Oldie but a goodie....(match is struck, fire is lit)

On a related note, Mert, I have to admit I find it entertaining that when a "troll" does start a thread, no one can seem to leave it alone. The advice of not feeding the trolls is NEVER heeded around here. Just an observation.

GB-H,
The big picture dealt with changing the culture of the Arab countries and their relationship with terrorists. Instituting democracy was seen as a way to to stop, oddly enough, the appeasing of terrorists. Basically, the governments in the Middle East were content to enable the terrorists as long as they weren't affected. Basically, you do your thing, we'll do ours. In a working democracy, that sort of deal doesn't work. The people, not an oppressive, corrupt government, determine the terrorists' influence. By getting the democratic ball rolling in the Middle East, the theory is that the citizens of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia would be able to finally have their say and limit the influence of the terrorist movement, both locally and globally.

Granted, any such grand ideas have gotten lost in the haze of botched operations in Iraq. But the idea that Bush invaded Iraq simply because he wanted to play cowboy, or was doing it for his father, etc., is, as you say, ridiculous.

 

Had some energy to burn, couldn't help myself, and don't really care enough to get that pissed at the dunce. So I figured it was a good combo. Besides, I really wanted to find an excuse to put that Friedman piece up.

 

Fair enough.

 

So, if that was the case, why not try instituting it in a country with which we have good relations first, such as Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. If our allies in the area were to take it upon themselves to clean themselves up, wouldn't that be better.

If the contention is that we invaded Iraq to show how great democracy is, then why pick a country like Iraq, which could so easily be framed as Bush being a cowboy, settling his daddy's old scores or trying to lock up oil supplies. To me, it doesn't add up.

You're correct when you say it's become a disaster, but I don't remember anyone saying before the invasion, "We need to do this to show the Middle East how great democracy is." It's now even more obvious with hindsight that the people in Iraq and Muslims around the world would be sold the idea their religion was under attack, and Iraq was the battlefield. Hence the flocking of others to the area in addition to the civil war that's underway.

 

There was a lot of talk about democracy before the invasion.

As for Saudi Arabia, those relations have been fucked up for decades. No way we could have essentially asked the royal family to step aside.

The idea that it's a religion we're attacking comes from terrorist propaganda, once again showing the dangerous power they have to shape public opinion when the government doesn't want to stick up for its people.

From your point of view, nothing is going to add up. Anyway, I'm sure we'll rehash this and other issues in the future.

 

But imposing democracy through force, it has been shown through Eastern Europe, has to be forced from within. By invading to provide a better life, we actually played into the terrorists hands.

The sheer lack of thought about this is hard for me to understand. You can't impose democracy on people. They have to want it.

 

It's not hard to identify - some people are afraid to identify it.

 

Oh but in the heart of every liberal lurks a yearning to be European! Just think, if they ruled in the late 18th century, we'd still be subjects of the Queen.

 

Huh? I have no idea what you mean by that. The identifiable remark, I mean.

 

Yeah, so who would be the Hitler in this case? Osama bin Laden? Your boy has done a good job getting his head on a platter these past five years, hasn't he?

I can only conclude that Shrub is more interested in appeasing his oil-rich Saudi relatives than finding this killer.

I understand why you are lashing out in anger because the apeasing going on within your own people has gotta really hurt.

 

Any appeasement sucks.

I still question why the only people flying at noon on 9/11/01 were Bin Laden's relatives.

 

Drowsy,

I think you would find that during the 1770s in America, the folks who would be considered conservative were more likely to be Tories and folks who were Revolutionaires were more liberal.

And who is more likely to chip away at the Constitution today? A conservative or a liberal?

If you're gonna insult somebody, get your crap together.