the spread of Democracy in the Middle East? And as a semi-related comment, why hasn't this turmoil spread to Syria? You'd think of all places that would be one place that would experience this kind of thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 The only reason this is all happening is because people like us now. They really like us. All hail the Sally Fields Foreign Policy Program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 No, he's not, because Iraq is not a democracy. A "democracy" that's forced on people is not a democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 21, 2011 Author Share Posted February 21, 2011 No, he's not, because Iraq is not a democracy. A "democracy" that's forced on people is not a democracy. It seems like the Iraqis have embraced the government, at least partially, though. Violence is way down, and they've had what, three elections now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 (edited) It seems like the Iraqis have embraced the government, at least partially, though. Violence is way down, and they've had what, three elections now? It is tenous at best. The problem is Iraq is corruption and that is why the Egyptians are revolting. So a Democracy in name only is not a democracy especially when there is a pay to play ponzi scheme going on there. The problem with the Islamic fundalmentalists aside from their religion is their strong armed and control tactics. But they tend not to be corrupt. It may take some time for all of this to flush out. Edited February 21, 2011 by yellowlinesandarmadillos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 I guess that the end always justifies the means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 21, 2011 Author Share Posted February 21, 2011 I guess that the end always justifies the means. If this movement across the region takes hold and stays, I'd say yes, wouldn't you? More free > less free, is it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 I think social media and the states of their economies have far more to do with it than our last or current president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 "...pay to play Ponzi scheme..." Gee, sounds to me like a campaign fund-raiser right here in the US of A . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 If this movement across the region takes hold and stays, I'd say yes, wouldn't you? More free > less free, is it not? I respectfully disagree, though it's not an easy thing to answer either way IMO. Why did we need to spend our resources and our soldiers' lives to bring "more free" to Iraq? This seems like a very un-conservative thing to do. Shouldn't the Iraqis have the "personal responsibility" to acquire their own freedom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 21, 2011 Author Share Posted February 21, 2011 I respectfully disagree, though it's not an easy thing to answer either way IMO. Why did we need to spend our resources and our soldiers' lives to bring "more free" to Iraq? This seems like a very un-conservative thing to do. Shouldn't the Iraqis have the "personal responsibility" to acquire their own freedom? Granted, it wasn't the purest of motives. But if the region ends up moving from authoritarian regimes to more free forms of government, I'd say that's a major improvement. Then again, given how the Arab world works, it could also be an umitigated disaster. We won't know either way until 10 years passes, I'd guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 You all remember the theory...plant a democracy in the middle of the Middle East and it will spread. Well, now we have Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and Bahrain all undergoing change in a democratic direction... I know it's a revolting thought, but was W right about the inevitibility of the spread of Democracy in the Middle East? And as a semi-related comment, why hasn't this turmoil spread to Syria? You'd think of all places that would be one place that would experience this kind of thing. W was actually right about the spread of democracy in the Middle East but it has little to nothing to do with Iraq, in fact Iraq is now also seeing protests against the government. It was Tunisia that was the catalyst - people realised that if they all stood up to these dictators they could actually be toppled. Egypt then confirmed it and now, even though Gaddafi seems to be using every means at his disposal, it seems he's doomed as well. As for Syria, I think one reason may be that Assad is not as unpopular as these long-serving dictators and he has actually been making some reforms. Still, if the domino effect continues that could change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Why did we need to spend our resources and our soldiers' lives to bring "more free" to Iraq? This seems like a very un-conservative thing to do. Shouldn't the Iraqis have the "personal responsibility" to acquire their own freedom? Yes. Although if you don't like the "Exporting Democracy" justification, you can pick any one of the other sixteen reasons the Bush Administration gave... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 21, 2011 Author Share Posted February 21, 2011 (edited) Yes. Although if you don't like the "Exporting Democracy" justification, you can pick any one of the other sixteen reasons the Bush Administration gave... Kind of the point of my post. Of all the given excuses, this one seems to be the most legitimate. Edited February 21, 2011 by joesixpack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Granted, it wasn't the purest of motives. so you're ok with that? thousands of lives and a trillion dollars and counting for "impure" motives, ie oil. and the payoff is a weak, corrupt pseudo democracy/theocracy that appears as loyal to iran as us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 You all remember the theory...plant a democracy in the middle of the Middle East and it will spread. Well, now we have Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and Bahrain all undergoing change in a democratic direction... I know it's a revolting thought, but was W right about the inevitibility of the spread of Democracy in the Middle East? Not related. Democracy may be inevitable but blowing out Saddam is not the reason democracy spread to Egypt. It's a cute rewrite to suggest it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 21, 2011 Author Share Posted February 21, 2011 so you're ok with that? thousands of lives and a trillion dollars and counting for "impure" motives, ie oil. and the payoff is a weak, corrupt pseudo democracy/theocracy that appears as loyal to iran as us. For the 10000000000000000th time, it wasn't about oil. If it was, there'd be Oil-A-Plenty pouring out of Iraq by now. It ain't. If anything, it was really about boxing in Iran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 For the 10000000000000000th time, it wasn't about oil. If it was, there'd be Oil-A-Plenty pouring out of Iraq by now. It ain't. If anything, it was really about boxing in Iran. So getting rid of Saddam (a sworn enemy of Iran) and replacing him with a Shiite-dominated government on very friendly terms with Iran somehow helps to box them in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 For the 10000000000000000th time, it wasn't about oil. If it was, there'd be Oil-A-Plenty pouring out of Iraq by now. It ain't. If anything, it was really about boxing in Iran. More likely about removing a nasty, belligerent dictator who was the major contributor to regional instability. Which really was the only reason that was even remotely acceptable...and the single one that wasn't stressed by the administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 For the 10000000000000000th time, it wasn't about oil. If it was, there'd be Oil-A-Plenty pouring out of Iraq by now. It ain't. If anything, it was really about boxing in Iran. everything in the middle east is ultimately about oil. if there were no oil, we would have no more military presence there than we have in sudan or haiti or any god forsaken country brutalized by an evil dictator. before oil reserves were found and exploited, the rulers of the countries we now see falling were inconsequential and mostly ignored. and they may be again if wikileaks is correct about saudi's exagerated reserves. but it was and will always be about the oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts