The War in Iraq is already a success

[Gamblor]

Talking point #1:

Muammar Qhaddafi, in the months leading up to, during, and after the War, disavows a nuclear weapons program, bringing Libya into the Western world and securing a peaceful partner in a hostile region.

Talking point #2:

Iraqis are now the first Arabs in modern history who do not fear their government. Terrorism in the Middle East is a direct outgrowth of Arab tyranny. If Arabs lived - like their Western counterparts - in open, prosperous, and democratic societies, then there would be no need on the part of their corrupt leaders to scapegoat Israel and the United States as the source of all Arab problems, and Muslims wouldn't be signing up by the truckload to attack Western targets.

Talking point #3:

Syrian citizens were brazen enough to hold public demonstrations in Damascus for the first time, a fact that even the New York Times conceded would have been unthinkable prior to the toppling of Saddam.

The domino effect seems to be working. The people of the Arab world soon will no longer be tormented by dictatorial regimes and self-serving leaders bent on remaining in power and wealth. The new Arab history started 1 year ago last week.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Gamblor,
Keep your eye on Iran as well. I think things will look different over there in a year or so as well. IMO, Iran is the key over there. Their people are tired of the oppresive religous leadership they have lived under for the past 25 years.

[ACPlayer]

Actually in my opinion we in the west are missing a golden opportunity with Iran. The administration should open up dialogue with Iran and encourage as much trade as possible. This is the only place where an experiment with democracy within a Islamic state is taking place (the two are NOT mutually exclusive). Trade will help speed up the process (see China and its MFN status and the impact over the last couple of decades).

The problem is (and this is true for Iraq as well) that within a rural agrarian ecomony, the ability for true democracy to take place is very hard as there is very little upward mobility in wealth possible. The industrial revolution brought the ability to leverage resources into wealth.

Without free trade with coutries like Iran and Iraq and Syria the possibility of democracy (other than the sham democratic experiment underway in Iraq presently) is very limited. In short order people become disaffected as it does not benefit them directly.

[ThaSaltCracka]

AC thanks for the reply.
I have been reading a new book called All the Shah's men , and I have been incredibly intrigued. I think the man problem with Iran is that they have been bombarded by foreign influence and occupation for thousands of years. In many ways this is an eye opening book. It really talks about why many in Iran think the way they do, and also why their political situation is so unstable. According to this book, it is the obligation of whatever government i in control of Iran at any time to provide a just and right government. If that does not happen, then it is the obligation of the people to rebel. This is a reflection of an early form of religion in Iran called Zoroastrian which holds that the sacred responsiblity of every human being is to work torward establishing social justice on earth.

You combine this with the constant foreign influence on the country from Alexander the Great, to Genghis Kahn, to the British, the people in Iran greatly hate and distrust foreigners. I think if we sit back and let Iran sort this out, things will work out.

Remember, the U.S. had a huge role in the shaping of Iran after 1950, with disastrous results.

[andyfox]

All the Shah's Men is indeed a good book, written by one of the co-authors of Bitter Fruit, which was about the CIA coup in Guatemala in 1954. Ansari's Modern Iran Since 1921 is also good for history.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Yeah I am only half way through it, this should be a mandatory book for high school students. Very informative and interesting.
Author is Stephen Kinzer incase anyone is interested.

this books get a high rating from this cracka

[ACPlayer]

I also just finished short history of Islam by Karen Armstrong. I am a fan of hers from my reading of "The battle for God" and "The History of God". She herself is more of a theologian (is an ex-nun and teaches in Rabbinical Schools) rather than an historian and describes herself as a "freelance monotheist".

This book is not as good as the others and has been panned in some of the liberal press (which may mean it is good for some!). It is a short book.

[adios]

Bush was wrong about Iraqi WMD though [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. Good points, too bad the anti Bush faction can't see past the nose on their face.

[Chris Alger]

Too bad that the war supporters are willing to swallow the most preposterous lies to excuse their support for the war. Like the howler about public demonstrations in Syria being unprecedented. In fact, <ul type="square"> In Syria, individuals interested in politics ... seized upon the most direct means available of registering opposition: strikes, demonstrations, personal conflicts with politicians, and even, at times, violence and assassination. The method used most frequently is the demonstration, which has often led to rioting.

Industrial workers, merchants, farmers, and other groups have all used demonstrations to demand or protest government actions. Although demonstrations have not always been successful in achieving the aims of the instigators, they have served as useful barometers of public opinion. The skill of the Baath Party in initiating demonstrations was an important factor in the party's rise to power. The government has tolerated spontaneous public demonstrations ....[/list]Allrefer.com, April 1987

As for Ghadaffi, you might want to inquire about why the chief anti-WMD warrior agreed let Pakistan issue a full pardon to the guy who sold Libya the technology.

[Gamblor]

Successive governments attempted to bolster this process with a constant barrage of propaganda aimed at creating trust and building loyalty, not only to the government as a social institution but to the particular regime in Damascus. The regimes appealed to citizens on the basis of economic selfinterest , as well as on the broader and more emotional grounds of Arab and Syrian nationalism. The appeals found a wide and enthusiastic response, although the individual citizen incurred few obligations or duties that would test the sincerity of the response.

Most Syrians have a strong libertarian streak and are wary of any government.

Although distrust of the government has been less intense in urban centers, it has existed there as well.

If everyone hates the government there so much, then why was the same man been in power since 1970, and magically his son takes over in 2001?