Can democracy work in Iraq (without the US holding it up at gunpoint)?

[Hail_Ants]

Your post, sir, is drivel. Worse, it is poisonous drivel. Were it not for Arabic/Islamic culture, we of the enlightened west might never have heard of Pythagoras. Mathematics and astronomy have their origin in Islamic culture. Some (not all) Islamic caliphates were models of religious tolerance. Such men as Salladin and Suleiman have been justly admired through the ages. The gentle mysticism of some Sufi poetry is a fair rival to the best Zen poems of Basho.

All very true. However I’m speaking of why arab culture fell into decline in the middle ages (and why it is hopelessly out of touch in the modern world).

Then why aren’t you doing it in Saudi Arabia rather than Iraq? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Because Saudi Arabia is on the brink of civil war over this very thing. The Saudis are a perfect example of what I’m saying. They want it both ways. They live the life of the billionaire westerner, money, women (and how), cars, huge money-making foreign interests, but at the same time they pay lip service to their more fundamentalist brothers who insist this is an hypocrisy (and they’re right). If Saudi Arabia does self destruct those 300,000 troops already in Iraq will save the world from Armegeddon.

We (we being the United States, Western Europe, indeed the world’s powerful for hudreds of years) have used the Arab people as a resource, as a flash point, as a problem. They deserve freedom and self-determination and the fact that they didn’t get it during the 20th century, Democracy’s century, is a direct result of western (again, including American) policy.

Bullshit. The arabs have no one to blame but themselves. The west discovered and developed their oil resources and bought trillions of dollars worth from them. And we were kind enough to not have invaded as they nationalized them. And the only, and I mean the ONLY thing that kept the USSR from eventually killing the arabs and taking their oil was the US nuclear arsenal.

Read Arab Illusions and Modern Terrorism
and
Why do the Arabs hate the West?

[Nietzsche]

furt

Its so fascinating to see how politics cause the inversion of ideology.

It’s odd that you should mention this. I was thinking this very same thing. How is it that the Libertarian and right-wing folks who are such strong advocates of “rise or fall on your own merits” all of a sudden give such a damn about democracy? And not just want it for others, but want it now! Why not just let destiny takes its course and see how in time, one can and will grow?
If we were to assume that they have co-opted a theme from the progressives, why make the first place all the way around the world and not something closer, for example Cuba? Wouldn’t the logistics alone make it a less costly venture (needless government spending being another favored issue by rightists)?

The contrary view is that all people everywhere deserve freedom and are capable of self-government, that all governments have an obligation to promote and defend human rights and that first world nations have a moral duty to use their power to free oppressed peoples. By any sane description, that is a policy that seeks progress.

I disagree with the latter part of your statement. That is not a sane policy by any stretch of the imagination. Look, I might be all for free healthcare and free college educations for everyone. But if I were to walk up to someone idly sitting on a park bench and ask him “Hey! Why aren’t you in school dammit? Don’t you know it’s good for you???” and grab him and haul him off to the nearest college, I would be arrested and put in jail for kidnapping and assault. Your good deeds can only go as far as their acceptance.

To steal a line, human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability. It happens because people make it happen, ignoring the counsel of the status quo.

I agree whole-heartedly. Which is why I was saying in my earlier post that the west should stay the hell out of the way when indigenous elements of those societies strive for change. If I may also be permitted to steal a line… “Those who make peaceful evolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

hail ants:

Bullshit. The arabs have no one to blame but themselves. The west discovered and developed their oil resources and bought trillions of dollars worth from them. And we were kind enough to not have invaded as they nationalized them. And the only, and I mean the ONLY thing that kept the USSR from eventually killing the arabs and taking their oil was the US nuclear arsenal.

I can’t disagree with some of the things you’ve said here, but you definitely have your facts wrong about the Russians and the USSR. They didn’t need the Arabs’ oil (they had plenty of oil in their new acquisitions in the caucuses). In fact, several Arab states were allied with the former USSR (alright, somewhat loosely).
What the Russians wanted, before there even was a USSR or a demand for oil, was Persian lands and by extension, the Persian Gulf. They have coveted that Gulf since they found out it’s there.

[Hail_Ants]

No, they didn’t need the oil for themselves. But in the good old days of the cold war if they thought they could pull it off they would have grabbed the Middle East’s fields in a second. It would have given them unbelievable dominance over the entire industrialized world. And in particular the US. And the lives of the arab people there would have meant nothing.

I don’t want to imply that we weren’t mainly just looking out for our own interests in playing various Arab allies against Soviet ones. But if a communist superpower located on the Asian continent had a chance of capturing the west’s oil supply, they would have.

[Ryan_Liam]

@Hail Ants

No, they didn’t need the oil for themselves. But in the good old days of the cold war if they thought they could pull it off they would have grabbed the Middle East’s fields in a second. It would have given them unbelievable dominance over the entire industrialized world. And in particular the US. And the lives of the arab people there would have meant nothing.

I don’t want to imply that we weren’t mainly just looking out for our own interests in playing various Arab allies against Soviet ones. But if a communist superpower located on the Asian continent had a chance of capturing the west’s oil supply, they would have.

Soviets invading for Oil, laughable, they would of done the same as the Americans, states implementing their ideology and funding by proxy, and since they don’t exactly have a good track record in keeping Muslim states (Barring the minorities in the USSR) in line, take a look at Afghanistan, they would have a worse off time in keeping them controlled, as Communism doesn’t allow large, extremely rich dynasties to evolve like a Kingdom.

Besides, Russians had their own Oil, in large quantities.

[Rashak_Mani]

@Sam Stone

Then you should appreciate George Bush, because he has explicitly repudiated the old cold-war mentality of ‘accomodation’. No longer can the U.S. support a dictator simply because he’s willing to take the U.S. side in an OPEC dispute or act as a buffer between a hostile regime and U.S. interests.

I agree Cold War tactics got the US 9/1… but the US still plays the same game Sam… supporting and accomodating the Pakistani dicatorship, Saudi and Kuwaiti Monarchy, dealing with several of the Stan countries where they locate bases. New countries… same old game.

Democracies don’t tend to breed a lot of terrorists, and certainly not global jihadists. When they do breed terrorists, they are usually small scale with local beefs.

I think ETA, IRA, Oklahoma, the Red Brigades and others prove that democracies do tend to breed terrorists and that violent response isn’t the means of solution by itself. If they keep it “local” its probably because the US/Europe isn’t interfering there as much no ?

Look at Asia - once capitalism and democracy became an obvious success, other nations in the region clamored on board. The same happened in South America. If Iraq becomes a democracy, you’re going to see all sorts of economic cooperation between Iraq, Turkey, Jordan, even Israel. Trade will flow. Standards of living will improve. Economic and social pressure will then be applied to other nations to join in or be left out of the action.

Your dead wrong. Asia is all about capitalism… not democracy. China being the biggest example. Your talking about modern capitalism… not democracy. South America is a good example of how Democracy doesn’t necessarily bring prosperity… since we are weak on the capitalistic side of the equation. China is growing and its un-democratic as it comes. The US itself loves trading with despots… so its obvious that democracy is not a requirement for economic inclusion.

In a free country, you simply cannot defend yourself against these kinds of attacks. This is why the U.S. has to go on the offensive.

I hate reading this every time… especially when your going on the “offensive” in the wrong places. Its ok to be pro-active against terrorism… but not by conventional invasions and occupations.

Sam I think your eating up too much propaganda. I agree that we should “beleive” in the potential of democracy in the ME… but we don’t think it can be force fed to them. Iran was becoming a democracy when the US stopped that. The Domino Theory is very wrong… especially when its imposed. You speak like if Arabs didn’t know about democracy… but many arab students USED to study in the US and especially europe… they watch TV and they have independent news sources now. (Al-Jazeera was critical of Arab govts in a way the US never was for example.) In a way they were slowly and steadily getting infiltrated by the ideals of democracy. That was until their sense of community and respect was raped by a unilateral invasion. Iran’s democracy protests all but stopped since 2001… wierd no ? Democracy is not on the march in the ME.

[furt]

@Nietzsche

It’s odd that you should mention this. I was thinking this very same thing. How is it that the Libertarian and right-wing folks who are such strong advocates of “rise or fall on your own merits” all of a sudden give such a damn about democracy?

Well, the Libertarian Party is/was anti-war. As for conservatives, many of them are also opposed to it (George Will being one notable pundit who has questioned the enterprise) As for the rest, the answer is simple: it is in our national interest to do so. We have come to see that Kissinger was wrong, and the moral policy is the practical policy.

Making Cuba into a democracy is a laudable goal, but Cuba poses no real threat to US interests; if Castro were actively working on spreading his influence outside his borders and aiding US enemies, it might be a different story.

I disagree with the latter part of your statement. That is not a sane policy by any stretch of the imagination.

I was not calling it “sane;” I was calling it “progressive.” It may well be foolish and crazy; but it is undeniably rooted in a deep faith in the ability and value of all people. It is rooted in hope, not prudence. Hence it is far more progressive than conservative.

[Ryan_Liam]

@Rashak Mani

Sam I think your eating up too much propaganda. I agree that we should “beleive” in the potential of democracy in the ME… but we don’t think it can be force fed to them. Iran was becoming a democracy when the US stopped that. The Domino Theory is very wrong… especially when its imposed. You speak like if Arabs didn’t know about democracy… but many arab students USED to study in the US and especially europe… they watch TV and they have independent news sources now. (Al-Jazeera was critical of Arab govts in a way the US never was for example.) In a way they were slowly and steadily getting infiltrated by the ideals of democracy. That was until their sense of community and respect was raped by a unilateral invasion. Iran’s democracy protests all but stopped since 2001… wierd no ? Democracy is not on the march in the ME.

Yes it is. We have now Libya giving up its weapons programmes (I know, not democracy, but still a welcome move) Jordan is now reviewing governmental processes so that the people can be more involed in the Kingdom political changes, Saudi Arabia now considering changes in the way it runs things in its Kingdom as well. Things need shaking up. Iran wasn’t becoming a democracy anymore so than before we invaded Iraq, the Guardian council remember, holds all the cards and decides ultimately who gets to be put in office. The invasion of Iraq meant nothing in terms of domestic politics, its more of the other way round, they’re trying to influence the Shia into creating some sort of theocracy in Iraq.

We can’t wait generations for things to change, they need to be changed now.

I think ETA, IRA, Oklahoma, the Red Brigades and others prove that democracies do tend to breed terrorists and that violent response isn’t the means of solution by itself

Those you’ve just mentioned were either, national liberation movements, sectarian conflicts which were the concequence of segregation and persecution, or fanatical ideology (Red brigades) they for the most part had legitimate reasons (barring red brigade) as for Iraq its a completely different situation, for the large part its motivated by Militant versions of Islam, and radical Baa’ths wanting a return of Saddam, who want to re attatch the chains onto the Iraqi people. Large swaths of Sunnis are only attracted too it because they’re poor and need money, and thats about it.

[Rashak_Mani]

@Ryan_Liam

We can’t wait generations for things to change, they need to be changed now.

The need for change I agree… its the means of change that stink… and the excuses they serve as for other interests. Plus giving AQ shit heads legitimacy.

[ro4444]

@Rashak Mani

The need for change I agree… its the means of change that stink… and the excuses they serve as for other interests. Plus giving AQ shit heads legitimacy.

And what alternative means do you propose? Nearly all options have been exhausted in the name of pursuing democratic institutions in the Arab Middle East. This ranges from funds to regimes in order to allow them to reform themselves, funding seperatist groups attempting to escape the clutches of tyranny, bringing Western economic and social customs into these countries through agreements, and supporting checks on undemocratic Islamic fundalmentalist movements (granted, this supression in itself not very democratic, but the ends justify the means).

I hate reading this every time… especially when your going on the “offensive” in the wrong places. Its ok to be pro-active against terrorism… but not by conventional invasions and occupations.

Even if terrorist organizations (and this includes organizations OTHER than Al-Qaeda) are receiving significant funds by regimes that are most easily toppled by means of conventional military force?

Sam I think your eating up too much propaganda. I agree that we should “beleive” in the potential of democracy in the ME… but we don’t think it can be force fed to them. Iran was becoming a democracy when the US stopped that. The Domino Theory is very wrong… especially when its imposed. You speak like if Arabs didn’t know about democracy… but many arab students USED to study in the US and especially europe… they watch TV and they have independent news sources now. (Al-Jazeera was critical of Arab govts in a way the US never was for example.) In a way they were slowly and steadily getting infiltrated by the ideals of democracy. That was until their sense of community and respect was raped by a unilateral invasion. Iran’s democracy protests all but stopped since 2001… wierd no ? Democracy is not on the march in the ME.

Iran’s democracy protests have remained alive and well. The difference is that they are no longer as newsworthy. In particular, threats to end the lives of journalists and teachers and other similar people by the fundalmentalist-supported judiciary have aroused such protests.

As for the embracing of democracy, it has been well over half a century since many of the Middle Eastern and Arab/Persian countries have been granted their independence. In many, democracy has yet to take a firm hold. In those that do have such movements, they can often become intertwined with fundalmentalist persons and organizations. Such efforts are then transformed from democracy movements to anti-secular fundalmentalist movements. Algeria is a good example of this. It is clear that any democracy movement in these countries requires the guiding hand of the West to keep them from simply replacing a secular despotate with a fundalmentalist one.

[Zagadka]

@manhattan

…

While I try to decode your cryptic reply, which surely contains in-depth analysis of the issue, I’ll go on with my point.

Iraq, much like many other mostly third-world nations, is socially unprepared for democracy and industrialization. Both of these processes require an involved and prepared social movement. Otherwise, basically, they fall back on quasi-dictatorships and fall prey to international corporation exploitation. I do hope you don’t require cites for this.

Democracy isn’t a switch you flip on. A society has to be prepared for it, and want it. It took England and America and France and the other Western nations that first introduced democracy a helluva long time and a helluva lot of work and social restructuring to “invent” democracy.

So am I saying that they aren’t capable of democracy? No, I’m saying that they aren’t socially prepared for democracy.

[pervert]

@Zagadka

So am I saying that they aren’t capable of democracy? No, I’m saying that they aren’t socially prepared for democracy.

I haven’t read everything in here. So please forgive me if I am repeating something.

Let us assume that you are correct. Let us further assume that helping Iraq to become democratic is still our goal.

What do you do? Leave Saddam Hussien in charge and hope that such a social movement developes? Perhaps under one of his sons?

I agree wiht the general principle that creating a democracy from the top down is not possible. However, it is sometimes necessary to remove a particular top when that top is actually a hinderance to said democracy.

[tagos]

@pervert

I haven’t read everything in here. So please forgive me if I am repeating something.

Let us assume that you are correct. Let us further assume that helping Iraq to become democratic is still our goal.

What do you do? Leave Saddam Hussien in charge and hope that such a social movement developes? Perhaps under one of his sons?

I agree wiht the general principle that creating a democracy from the top down is not possible. However, it is sometimes necessary to remove a particular top when that top is actually a hinderance to said democracy.

In which case do it properly with the right number of troops and reality-based analyses of the problem and policies to match and do it for that explicit reason instead of offering it as a post-hoc rationalisation once all the other ‘reasons’ have been laughed out of court.

And build a suitable coalition.

[Rashak_Mani]

@ro4444

And what alternative means do you propose? Nearly all options have been exhausted in the name of pursuing democratic institutions in the Arab Middle East.

Have options really been exausted ? I think the US was quite content to have stable dictators and monarchies in order to guarantee oil supply. There was no “pursuing democratic institutions”.

Even if terrorist organizations (and this includes organizations OTHER than Al-Qaeda) are receiving significant funds by regimes that are most easily toppled by means of conventional military force?

Like Iraq ? They weren’t giving significant funds. Are you proposing to topple the Saudis ? Most of the money to terrorists don’t come from States… besides the US can barely manage Iraq… let alone Iran.

Iran’s democracy protests have remained alive and well. The difference is that they are no longer as newsworthy.

Are you sure ? I’ve heard only the opposite. Iran is flooded with petro dollars from high oil prices and using the money to support their regime. Pro-democracy movements have all but stopped.

As for the embracing of democracy, it has been well over half a century since many of the Middle Eastern and Arab/Persian countries have been granted their independence. In many, democracy has yet to take a firm hold.

What is the reason for that ? Maybe western interference ? Iran had a democratically elected government… and funny how the Brits and the US toppled him. Funny enough that is when terrorism became an Iranian speciality.

It is clear that any democracy movement in these countries requires the guiding hand of the West to keep them from simply replacing a secular despotate with a fundalmentalist one.

The same guiding hand that has supported dictators and toppled regimes in the past ? No thanks. Your “colonial” vision of the superiority of the White Man is the same that has left Africa a mess and the Middle East a breeding ground for resentment.

[Ryan_Liam]

Are you sure ? I’ve heard only the opposite. Iran is flooded with petro dollars from high oil prices and using the money to support their regime. Pro-democracy movements have all but stopped.

Cite?

Have options really been exausted ? I think the US was quite content to have stable dictators and monarchies in order to guarantee oil supply. There was no “pursuing democratic institutions”.

Autocracies breed resentment within its repressed population equating in the extremes to terrorism, then they eventually prove bad to the person or persons supporting it, next!

The same guiding hand that has supported dictators and toppled regimes in the past ? No thanks. Your “colonial” vision of the superiority of the White Man is the same that has left Africa a mess and the Middle East a breeding ground for resentment.

:rolleyes: Oh please, you whinge if we do something, and whinge when we don’t, the catch 22 scenario is what the world is. You can’t please everybody, but lets just hope Iraq can please the people there and some around the region, ok?

Rashak Mani, the US isn’t the main cause of all the worlds problems, get over it.

[ro4444]

@Rashak Mani

Have options really been exausted ? I think the US was quite content to have stable dictators and monarchies in order to guarantee oil supply. There was no “pursuing democratic institutions”.

With Iraq they certainly were. With the others, measures have been taken, and they have all repeatedly demonstrated that they are simply met with a fundalmentalist backlash.

Like Iraq ? They weren’t giving significant funds.

Really? From the UN Oil-For-Food program alone, more that 35 million dollars have given to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, an incentive if I’ve ever seen one:

http://devel.harktheherald.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=40298

Are you proposing to topple the Saudis ?

If I felt it was possible, then maybe. Unfortunately, the population of Saudi Arabia is much more fundalmentalist than the population of Iraq’s, which speaks volumes. Toppling the government of Saud would lead to a quick coup by religious officials. Hopefully, a successfully democratic Iraq bording the Saudis will increase support for democracy in the state, although this remains to be seen.

Are you sure ? I’ve heard only the opposite. Iran is flooded with petro dollars from high oil prices and using the money to support their regime. Pro-democracy movements have all but stopped.

You’ve heard wrong. In the months of June and July 2003, large pro-democracy protests lasting for several days hit Iran. The ones in July commemorated the massive protests in July 1999. There was also an incident where a journalist was arrested later in July which sparked smaller protests; these incidents have long been associated with the pro-democracy movement.

What is the reason for that ? Maybe western interference ? Iran had a democratically elected government… and funny how the Brits and the US toppled him. Funny enough that is when terrorism became an Iranian speciality.

I love how people fail to cite the fact that Iran’s democracy had all but failed even before the prime minister was toppled from power. Premier Mossadegh had dissolved Parliament in a vote he had clearly rigged, and then attempted to declare Iran a republic in order to dissolve the office of Shah and make himself supreme ruler. Both sides were making anti-democratic power plays, and the US and the UK simply chose the side that wasn’t forging closer ties to the Soviet Union.

[quote[The same guiding hand that has supported dictators and toppled regimes in the past ? No thanks. Your “colonial” vision of the superiority of the White Man is the same that has left Africa a mess and the Middle East a breeding ground for resentment.[/QUOTE]

First of all, I’m African-American you ass. I really don’t appreciate you using the “White Man’s Burden” card against me, and that is rather offensive. Please don’t make assumptions when opening your fat mouth.

Second, you are completely wrong. When the European nations were pulling out of Africa and the Middle East, they did a very poor job of setting up local governments to replace them. In Angola, for example, the Portuguese simply handed over power to three fighting factions and left. Instilling democracy in places that had never known it was considered to be a waste of time and money for the Europeans, and THAT is why we are stuck with the present situation in those two regions.

[Rashak_Mani]

@Ryan_Liam

Rashak Mani, the US isn’t the main cause of all the worlds problems, get over it.

I agree… but the current attitude and the “colonialism” mentality has caused and will cause a lot of problems.

@ro4444

Really? From the UN Oil-For-Food program alone, more that 35 million dollars have given to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, an incentive if I’ve ever seen one:

So he gave money to families… not exactly giving to “terrorism” is it ? Did the money make bombs and buy guns ? Very probably not. Incentive ? Maybe… but hardly an excuse for invading countries is it ? Should the UK invade the US due to americans sponsoring the IRA ?

Hopefully, a successfully democratic Iraq bording the Saudis will increase support for democracy in the state, although this remains to be seen.

We discussed the “Domino Theory” in the SMDB… and lets say the case is pretty pathetic. No one managed to defend the idea. Certainly not a reason for War either.

You’ve heard wrong. In the months of June and July 2003, large pro-democracy protests lasting for several days hit Iran.

Wow… quite surprised. Not even Al Jazeera gave it much notice then. I’ll check on that… maybe the protests have become non-newsworthy. (Sad. Why ?) Still the protests were quite strong in the past… and you had dozens of newspapers changing names all the time to evade official prohibition. If the protests haven’t died out they hardly compare to what they were a few years ago.
(Ryan: Its my speculation that the excess cash and the current administration have helped take the steam out of the protests.)

First of all, I’m African-American you ass. I really don’t appreciate you using the “White Man’s Burden” card against me, and that is rather offensive. Please don’t make assumptions when opening your fat mouth.

Find another expression for “white man’s burden” and I’ll use it. Your the one saying that Arabs have to be taught and aren’t able to get their act together. That is IMHO colonialist mentality… and that used to be white man thingy. Your actual skin color doesn’t matter to me… nor was it my objective to imply so. So much for your “fat mouth” comment. If your going to use your skin color as a debate point you’re being the “ass” with all due respect.

[Rashak_Mani]

@Ryan_Liam

:rolleyes: Oh please, you whinge if we do something, and whinge when we don’t, the catch 22 scenario is what the world is. You can’t please everybody, but lets just hope Iraq can please the people there and some around the region, ok?

Yep unfortunately some of the good things the US has done have been "whined" about... especially helping arabs surprisingly. Catch 22 indeed. I'm not against an active USA. I'm against an no-checks, no-UN, and bad-excuses-for-War active USA. 

The problem is that most americans profess the belief that government shouldn't interfere in their lives, shouldn't meddle into peoples choices. (Rightly so) Still when it comes to foreign affairs... they don't see it as wrong to tell other people how to live or what to do. They meddle more than necessary in order to get their choice of dictator... when maybe a leftist democrat wouldn't be that dangerous to US interests ? Its hypocritical. Do other countries prefer a "democratic" Middle East ? Of course... Should it be imposed / forced ? Of course not. There are many ways of changing things without resorting to guns.

[RedFury]

In the hopless quest some of you might finally learn something about the ME and the impact of the completely misguided US’s foreign ploicy there:

**‘They hate our policies, not our freedom’** – Quietly released Pentagon report contains major criticisms of administration.

**Late on the Wednesday afternoon before the Thanksgiving holiday, the US Defense Department released a report by the Defense Science Board that is highly critical of the administration’s efforts in the war on terror and in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

** ‘Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies [the report says]. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing, support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states. Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy.’**

The Pentagon released the study after The New York Times ran a story about the report in its Wednesday editions.

**

Much more at source.

[ro4444]

@Rashak Mani

So he gave money to families… not exactly giving to “terrorism” is it ? Did the money make bombs and buy guns ? Very probably not. Incentive ? Maybe… but hardly an excuse for invading countries is it ? Should the UK invade the US due to americans sponsoring the IRA ?

IRA has been labelled a terrorist organization by the US government, so no. The state-sponsored funding of families was incentive, and quite possibly has allowed people to become terrorist suicide bombers where they otherwise wouldn’t have.

We discussed the “Domino Theory” in the SMDB… and lets say the case is pretty pathetic. No one managed to defend the idea. Certainly not a reason for War either.

I never said it was a guarantee.

Wow… quite surprised. Not even Al Jazeera gave it much notice then. I’ll check on that… maybe the protests have become non-newsworthy. (Sad. Why ?) Still the protests were quite strong in the past… and you had dozens of newspapers changing names all the time to evade official prohibition. If the protests haven’t died out they hardly compare to what they were a few years ago.
(Ryan: Its my speculation that the excess cash and the current administration have helped take the steam out of the protests.)

You look at Al Jazeera for anything? Please.

As for the reduced news coverage, I guess it will have been because of a little thing called the Iraqi occupation. In June the protests occured in the capital and on several universities. In July, one of the protests exceeded 10,000 in number.

Find another expression for “white man’s burden” and I’ll use it. Your the one saying that Arabs have to be taught and aren’t able to get their act together. That is IMHO colonialist mentality… and that used to be white man thingy. Your actual skin color doesn’t matter to me… nor was it my objective to imply so. So much for your “fat mouth” comment. If your going to use your skin color as a debate point you’re being the “ass” with all due respect.

I’m not the one using skin color as a talking point. I suppose the reeducation of Germans to accept democracy was colonist mentality too, huh?

FACT: Westerners are not smarter than Arabs.

HOWEVER,

That does not mean that Arabs are not well educated or experienced enough in certain forms of government to successfully engage in such systems. This is not colonist mentality. Only people who accuse Westerners of helping others in gaining the traditions required for faii government (regardless of how much Westerners have also done this to other Westerners) would think that. It’s people stuck in the past, like South Americans who blame the West for all their problems, even though they’ve had a century to rectify their problems themselves. But they don’t, because its a lot easier to blame little Spain for the fact that they have no idea how to run a successful government.

[furt]

@Rashak Mani

We discussed the “Domino Theory” in the SMDB… and lets say the case is pretty pathetic. No one managed to defend the idea. Certainly not a reason for War either.

We also had a thread where comprehensive and concrete alternatives were requested (other than stock slogans like “build a real coalition” without details).

No one really offered anything other than minor modifications to the Bush/neocon agenda. I heartily challenge you to bump that thread with any better ideas you have.

Carping is easy work. Try something a little harder.