As I pointed out, the OP couldn’t have voted for either – he’s Canadian.
Whoosh.
Whoosh. Whoosh.
Whoosh. Whoosh. Whoosh.
The sound of one hand clapping.
Hand getting sore yet, TFD?
Facebook, Twitter and Google
The revolution isn’t televised. It’s on YouTube.
You forgot that Reagan was the one responsible for the booming economy in the second Clinton Administration! And of course, such economic improvement as there was in 2010 was because business people knew the GOP was going to do well in the midterms that November. (Who needs post hoc anymore? :))
Man, as someone who spent a lot of time in Iraq and knows just a shitload of people who died there, I would love to think it all meant something, but can you give me any cites for your claim that Iraq was an influence in Egypt and Tunisia? Also, can you expand on the state of democracy in Iraq today?
Germany turned out OK, so well done Herr H.
You’re silly. 
Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.
Why?
Crane
What could possibly rationally make a connection with the prior US adminstration? Nothing in what I have seen on BBC etc in interviews with Tunisians and Egyptians shows any connection whatsoever to the Bush Administration’s idiotic decision to invade Iraq and the complex cock-up that followed. Nary a single person has mentioned Iraq. A few mentioned the wikileaks in interviews, but IRaq…
So where’s the logic?
In particular regarding Tunisia, which set this off.
I very much doubt yet another American president yammering on about democracy while continuing to fund the regime to a tune of US$1 billion plus had any particular effect on Egyptians.
Seconded.
He threatened to outlaw Russia and bomb the shit out of them in five minutes. They took it to heart, straightened up, and tore down the Berlin wall as Ronnie and Maggie walked arm in arm through Checkpoint Charlie. It’s all in the Official History According to Neo-Conservative Revisionists, Vol. 2.
Stranger
I give credit to The Second Half Of The Second Amendment, because we all know without the right of individuals to bear arms it would be impossible to resist a tyrannical government. Thank God those Egyptians armed themselves and fought it out with the dictator’s army and emerged victorious! Oh wait, they didn’t need guns. Never mind.
I deliberately avoided GD, because I was well aware that I am not equiped to adequately back up my opinion. What I’ve said is simply how I feel.
I might add that the Obama administration, Cairo speech at el, is just as significant if not more than the Bush administration for the new wave of middle east peoples, starting with Iran, having the guts to challenge illegitimate authority with the hope for democracy in the future.
Clearly we are in a new phase of middle east history.
History always follows a timeline and consequences result for every action often quite subtle and often not immediate. That is my opinion as well.
Oh and I don’t know what American TV showed, but as far as BBC and quality UK press, it was pretty bloody clear that Egyptians were mainly inspired by Tunisia - it got cited quite a lot actually as far as I saw. And domestic factors, but just talking about outside influences, the only thing I saw on BBC and in reading arties on this was Tunisia, Tunisia, Tunisia.
Unless the OP can provide something besides some rather peculiar wishful thinking (like solid proper evidence that the Tunisians were inspired by something other than themselves), we can pretty much conclude the whole thing is utter bollocks.
ETA supra:
Errr well fair enough, but why the fuck do you “feel” American presidents had anything at all to do with either Tunisia or Egypt - and why would a*** failed*** protest movement in Iran have any echo at all in Tunisia? They’re not even Arabs after all and from what I can tell from the French North Africans I run into, they don’t really give a flying fuck about Iran one way or the other.
I [del]think[/del] hope we’re all on the same page about the relationship between the riots in Tunisia and Egypt, but I think our friend here is trying to convince us that the spark (no pun intended) that led to massive revolt in Tunisia was prompted by GWB’s invasion of Iraq… somehow.
So you’re a big Colbert watcher then? Opinion without any factual basis is commonly referred to as “bullshit”. Your comment about Reagan and the Soviets has no basis in reality and is easily refuted, hence my initial comment upthread.
Well, give him a break, he was expressing a feeling. That’s fine. But he should have a logical basis for it.
Me, I have the ‘feeling’ that Egypt’s not a revolution but a changing of the military guard… but I don’t know much about Egypt except from BBC, so… On the other hand I can point to a couple facts to at least weakly support my feeling.
I’m pretty much at a loss to see any logical connection with Iraq here.
Dude, have you seen a third of the posts in GD? Trust me, you are in good company. 
In his defense, everyone has feelings that they may not be able to run off with immediate citations from the internet to factually defend. He probably shouldn’t have started a thread about it here if he couldn’t defend it, but here we are.
Basically, Dutchman believes W’s spiel about this war on bad guys being something that will yield no immediate results, but is a long-term investment in democracy. While it is true that not all of history can be simplified down to “X caused Y, and here is a chart of the linear progression,” the invasion of Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with what is happening in Egypt and Tunisia now. W’s Iraq policies didn’t get the wheels turning in people’s heads, inspiring the masses, beginning a gradual shift to democracy. The Iraq war deepened hostility in the region, if anything.
We’re having the same argument here that we’ve been having for ten years, except now we’re pretending like W’s specious premise for his wars is having a measurable effect, when we’re dealing with the same fallacious bullshit that we’ve always been.
The sun comes up, the sun goes down. Explain that!