JW77

From MSNBC.com and Newsweek.

It's a two page article, so I only posted part of it...

sum1

TokyoNiGHTS

I don't think people have actually questioned whether or not people in the Middle East have wanted democracy. It's obvious that they would. People have questioned the way that we've gone about doing it.

Casandra

While I have quite a few issues regarding Bush, I have to say, going back to the Iraq elections, for the first time in a LONG time, I felt that maybe we had actually done the right thing.

The sight of those people coming out of those polling stations, who were literally risking their lives to do so, was overwhelming. They were crying, cheering, so incredibly proud of having the chance to vote for the very first time. To make a concious choice in how their country will be governed. It was amazing to watch.

And whether the ends justifies the means or not, that is an image that would NOT have been possible had we not gone into the country in the first place. Democracy stood NO chance whatsoever until Bush made the choice to 'liberate' the Iraqi people. If it starts an upward trend, that's an even greater accomplishment.

ceilirose

IIRC Zakaria was not entirely against the Iraq War, was a huge critic of the occupation and Bush's role in it and is cautiously hopeful for the future. It's a fair article because he goes over the pros and cons of what the American intervention in Iraq has yielded so far and what could happen in the future in the Middle East.

It's cautionary too since democracy is really messy and as he says " But therein lies the danger. It is easier to imagine liberal democracy than to achieve it." Fourteen years after the Soviet Union disbanded Russia is still problematic.

As far as Lebanon goes the prime minister who resigned last week is now going to be reinstated. I'm not sure what that will mean but their legislature is still pro-Syrian. Also I wonder if the assassination of the former prime minister had not happened in Lebanon would any of the demonstrations have occurred? Would something else have moved the people to demonstrate?

As far as I can remember Lebanon was more open to Western culture and views than other countries in the Middle East. Even prior to their civil war in the 70's and 80's they were known for that so their yearning for further democracy or rather no occupying powers may lie deeper than what has happened in Iraq.

ETA - like others have mentioned the initial reason for the Iraq War was to protect America and not spread freedom and democracy. Changing rationales have labeled it that way.

- annuscka -

Yeah, I agree on that.

It's my firm belief that nothing good can come out of anything that is forced on anybody, be it communism or democracy or whatever you will. When it comes to -isms, people have to get to choose for themselves. And while I don't and never will agree with that war can be justified, I do OBVIOUSLY think it's a good thing that there might become something of a peace in the Middle East soon - as without the Palestinian question, Al-Quaida and their croonies have little base and will lose supporters, hopefully.

I don't think Bush was right - but that might just be my dislike for his whole persona, I'd dislike him even if he hadn't been the US president. I don't like the cowboy attitude ("Dead or alive", "with us or against us"), and never will. I don't like Putin any more than Bush, they're far too similar for the world's good.

Anyway. Few times have I been as happy as when I heard that Israel and Palestine agreed, without any third party, to take a first step toward peace, and that the recent attack didn't destory it all. Let's just hope other peoples get as far. WIHTOUT the US, EU, whatever. If the Iraqi war helped, something I personally don't see, then it was still hardly justified (it didn't single-handedly "fix" everything) - but it gets less dirty IMO.

Finally,
As twisted as I probably sound, I agree. In one way -- it's always been more or less hopeless for people to think they are wrong. And, in questions like these, it's hard to change your mind when no one can give you a straight answer. There is no right and wrong in this matter anymore, I don't think... meaning that no one can say that the fact that you bombed this or that helped achieving this or that. Obviously you think it and right now I see why more than before. But then there has been several times when people have screamed "look how wrong he was" about the war, as well - and not many rightwingers turned then (Abu Ghraib, the insecurity in Iraq overall) - either. Now I suppose you'll say that one can't compare, and maybe that's true, I also think that a prison scandal, while being solid proof on why the military is not very awesome IMO, is less to discuss than a possible M-E peace. But then you pretty much can't compare anything to anything - headache to toothache (more painful to ache in x place) or whatever.

I know I probably make no sense, but I tried hard, promise.

sick little jag

While I think peace in the Middle East is important and getting rid of totalitarian and communist dictators is important, I don't agree with Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq. I think it's wrong to tout this as the war that was bringing democracy to Iraq because, let's face it; we didn't go to war to liberate the Iraqi people, we went to find (non-existant) WMDs. So, to save face it was drilled into our heads over and over again that we went with the intentions of being liberators. While, yes, Sadam did need to be taken out of power, don't do it when he hasn't made any agressive actions against us or his people in recent years. Nothing was going on in Iraq....he was just minding his own business, for as much as he could.

It isn't right for one soveirgn nation to go in and over throw another soveirgn nation's government.

However, I'm very happy and hopeful for the possibility to the end of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I was so distraught at the thought that the suicide bombing attack that occured after the cease fire was declared would derail the process, but it's very promising to see that both sides are sticking to their word.

elisheva

.... ......

Semmer

That about sums up my reaction to that comment as well.

RedRockSedona

Damn what short memories some people have

For Starters

• Let us not forget the reason the US went to Iraq was for WMDs...oh yeah and we must not forget that there were none.

• Let us not forget that it was Ariel Sharon's decision (and not Bush's) to defy his party and call for the dismantling some Israeli settlements in the west bank

• Let us not forget as it must be said that leading cause of terrorism in the middle east has been the US (and its allies) and its 50 plus (more like 80) years of meddling in the political affairs of all the various regions/and countries in the middle east.

• Let us not forget that the recent Lebanese calling for Syria to leave their country came about because of the assassination of Rafik Hariri

• Let us not forget that 500,000 people in Lebanon rallied this past Tuesday out of sympathy for Syria

• Let us not forget that true Democracy in Iraq will only begin when the US leaves.

• Let us not forget much of the recent happenings with both Israel and Palestine came about in death Yasser Arafat...

However

• Let us not forget that Palestine has been having elections for the last seven years.

• And Let us not forget how Saudi Arabia remains a dictatorship and one that considers women having far less worth...further let us not forget just how the friendly Bush administration has been (and continues to be) with this dictatorship. Continuing we must not to forget that this very same dictatorship received pardons from Bush for suggesting that Saudi Arabia may have been involved in 9/11 and we need not forget that they were


Bottom line is Bush should not even consider taking credit for democracy in the Middle East

Anabela

Nobody will ever convince me democracy can be forced upon a nation.

The Iraq war was based in a lie. A lot of people try hard not to acknowlegde that, but it's the truth.
And the Iraq war brought death and destruction. Do you remember Bush all happy with that "Mission Accomplished" poster behind him? How long ago was that? How many people died since? They accomplished to create a huge mess, a lot of death and destruction. Was that their mission?
Saddam no longer rules Iraq, but I don't think the iraquis live any better now. They live under the constant fear. Everyday, we hear of another bomb exploding.
Prisoners that haven't been charged with anything are being raped and abused. That doesn't usually happen in democracies, does it?

What exactly did Bush get right? I can't see anything.

RedRockSedona: great post.

WalkingOnSunshine

Saddam hadn't made any aggressive actions against his people? What are rape rooms, massive graves, secret police torturing & killing innocent Iraqis, etc. then?

It was based on a misconception.

The mission was not to create death and destruction. That is your spin on a war that has removed an evil regime, that is killing insurgents and freeing the Iraqis. You must be right, the Iraqis were miserable when they risked their lives to vote in their country's election. You may not agree with Bush, but you cannot argue with the pictures of those citizens risking their lives to acheive their dream of democracy and freedom.

I was waiting for someone to say that.

sick little jag

If you think that is reason enough to attack a nation then I guess we should be going after a lot more. Saddam Hussien isn't the only dictator who sanctioned such gross human rights violations, but if we aren't going to go after ALL of them, we shouldn't be going after any of them. Don't think this means I think rape rooms, mass graves, and secret police are all a grand old time, but honestly. We turned a blind eye to it for more than 20 years, so all of a sudden we just can't take it anymore? No. You will never be able to convince me that attacking Iraq was the right thing to do. If we had found WMDs, then maybe I would begrudingly agree, but we didn't. All we found were left overs from the first Gulf War that weren't even any good.

Over 1500 U.S. soldiers have died, insurgents have started murdering American civilians, but let's not forget the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians who have died during this conflict. We don't even know the exact number, because the U.S. military doesn't keep records of "colatiral damage". Sure, there were rape rooms, mass graves, and secrect police....but do you honestly think even HALF of the number of Iraqi civilians would have been killed by those means if we had not stuck our (our being the US) fat noses into things? No way.

COOLCAT200

I recall Saddam having 5000 Kurds killed in a matter of 10 mins. I do not know how I feel anymore about the war but he was not just an evil man he really was truly a murder in every sense of the word.

JW77

Things are always changing in this world. Nations rise and fall…people and beliefs come and go. And despite what some may believe, those things are likely to continue even without the United States of America. But at the moment, in parts of the Middle East, some things seem to be headed in a better direction. Whether or not Bush deserves credit for that doesn't really matter...at least not to me. But I do believe that his actions have contributed, even if those actions were not always the best actions.

That's good that people are questioning our foreign policies. I think it's important. But in the end, Bush's approach seems to be having some visible effects in the region. And the reluctancy in acknowledging that is what sum1 was pointing out.

I guess we'll never really know. But even with the assassination, any Lebanese demonstrations against Syria are still pretty big. And that leads to the question of whether or not they would've happened without that outside pressure for reform in the Middle East. It's very possible that they would have, but I believe that outside pressure increased that possibility.

I think it definitely goes deeper than anything that's happened in Iraq. I don't believe that it has much to do with their possible openness to Western culture though. All people yearn to be free, and given the chance to be free, I think most people would take it. But protests of opposition like the ones that happened in Lebanon are pretty rare in the Middle East, so why are they happening now? Could it be because of outside pressure from people like Bush?

Spreading freedom and democracy was just one of those things that some people always assumed would be a part of it. But you're right; the main reason was to protect America and our allies.

Nobody is really saying that Bush deserves credit for everything that's happening in the Middle East, but thanks for bringing up those points. Some of those things are important and do need to be kept in mind.

I don't think anyone is crediting Bush for democracy in the Middle East. I think that people are giving him credit for his contributions (however small) towards a more democratic Middle East.

I will never be convinced of that either. But as far as I know, nobody was forced to vote in the Iraqi election. Those that went to the polls chose their own path.

It may be the truth based on your perception, but I don't agree with it. Just like you don't agree that Bush was right about anything.

Any loss of innocent life is a bad thing, but you bring up a good point. We don't know the exact number of Iraqi civilians killed. So we can't really say, with any certainty, that it's anywhere near hundreds of thousands.

By those means? I don't know. But I do believe that the UN estimated death toll from the sanctions definitely would've continued to rise. And those continued sanctions seemed to be acceptable to most people.