Major Ripples as a result of Iraq. [Archive]

NaplesX

03-02-2005, 08:37 AM

Political shifts throut the ME are being seen as a result of the US/UN action in Iraq.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0503020257mar02,1,1593500.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

LEBANON, ISRAEL, PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY, IRAQ, SAUDI ARABIA, JORDAN, EGYPT, SYRIA. and I think the author overlooked PAKISTAN's major efforts against AQ.

http://home.comcast.net/~crowles/MEast.gif

Green represents allies and blue the nations that have been forced to make moves toward democracy as a result of 9-11/Afghanistan/Iraq. These nations would not have made such changes unless the US had forced it's hand, IMO.

Thoughts?

groverat

03-02-2005, 08:55 AM

It's nice to see the right-wing loyalists attempt to take credit for the bravery and courage of others, it truly is.

The attack on Iraq has nothing to do with what's going on in Palestine.
The attack on Iraq has nothing to do with what's going on in Lebanon.

I'll have to hear separate cases for Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Pakistan, mainly because I don't know of any good things actually happening in those nations.

Saudi Arabia is still ruled by blood-thirsty despots and that's not going to change any time soon. We advocate democracy in Egypt while shipping them prisoners to torture. Pakistan is a dictatorship that we actively fund. Jordan is among the worst violators of human rights and will remain so for the forseeable future.

What success is this?

Harald

03-02-2005, 10:23 AM

I love the fact that Uzbekistan is a green state despite being an authoritarian quasi-dictatorship.

BRussell

03-02-2005, 10:49 AM

I think the one case you can make that was due to outside pressure was Egypt saying they're going to have presidential elections. Not sure if it had to do with the Iraq war per se, though. Egypt I believe is the largest Arab recipient of US aid, and I sincerely doubt they think we're going to invade them. :\

Hmm, come to think of it, looking at that map, a majority of those blue countries are US allies - Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan. Maybe we should rethink our allies.

groverat

03-02-2005, 12:37 PM

Bush worked behind the scenes to get one of Egypt's biggest pro-democracy activists freed from bogus charges by threatening to withhold aid. It's a good story and a lesson Bush should learn; you promote democracy from the bottom up, not top down.

zaphod_beeblebrox

03-02-2005, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by groverat
It's nice to see the right-wing loyalists attempt to take credit for the bravery and courage of others, it truly is...What would be truly nice to see would be you showing some hint that maybe, just maybe, you have even a hope of GETTING A CLUE. Not betting on it, though.The attack on Iraq has nothing to do with what's going on in Palestine.
The attack on Iraq has nothing to do with what's going on in Lebanon...It was ENDLESSLY argued that a free Iraq would be a demonstration to the rest of the Arab world. This was the very heart of the neo-con gamble. Now as the map of the mid-east is changing before your very eyes you insist that what's happening isn't really happening. Here's Lebanese Druze leader Walid Jumblatt:"It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq... I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world." Jumblatt says this spark of democratic revolt is spreading. "The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it." (link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45575-2005Feb22.html))

groverat

03-02-2005, 01:25 PM

Oh well I guess that's proof that if it weren't for the attack on Iraq none of these things would be happening.

I've read a lot more about the Ukraine protests influencing the Lebanese protests than some fuzzy Iraq connection. The Lebanese have been voting for a long time.

Mac on a Mac

03-02-2005, 01:31 PM

Iraq may have had nothing to do with what is happening in Lebanon, but it will most likely have a lot to do with the Syrian response.

groverat

03-02-2005, 01:38 PM

Howso? Does anyone think the US could actually attack Syria?

segovius

03-02-2005, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
What would be truly nice to see would be you showing some hint that maybe, just maybe, you have even a hope of GETTING A CLUE. Not betting on it, though.It was ENDLESSLY argued that a free Iraq would be a demonstration to the rest of the Arab world. This was the very heart of the neo-con gamble. Now as the map of the mid-east is changing before your very eyes you insist that what's happening isn't really happening. Here's Lebanese Druze leader Walid Jumblatt:

Why you are wrong:

It was indeed argued that a free Iraq would be a demonstration to the Arab (Islamic) world and as you say, this was the neocon gamble.

However, the postulated result of that gamble was that the ME would embrace 'western' democracy.

That has not happened and will never happen. The Iraqis want a Shi'i quasi-theocracy - we have still yet to see the election results and it is far from clear whether they will be allowed to achieve their aspirations.

Changes are happening in the ME before our eyes - that is true. It was Bush that let the genie out of the bottle, that much is also true.

But if I were you I would take the credit now while the jury's out - the evidence 'before our eyes' pretty soon will present a rather different picture and you may not have that luxury. Oh, that's what you are doing though isn't it ?

Carry on.

zaphod_beeblebrox

03-02-2005, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by groverat
Oh well I guess that's proof that if it weren't for the attack on Iraq none of these things would be happening.

I've read a lot more about the Ukraine protests influencing the Lebanese protests than some fuzzy Iraq connection...Even if that was true the Bush admin supported the Ukraine protests too.The Lebanese have been voting for a long time.Well then, they are onviously protesting about nothing!

Mac on a Mac

03-02-2005, 01:46 PM

Attack Syria no, but I think that the Syrian leadership knows that it is hanging on by a thread. It is not fear of the US, but rather fear of the winds of change and those winds have been accelerated by what happened in Iraq. For the record, I did not support the war or Bush nor do I now, but I am starting to believe that it may have been the catalyst for major change in the region.

giant

03-02-2005, 01:58 PM

Well, zaphod, my in-laws fought in the civil war, still own homes there and are still politically active and I don't think they'd agree with you. In fact, the past year has had a lot of activity, syria's actions last year and the car bomb in october, and in none of our discussions does the Iraq war play any part. I don't know all of the complicated political details (and in lebanon it is indeed complicated), but the fact is that opposition to the syrian presence has been growing regardless of external issues. What we are seeing now is meaningless without the context of the past couple of decades of lebanese poitics. Any influence events in Iraq have is likely far, far more in mind than in fact.

Anyway, I plan on finding out what they say when we get together on saturday. Until then, I accept that I am an american who knows relatively little about the whole situation.

zaphod_beeblebrox

03-02-2005, 02:02 PM

zaphod_beeblebrox

03-02-2005, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by giant
Well, zaphod, my in-laws fought in the civil war, still own homes there and are still politically active and I don't think they'd agree with you. In fact, the past year has had a lot of activity, syria's actions last year and the car bomb in october, and in none of our discussions does the Iraq war play any part. I don't know all of the complicated political details (and in lebanon it is indeed complicated), but the fact is that opposition to the syrian presence has been growing regardless of external issues. What we are seeing now is meaningless without the context of the past couple of decades of lebanese poitics. Any influence events in Iraq have is likely far, far more in mind than in fact.

Anyway, I plan on finding out what they say when we get together on saturday. Until then, I accept that I am an american who knows relatively little about the whole situation. Yes, Lebanon is complicated and opposition to the Syrian occupation is hardly new. But neither was opposition to Saddam's rule a recent thing. Or to take an unrelated example, there was plently of opposition to Soviet rule in Eastern Europe before the Berlin Wall fell. The mere existence of an opposition doesn't change a thing. The point is that some events have a catalytic effect. You would have to be made of stone to not be inspired by 8 million Iraqis casting their votes in freedom and in defiance to the terrorists. There's no reason to not believe the Lebanese people were affected too. It's kind of rediculous to argue (as Groverat did) that the protests of Ukranians would have a greater effect on the Arab world than votes cast by Iraqis.

giant

03-02-2005, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
There's no reason to not believe...
Sorry, but I'm not into that whole uninformed, speculative belief scene :\

segovius

03-02-2005, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Really? Says who?

You do.

Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
It was ENDLESSLY argued that a free Iraq would be a demonstration to the rest of the Arab world. This was the very heart of the neo-con gamble.

groverat

03-02-2005, 03:57 PM

zaphod:

Even if that was true the Bush admin supported the Ukraine protests too.

Who said anything about support? The article isn't talking about "support", it's talking about direct (or even strong indirect) influence.

Well then, they are onviously protesting about nothing!

They are protesting Syrian military occupation, which isn't going to go away because of perceived US military threats.

Mac on Mac:

Attack Syria no, but I think that the Syrian leadership knows that it is hanging on by a thread. It is not fear of the US, but rather fear of the winds of change and those winds have been accelerated by what happened in Iraq. For the record, I did not support the war or Bush nor do I now, but I am starting to believe that it may have been the catalyst for major change in the region.

The winds of change? What on Earth does that mean?
You act as if nothing happened in the world until the war in Iraq. Sorry to break it to you, but pro-democracy movements existed in these nations long before the US invaded Iraq. Pro-democracy movements exist in nations where the US actively supports the despots in power.

Mac on a Mac

03-02-2005, 04:14 PM

I think that these pro-democracy movements feel a new level of freedom to go against these governments. In the case of Lebanon, I think that Syria would have stomped these people 5 years ago. Today, think that the Syrian government is shaking in their boots.

Hassan i Sabbah

03-02-2005, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by Mac on a Mac
I think that these pro-democracy movements feel a new level of freedom to go against these governments. In the case of Lebanon, I think that Syria would have stomped these people 5 years ago. Today, think that the Syrian government is shaking in their boots.
Yes, they probably are.

NaplesX

03-02-2005, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by segovius
Why you are wrong:

It was indeed argued that a free Iraq would be a demonstration to the Arab (Islamic) world and as you say, this was the neocon gamble.

However, the postulated result of that gamble was that the ME would embrace 'western' democracy.

That has not happened and will never happen. The Iraqis want a Shi'i quasi-theocracy - we have still yet to see the election results and it is far from clear whether they will be allowed to achieve their aspirations.

Changes are happening in the ME before our eyes - that is true. It was Bush that let the genie out of the bottle, that much is also true.

But if I were you I would take the credit now while the jury's out - the evidence 'before our eyes' pretty soon will present a rather different picture and you may not have that luxury. Oh, that's what you are doing though isn't it ?

Carry on. Dude, why you are wrong:

I can quote you many many times that this admin has said it does not want to "westernize" the ME just give them the opportunity to experience democracy. It has been the anti-war crowd that have made the assumptions that you are now parroting.

No one in their right mind expects Iraq to be "America East". Come on man.

You posture here as if you are so smart and so enlightened, and yet you put forth ideas that go against fact. Let me state it again - GWB does not expect the ME to embrace "western" democracy. That is a lie.

I fear that you just can't see it, or you can and you just won't admit it.

I do however sense a tinge of a spec of kudos going out to GWB. That's nice to see, however miniscule it is.

segovius

03-03-2005, 02:46 AM

Originally posted by NaplesX
Dude, why you are wrong:

I can quote you many many times that this admin has said it does not want to "westernize" the ME just give them the opportunity to experience democracy. It has been the anti-war crowd that have made the assumptions that you are now parroting.

No one in their right mind expects Iraq to be "America East". Come on man.

You posture here as if you are so smart and so enlightened, and yet you put forth ideas that go against fact. Let me state it again - GWB does not expect the ME to embrace "western" democracy. That is a lie.

I fear that you just can't see it, or you can and you just won't admit it.

I do however sense a tinge of a spec of kudos going out to GWB. That's nice to see, however miniscule it is.

You need to stop taking your idol's words at face value.

If America and the west cannot open up new markets then it is fucked. Iraq is an opened up market - that's all.

It's as simple as that.

NaplesX

03-03-2005, 07:33 AM

Originally posted by segovius
You need to stop taking your idol's words at face value.

If America and the west cannot open up new markets then it is fucked. Iraq is an opened up market - that's all.

It's as simple as that. You are an anarchist, if you feel you cannot believe anything that anyone says. Bush has been asked all different ways about the westernization of the ME and he has answered the same.

You can choose the unproven and oft wrong method of mind reading, I will stick with the proven method of reading and hearing.

And why is it that you think GWB is my idol? Can't a person choose to agree with certain things that a leader puts forth without being accused of idolatry?

Anywho, If I follow your rules then your Idols must be Kennedy, Boxer, Byrd, and Churchill.

groverat

03-03-2005, 07:36 AM

Originally posted by NaplesX
Can't a person choose to agree with certain things that a leader puts forth without being accused of idolatry?

They can, sure. You don't.

NaplesX

03-03-2005, 07:40 AM

Originally posted by groverat
They can, sure. You don't. Correct me if i am wrong, but is picking childish fights part of the whole Mod gig?

How do I join up? :lol:

groverat

03-03-2005, 08:24 AM

I don't think pointing out your right-wing zealotry is picking a fight as much as it is acknowledging the obvious.

You just support the party line, you throw it out without thinking about it critically. That's why you have to leave the "Spain is a terrorist organization" rhetoric under a basket and just imply it. It's intellectual cowardice, which is the hallmark of a zealot.

New

03-03-2005, 10:12 AM

I really like the way Bulgaria fits into that whole picture...

NaplesX

03-03-2005, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by groverat
I don't think pointing out your right-wing zealotry is picking a fight as much as it is acknowledging the obvious.

You just support the party line, you throw it out without thinking about it critically. That's why you have to leave the "Spain is a terrorist organization" rhetoric under a basket and just imply it. It's intellectual cowardice, which is the hallmark of a zealot. Um, my mild mannered freind, it is you who are toeing a party line, and am afraid you don't see it. So let me point it out to you...

You took my original post and somehow twisted it into a "right wing party line" If you just use that little thing called a scroll wheel or the thing on the side of the page called a scroll bar ----------->

You will see that I implied no such thing. I actually implied that they were not acting as an supposed ally should, with regards to sharing info. I said it sounded very fishy to me, and wondered why they wouldn't share such info as soon as it was available.

I don't think that "Not an ally" specifically means "enemy" as you and others have so quickly attributed to my "obvious" belief system. I meant exactly as i typed, and to expand so that those of you with the knee problem will understand, Spain has demonstrated with this and previous actions that under it's new leadership, they are not acting like an ally, and should be dropped from that list, IMO.

You have demonstrated the tactic of marginalizing anyone that disagrees with you by directly associating them with your perceived enemy, Bush. Which has been a democrat/liberal ploy here in AO for quite a while. You followed the party line in lock step, my misguided fellow.

Edit: Groverat is referring to my thread about the spanish government holding back info from the FBI and not this thread specifically. I did not realize until after i posted that i was in this and not the spain thread. Sorry for the derailment.

tonton

03-03-2005, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by NaplesX
Um, my mild mannered freind, it is you who are toeing a party line, and am afraid you don't see it. So let me point it out to you...

:lol:

I guess Nappy's too young to remember the Groverat of old.

:lol:

quagmire

03-03-2005, 05:42 PM

With this whole what side to listen to, you have to listen to both sides. Can't just go to the anti-war side and then filter out what Bush is saying. Same thing if you support Bush/ Iraq war. We should take both sides arguments with a lot of consideration. Anti-war side, Save a lot of money and spend tax payers money on other things. Pro-war, is to take out a threat to the U.S and the world, cheaper gas prices as soon as we pull out and hopefully get a trade going. While I believe democracy is the best form of gov't IMO, we shouldn't just go out to countries who's culture was around more then ours and sort of speak force our culture on to theirs. Yes, some countries went democratic because of threats to cut off aid from Bush and co. But, simply we can't all blame Bush for it. This country has roots of wanting to spread. It is that we are an imperialistic country. We can't deny it.

NaplesX

03-04-2005, 05:21 PM

Jon Stewart starts to give credit to Bush as a result of the sweeping changes and reforms in the ME, stating he just might have been right.

http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.jhtml?player=realplayer&type=v&quality=high&reposid=/multimedia/tds/celeb/celeb_10028.html

Of course, Nancy Soderberg reflects the prevailing opinion of the left:

"As a democrat, you don't want anything nice to happen for republicans and you don't want them to have progress"

"It's scary for Democrats" speaking of the potential progress that republicans may make in the ME

"There's still Iran and North Korea" speaking of things that could go wrong for the republicans.

Stewart says to her "I gotta say, I have'nt seen results like this ever in that region"

Soderberg replies, "There's always hope that this wont work." speaking of the whole ME effort.

Keep her in front of the camera, I say.

She actually thinks this way?

hardeeharhar

03-04-2005, 05:24 PM

Yes, I always agree with Nancy Who?

What the fuck NaplesX?

Do you understand that no one person represents the left, and no one person represents the right?

NaplesX

03-04-2005, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Yes, I always agree with Nancy Who?

What the fuck NaplesX?

Do you understand that no one person represents the left, and no one person represents the right? President Clinton felt highly enough of her to write the, wait for it... 2 PAGE forward for her book. Madelyn Albright (sp?) felt highly enough of her to write a blurb for her book.

Edit: I did not say she represents the entire democratic party, just that she "reflects" the lefts views. Do you not have a dictionary?

NaplesX

03-04-2005, 05:33 PM

hardeeharhar

03-04-2005, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by NaplesX
President Clinton felt highly enough of her to write the, wait for it... 2 PAGE forward for her book. Madelyn Albright (sp?) felt highly enough of her to write a blurb for her book.

Edit: I did not say she represents the entire democratic party, just that she "reflects" the lefts views. Do you not have a dictionary?

Did I say democratic party? No.

I think the florida sun has baked all of your good brain cells.

NaplesX

03-04-2005, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Did I say democratic party? No.

I think the florida sun has baked all of your good brain cells. Ok, let's stop the foolishness, shall we...

In the political spectrum as it is today:

The "Left" = Democrats

The "Center" = Independents, thus the name, I suppose.

The "Right" = Republicans

And as it sits, the center covers part of the left and the right. Thus the "Left-wing" and "Right-wing" distinctions.

I said left and that is what I meant. Maybe our definitions are different. Let me know if I am off so that we can agree and quit playing semantics.

Agreed?

hardeeharhar

03-04-2005, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by NaplesX
Ok, let's stop the foolishness, shall we...

In the political spectrum as it is today:

The "Left" = Democrats

The "Center" = Independents, thus the name, I suppose.

The "Right" = Republicans

And as it sits, the center covers part of the left and the right. Thus the "Left-wing" and "Right-wing" distinctions.

I said left and that is what I meant. Maybe our definitions are different. Let me know if I am off so that we can agree and quit playing semantics.

Agreed?

You are off.

The left is a subset of the population. Some of them vote democratic, some of them vote independent, some of them vote libertarian.

The center is a subset of the population. Some of them vote democratic, some of them vote republican, some of them vote independent, some of them vote libertarian.

The right is a subset of the population. Some of them vote republican, some of them vote independent, some of them vote libertarian.

I wasn't playing semantics. You were.

NaplesX

03-04-2005, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
You are off.

The left is a subset of the population. Some of them vote democratic, some of them vote independent, some of them vote libertarian.

The center is a subset of the population. Some of them vote democratic, some of them vote republican, some of them vote independent, some of them vote libertarian.

The right is a subset of the population. Some of them vote republican, some of them vote independent, some of them vote libertarian.

I wasn't playing semantics. You were. So... the whole right/left definition is up to your whim?

Despite the fact that you just said what I said but with bloviating, you have proven that intelligent conversation with you is not only virtually impossible, but also unwanted by you.

But just in case you need me to restate the original statement according to your definitions:

"Of course, Nancy Soderberg reflects the prevailing opinion of the subset of the population. Some of them vote democratic, some of them vote independent, some of them vote libertarian (left):"

I really hate to quote myself but I really think it was in order here.

Happy?

I really hope you feel silly. Because if you don't, hope is gone.

THT

03-04-2005, 11:27 PM

Bah. Correlation does not equal causation. I'm firm in my belief that Bush invaded Iraq for purely political reasons with his usual skin deep plans and strategies. And the neocons, they are blinded by their loyalties to Israel too much think much beyond the context of Israel's safety in the Middle East.

With the advent of better communications technology and public wealth, all countries will trend democratic. All these nations had democracy movements before the Iraq invasion and will have it after the occupation is done. The only thing Iraq has done for the USA is put us in a half trillion dollar hole and handicapped us in our competition against the EU and the South and East Asians.

How about this prediction: even if all countries in the Middle East are democratic, it will do nothing to curb militant Islamic terrorism. Why? Democracy has nothing to do with militant Islamic terrorism.

midwinter

03-05-2005, 01:28 AM

Originally posted by tonton
:lol:

I guess Nappy's too young to remember the Groverat of old.

:lol:

Indeed. It was the debates with Gröverat over the imminent invasion of Iraq that got me where I am today. 2000+ posts to a discussion forum that will eventually disappear when the hosting service goes belly up and the guy who was supposed to archive them all oversleeps.

midwinter

03-05-2005, 01:31 AM

Originally posted by NaplesX
[B]Ok, let's stop the foolishness, shall we...

In the political spectrum as it is today:

The "Left" = Democrats

No. The left = people like sammi jo and me, if you catch me in the right mood.

The "Center" = Independents, thus the name, I suppose.

"Independent" is code for "right wing nutjob"

The "Right" = Republicans

Which has been taken over by the right-wing nutjobs.

This is all far, far more nuanced than you seem to want to admit.

hardeeharhar

03-05-2005, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by NaplesX
So... the whole right/left definition is up to your whim?

Despite the fact that you just said what I said but with bloviating, you have proven that intelligent conversation with you is not only virtually impossible, but also unwanted by you.

But just in case you need me to restate the original statement according to your definitions:

"Of course, Nancy Soderberg reflects the prevailing opinion of the subset of the population. Some of them vote democratic, some of them vote independent, some of them vote libertarian (left):"

I really hate to quote myself but I really think it was in order here.

Happy?

I really hope you feel silly. Because if you don't, hope is gone.

Yeah. Hope. That dastardly little nugget that would have resulted in you spending more time in school earning a worthwhile degree in some long lost medieval pseudo-logic instead of attempting to use said reasoning skills here.

Intelligent conversation is a matter of course; I simply cannot have an intelligent conversation with an idiot.

jimmac

03-05-2005, 07:40 PM

WOW! Nappy! Just WOW!:wow:

Do you really think anyone's buying this trash? This war was about 3 things : Money, Power, and Political Distraction! Nothing more!

Even people like Groverat have come to realize it's not a good thing.

Give it a good 10 years and then let's look at that map and see if it reflects anything concerning the Iraq war.:no:

dmz

03-06-2005, 06:08 PM

I just listened to these comments (mp3) (http://www.zombietime.com/clinton_on_iran_at_davos/clinton_on_iran_at_davos.mp3) by Bill Clinton as Davos.

Pretty interesting, if not downright astute.

midwinter

03-08-2005, 02:11 AM

Gawd I miss having an articulate President.

dmz

03-08-2005, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by midwinter
Gawd I miss having an articulate President.

What did you think of his comments?

midwinter

03-08-2005, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by dmz
What did you think of his comments?

It was really nice to hear him say all that. I wish he'd said something along the lines of "Gee, and if only I had been President for 8 years, maybe I could have done some of these things..."

I agree with a lot of what he's saying and I like the way he framed it. But he's a rat bastard for not having tried any of that.