Democracy Spreding Throughout Middle East: George W. Bush Vindicated?

[Zebo]

Name me three countries with a century+ 'benevelont dictatorship' we should emulate.

Hundreds of countries in the world, surely three have the 'best' system you are pushing.

Fact is, it doesn't work, and only people who don't understand the issues with - the benefits of - democracy think otherwise.

Democracy is hardly 'perfect' - it can be a disaster - but it's better than any other. Short-term 'benevolent dictatorships' have existed, but *they cannot remain good government*.

I probably went a little overboard. But there were plenty successful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_absolutism

My only point is liberty and those other concepts I talked about is at least as important as democracy and should be trumpeted more. We would have never had civil rights or maybe even end of slavery if it were democracy. I am interested to see his ME experiment under democracy. Will they protect the minority like dictators did? Does not look good so far. Oldest Christians in the world are run out of Iraq.. Life has gotten worse not better for free thinkers, women, gays etc.

 

[zsdersw]

Why on earth would Iraq influence anyone? It's not like people in the region can't see what's happening all over the world. What they see is that the US bombed Iraq to get rid of Saddam. I don't see any nations asking for the same treatment. They are looking at the Western idea of democratic government and want to adapt it to their culture. Considering that people are getting tired of puppet dictators like in Egypt and royal monarchies that have no concern for their people, it is a logical step.

The trigger isn't Iraq, it's more the internet and exposure to a world they didn't know a generation ago.

This.

It's not a "vindication" of Bush or the neocons.

 

[Murloc]

iraq has no relation with this imho.
The world just sees a dictator finally killed by another state just for economic reasons, and a country going from a violent dictatorship to a permanent bloodbath.

North africa was colonized, and the dictators that came in power were getting really old. The people maybe accepted it, since at least it was a national government instead of being under french control.
The new young people who always lived in that situation though, and use the internet a lot, get influenced by european culture, and some of them went to study in europe.
The economic difficulties were of course necessary for the revolt to start (no revolt starts if the people has enough food, even if they're under a dictator).

I don't see how a failed forced democracy could inspire something like this.

 

[1prophet]

Hitler was not elected. He was appointed by President Hindenberg. :hmm:

What is with all the anti-democracy posts? That is a very dangerous path.

I keep hearing this crap about "democracy is only people voting for free stuff" this is bunk, people vote generally on issues. I have never seen anyone vote because "Iz git free shiz!" what a bunch of racist anti-democratic drivel right up there with Reagans "cadillac queen" story to discredit welfare recipients, now you guys are after voting? wtf?

[FONT=Arial, Geneva] Maybe they are referring to something like this [/FONT]when they talk about people voting for "free stuff".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI


And this is very sad for democracy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyvqhdllXgU&feature=related

 

[Siddhartha]

Is there any evidence that there is a causal relationship between the US's invasion of Iraq, which killed 100,000s of Iraqis and drove Iraq's economy to the dark ages, and pissed off citizens of Egypt, Libya, etc marching in the streets?

 

[dmcowen674]

Democracy Spreding Throughout Middle East: George W. Bush Vindicated?

It looks like Iraq was the beacon of democracy that George W. Bush said it would be. Look at all these countries in teh Middle East that want democracy now.

Trillions of dollars and thousands of U.S. soldiers lives and we are now losing control of Iraq and you call that a success?

 

[feralkid]

as a hardcore liberal it pains me to say it but I think we must eat our words, Bush had it right...I think a lot of us liberals can unite behind the ideals of democracy Bush ushered into the middle east.

Who hacked this account?

 

[Zebo]

iraq has no relation with this imho.
The world just sees a dictator finally killed by another state just for economic reasons, and a country going from a violent dictatorship to a permanent bloodbath.

North africa was colonized, and the dictators that came in power were getting really old. The people maybe accepted it, since at least it was a national government instead of being under french control.
The new young people who always lived in that situation though, and use the internet a lot, get influenced by european culture, and some of them went to study in europe.
The economic difficulties were of course necessary for the revolt to start (no revolt starts if the people has enough food, even if they're under a dictator).

I don't see how a failed forced democracy could inspire something like this.

Before the European colonization, it was the Ottomans. Before the Ottomans it was the Arabs. Before the Arabs it was the Byzantines, before the Byzantines it was the Romans, before the Romans it was the Greeks. Basically North Africa has only known colonization or despots. This is really a remarkable time in history and we don't know what will happen. I doubt it will be permanent blood bath though...hard to do that in modern world.

 

[Moonbeam]

This is proof to me we wasted a couple trillion trying to do something that was already going to happen anyways.

Yup. America is now filled with morons who call themselves Americans and have no faith at all in what Real America was all about, that the desire for freedom comes from the soul of man, that we have rights that are inalienable in every human being.

It's easy to miss that when your mind is fixed on oil.

 

[hal2kilo]

as a hardcore liberal it pains me to say it but I think we must eat our words, Bush had it right...I think a lot of us liberals can unite behind the ideals of democracy Bush ushered into the middle east.

tapping very hard on my sarcasm meter...

 

[soundforbjt]

LOL, 21 closet bush/iraq war supporters have said yes.

 

[Murloc]

Basically North Africa has only known colonization or despots. This is really a remarkable time in history and we don't know what will happen. I doubt it will be permanent blood bath though...hard to do that in modern world.

it will be really interesting to see if they will be able to form truly democratic states (the revolt came from the people), or if other despotic leaderships will take power.
Anyway by permanent blood bath I mean places like Afghanistan, where democracy isn't applicable and people make themselves explode all the time.
North africa is a different scenario luckily.

 

[Lemon law]

Ding Dind Ding. I think we have a winner here as Hayabusa Rider defines the moment.

Education and insanity is hereditary, we get us from our children. The people leading these new Arab rebellions are young, educated, and its not hard for them to figure out their nation can't be the place they want it to be as long as they are ruled by despots and looters.

 

[kage69]

I feel the nature of dictators and Wikileaks had more to do with the overthrows than anything Bush was directed to do.

That Iraq is relatively stable at this point doesn't vindicate him and his handlers from screwing the Aghani pooch for 7 years; remember that bin Laden guy?

 

[JSt0rm]

I think he did such a good job we should send him on speaking and diplomacy engagements all over the middle east.

 

[soundforbjt]

I think he did such a good job we should send him on speaking and diplomacy engagements all over the middle east.

This^^^😀

 

[sunzt]

The Economist did an article about this topic to which I base the following on.

Bush had the right idea that a democratic country in the middle east could spread its example throughout the middle east in a domino-like effect. However; invading Iraq and forcefully slamming democracy on the people (especially in a ethnic powder keg like Iraq) was NOT the way to execute his idea of a democratic country. It's also unclear whether or not the Iraq war would even have mattered for the current uprisings.

So basically, Bush had the right idea, but horrible execution.

 

[KGB]

Let me get this logic straight...

1. Saddam was a douchebag
2. His people were ripe for revolt.
3. Before his people started their uprising, ... the Americans jumped the gun and swooped in.
4. Iraq turned into a steaming pile of shit.

Ipso facto...

1. Mubarek is a douchebag.
2. His people are ripe for revolt.
3. His people revolt and depose him BEFORE the Americans can swoop in and turn Egypt into a steaming pile of shit.

Great logic.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Bush pulled the "beacon of democracy" BS out of his ass when it became apparent that there were no WMDs, no AQ connection, and the war would not pay for itself. Grabbing at straws by that time to give the American people some reason to continue to support the war.

Sorry folks, but these revolts have only one father: information. The internet has given people the opportunity to see the world as it really is. Looking at how things are elsewhere, they can now envision having what they have wanted for a long time. They can compare their existence to what they see others enjoying. And they can see a path to it.

Back in '95, when Bill Gates dismissed the internet, I formed the opinion that the internet would become the the greatest engine of change that the world had ever seen. "Knowledge is power" has been overused to the point of cliche, but it is absolutely true concerning the internet. Why do you think so many governments and huge corporations want to control or limit it? The next 50 years will see more changes than the last 500.

And anybody that really thinks that Bush is responsible for this, I have some magic crystals that keep lions away for sale. Trust me, they have worked for me for decades.

 

[TareX]

Nonviolent revolts could only work if the regime was reluctant to use violence against its own people. Saddam had no such compunctions. If there were a million Gandhi's in Iraq, Saddam would send the Republican Guard to kill every one of them, and they would do it without any hesitation.... reminds me of Libya now.

The Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings succeeded because the military forces of those countries refused to protect the regimes by cracking down on their own countrymen. The Egyptian military's self-image is that of a force that protects the nation and the people, not Hosni Mubarak. Yes, many top officers were his cronies, but when the push came to shove, their loyalty to the state was greater than their loyalty to the regime. The same was true in Tunisia.

I'm not defending this war by any means. It was one big lie, based on a lie, and many American youths paid for it with their lives, and 150,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in the instability that ensued.

I hate Saddam, he attacked Kuwait and ruined my family's life there in 1990. He was a mass murderer, no doubt. But then again this war was neither about spreading democracy, nor was it about WMDs. It was about Iraq being the biggest Arab oil reserve.

 

[Craig234]

Bush pulled the "beacon of democracy" BS out of his ass when it became apparent that there were no WMDs, no AQ connection, and the war would not pay for itself. Grabbing at straws by that time to give the American people some reason to continue to support the war.

Sorry folks, but these revolts have only one father: information. The internet has given people the opportunity to see the world as it really is. Looking at how things are elsewhere, they can now envision having what they have wanted for a long time. They can compare their existence to what they see others enjoying. And they can see a path to it.

Back in '95, when Bill Gates dismissed the internet, I formed the opinion that the internet would become the the greatest engine of change that the world had ever seen. "Knowledge is power" has been overused to the point of cliche, but it is absolutely true concerning the internet. Why do you think so many governments and huge corporations want to control or limit it? The next 50 years will see more changes than the last 500.

And anybody that really thinks that Bush is responsible for this, I have some magic crystals that keep lions away for sale. Trust me, they have worked for me for decades.

Good points, I agree the internet is one of the great inventions in human history in its potential impact.

Too bad how we treated the political leader who led its development funding, allowing propagandists to turn that into a *negative* for him.

It's important we protect the internet's freedom, democracy, egalitarianism, the agenda of groups like the Electronic Freedom Fundation, against political and corporate agendas.

 

[Siddhartha]

Stop quibbling. His Nazi party was elected in enough numbers to seat him.

Democracy is garbage is why there are anti democracy posts. It's a sure fire way into bankruptcy and two wolves and a sheep deciding whats for dinner in most places. See Iraq which is totally regionally cleansed after democracy.

Best is benevolent dictatorship. The West practices second best, some immutable rights or "natural rights" with democracy.

What happens when the "benevolent dictatorship" only is benevolent to a certain group and everyone else hits the wall? This has happened in the past and probably will happen in the future.

 

[irishScott]

Given that none of it had to do with him... nope.

And every President who fucks up hopes their fuckups will be "vindicated by history". Still hasn't happened for Nixon or Carter yet, among others.

 

[Craig234]

Given that none of it had to do with him... nope.

And every President who fucks up hopes their fuckups will be "vindicated by history". Still hasn't happened for Nixon or Carter yet, among others.

Uh, actually Carter looks pretty good in history.

No wars; pursuit of a better energy policy; taking steps against the economic problems he inherited that worked, with the appointment of Paul Volcker; Camp David.

His allowing the Shah to fall didn't have a great result in terms of there being limited options by that point since we had put the Shah in power for 25 years, allowing the fundamentalists to gain power - but it's still a good thing IMO we did not have more US-forced dictatorship, adding Iran to the list of Mubarak, Saddam, the House of Saud, etc.

His secret policy to try to hurt the USSR by drawing them in to Afghanistan - it worked very well as designed, even if I don't like it for replacing a better government with the Taiban as the result. It was a calculation they made that I don't really agree with - 'who cares about fundamentalist Islam if we can bring down the Soviet Empire in the cold war' - but it worked as they intended it seems.

Even the hostages came home safely, eventually, hardly something that was really 'his fault' doing something wrong (and far from Reagan's 'arms for hostages' to raise funds for an illegal terrorist army in Nicaragua where we were trying to force them to take another pro-US dictator, after they'd finally gotten out from Somoza).

Carter's making human rights a major part of US foreign policy - so that we would push the issue on terriblem regimes rather than turn a blind eye - I think was a great policy.

He looks a lot better now.

Nixon, not so much. He was more of a monster than was understood even in Watergate.

 

[Engineer]

Mission not accomplished.