Reply to Thread New Thread |
![]() |
#1 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
|
It's not like there can only be one victor here.
It's pretty reasonable to assume former Pres Bush's repeated criticism of the Middle East, Egypt in particular, and his actions in Iraq and Afghanistan played a roll in the recent uprisings. Of course, I doubt academia or the liberal media would ever be willing to acknowledge it, so whatever victory is out there is certainly mitigated. We're getting way too far ahead of ourselves though. For all the celebrations in Egypt's squares and college campuses across the country, there's a rather large difference between promising to cede power to the people and actually doing it. I have a difficult time believing Egypt will have anything resembling what we think of as a democracy anytime soon. |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
|
I suspect Egypt will find out very quickly how a government 'of the people' gets corrupted into power-hungry self-serving politicians. But at least it will be of their own making. |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
|
Ain't that the truth! Very difficult to have a gov't that is NOT run by power hungry self serving jackwags with their business constituents, who are the puppeteers pulling the puppet's strings. We seem to decay to this and it doesn't take long to do so. Money has a way of wedging itself into the equation, and always has. Either way, I don't think Egypt will get a real democracy anytime soon for them to worry about this. I have a very difficult time believing the Arab world will accept a real, long term democracy. |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
|
A domino effect of democracy spreading was talked about during the Iraq invasion. However, Syria and Iran were the countries in mind to respond this way, not Egypt. |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
|
The domino effect was the election of Barack Obama and his speech about freedom in Cairo. If anyone seeded the democracy it's him. Bush rallied the Middle East together against the USA and everything it stands for with his invasion. The war in Iraq only gather forced AGAINST the U.S. (even among our allies!), while Obama's speech on June 4, 2009 provided a new outlook on what could be, and a subtle indication that the U.S. would respect the will of the people and that, if they should choose to make demand on their government that would lead to democracy, this POTUS would NOT continue to provide support for repressive government. And still. . .I believe that this (mostly) peaceful revolution should be to the sole credit of the people of Egypt. |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
|
The domino effect was the election of Barack Obama and his speech about freedom in Cairo. If anyone seeded the democracy it's him. Bush rallied the Middle East together against the USA and everything it stands for with his invasion. Most of the differences between Obama and Bush in this realm have more to do with presentation. Obama is a far more diplomatic leader than Bush was. Bush's "cowboy" style might have been popular among a lot of Americans, but it wasn't very popular overseas, whether we're talking about Europe, East Asia, or the Middle East. I really wouldn't give Obama or Bush much credit for this wave of revolutions in the Middle East. |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
|
It's not like there can only be one victor here. I also agree with those who are saying that Obama played a role in it, and again think that's pretty likely. Lastly, I agree with those who are saying that these guys, if anything, have only played minor supporting roles. They're certainly not the stars of the show, neither of them. If anything they get equal billing as key grips or gaffers. The Egyptian people are the stars of the show here, and if you search my history of posting on the topic you'll see that I didn't think there was a chance in hell that they'd actually ever come as far as they have. I think it's great that they've accomplished this and I hope America supports this new Egypt - so long as it's in OUR intrests to do so. As far as the article, I think that in 100 - 200 years time, maybe twice that, history will be a much kinder judge of President Bush and his Middle East policies than anyone could ever be so long as that history still remains in living memory and so long as the Middle East is still the armpit of the world (well, Africa is probably the absolute armpit, but the ME isn't too far removed, then of course there's pretty much the whole of South and Central America, and Mexico, and much of Eastern Europe - but the ME is definately a shithole, but I digress). In any event - I think Bush will turn out a lot like Grant. Despised for a long time because he was, arguably, an obtuse administrator with a history of alcohol problems, Grant's policies and stewartship probably led this nation a long way toward racial integration a lot faster than if anyone else had presided over Reconstruction. Though there's no direct parallels between Grant and Bush, I think that eventually scholars who didn't have to live through Bush's arrogance and ineptitude will see the tremendous value in his decission to bring the Arabs a wake-up call. 200 years removed from the emotion of the early years of the 21st Century folks will be able to look past the protests and bullshit and see Bush's accomplishments, which on a grand scale far outdistance those of any of his immediate predecessors or his most recent sucessor (and I can't really comment any further than that). |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
|
I agree. I think it's more than reasonable, I think it's pretty damn likely. Multiple authoritarian regimes in the Middle East have been supported by the U.S., and several of the ones falling right now fit into that category. To suggest America has been consistently supportive of democracy in the Middle East is rather farcical, whether it's Bush at the helm or anyone else. At the very best, we've been supportive of democracy when it met our interests. At the very worst, democracy has simply been a cover story for our interventions. For example, we weren't exactly supportive of democracy in Iraq when Saddam served our interests. We didn't care about what he was doing to his own people back when he was fighting Iran. We weren't supportive of democracy in Afghanistan when we were sending money and arms to the mujahideen in their fight against the Soviets. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the U.S. is any worse than any other major power. We're just as Machiavellian in our approach to foreign policy as anyone else in our position would be. However, it's never really been about democracy. It's about trade and military strategy. |
![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
|
I can see where you might be able to give Bush and Obama credit for regimes toppling that we haven't supported, however, the American government was allied with Mubarak for quite some time. Multiple authoritarian regimes in the Middle East have been supported by the U.S., and several of the ones falling right now fit into that category. I don't care if we employ useful idiots all over the globe. I don't really care about how foreign populations are effected by thost policies. All I reall care about is what's in our interest. But I don't really think it's super fair to look at what the U.S. is supporting today and then reach back and say, "Yeah, but...", because policy has been different in the past. Not every modern Russian policy is scrutinized throught the lense of the country's Stalinist past, not every Gemman policy today is immediately modified with, "But they used to be Nazi". Why must America's past policies haunt present policies? Seems kindd of counterproductive if not outright silly. If it was advantageous to support dictators and now it's not I see no reason not to judge those policies seperately. To suggest America has been consistently supportive of democracy in the Middle East is rather farcical, whether it's Bush at the helm or anyone else. At the very best, we've been supportive of democracy when it met our interests. At the very worst, democracy has simply been a cover story for our interventions. I never indicated anywhere in my post that America has been consistently supportive of democracy in the Middle East. It's farcical to have read that into my comments. For example, we weren't exactly supportive of democracy in Iraq when Saddam served our interests. We didn't care about what he was doing to his own people back when he was fighting Iran. So what? What does that have to do with President Obama's policies or positions today? We weren't supportive of democracy in Afghanistan when we were sending money and arms to the mujahideen in their fight against the Soviets. So what? What does that have to do with President Obama's policies or positions today? Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the U.S. is any worse than any other major power. We're just as Machiavellian in our approach to foreign policy as anyone else in our position would be. However, it's never really been about democracy. It's about trade and military strategy. As it should be. |
![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
|
Supporting a regime while being at least somewhat publicly vocal about wanting to see change which leads to more liberty or democracy kind of gives the impression that the U.S. might be open to regime/government change, or at least not oppossed to it. I think that if nothing else it's encouraging to the populations of these countries that the U.S. is "talking the talk" now. I don't care if we employ useful idiots all over the globe. I don't really care about how foreign populations are effected by thost policies. All I reall care about is what's in our interest. Why must America's past policies haunt present policies? I never indicated anywhere in my post that America has been consistently supportive of democracy in the Middle East. So what? So what? As it should be. |
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|