OT: Could Bush Have Been Right?

[rogue]

I don't want to jump the gun but could Iraq have been the first in a line of dominos? I figured when I heard Daniel Shore say Bush might have been right that the idea might have legs. And if so does it make the sacrifice of our people worth it to the anti-war crowd.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

He never said it only referred to here in the US.

[David Jamieson]

Watched Lawrence of Arabia the other night. Terrific movie! Explains a lot about how many of these Arab nations actually came to be nations as opposed to bands of people wandering all over the place and building beautiful cities.

Anyone hear what former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter has had to say about stuff lately? According to some sources, he thinks you yanks will try to muster support and launch an assault on Iran as early as this summer!

There is a big push right now to demonize Syria with the Lebanon thing and the Beirut people have bought into it hook line and sinker and are being turned back in droves.

there is a lot of orchestrating of chaos going on in that region of the world.

Frankly, many people don't care so long as there ain't bomb's going off in comfy good old western society. Dunno how long that will last though.

So, was Bush right? It really depends if you agree with the neo-con agenda. I don't so I can't says he was or is. In my eyes, the Bush admin is going about things all wrong and frankly a lot of his former people have bailed on him because of that hard line heavy partisan stuff that is going on in washington.

I am uncertain as to what events are in store for all of us here in the west because of the neo con agenda. For every terrorist they hunt down and kill, 2 more are born and raised up it seems. But then, I've never been an advocate of gunboat diplomacy. It is too risky.

the world certainly doesn't need to be as dangerous as it has become. I mean, just look at these forums as a small sampling of how people react when you contradict them or tell them their way of thinking is wrong.

It explodes into a sh it flinging fest that would shame a masturbating monkey at a zoo. Nobody likes being oppressed and told its for their own good, I know that for sure.

anyway...just saying

[Mo Lung]

I don't want to jump the gun but could Iraq have been the first in a line of dominos? I figured when I heard Daniel Shore say Bush might have been right that the idea might have legs. And if so does it make the sacrifice of our people worth it to the anti-war crowd.

Right about what specifically?

[wdl]

Anyone hear what former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter has had to say about stuff lately? According to some sources, he thinks you yanks will try to muster support and launch an assault on Iran as early as this summer!

Once again Scott Ritter opened his loud mouth and is dead wrong. It'll be atleast next winter before that happens. He's got the agenda read wrong. When was the last time the US invaded a middle eastern country in the summer?

I don't really know much about Ritter, but when I've seen him interviewed here and there he strikes me as a very abrasive person, thus I don't like him. Secondly, I think he's just making waves because he wants to run for political office or something like that. Just like Judge Moore in Alabama. On principle I agree with Moore, however, I think he's using it to better himself politically. Big mistake, he'll get burned for it. Just like Ritter will eventually.

-Will

[Ultimatewingchun]

Still too early to tell if Bush (and the neo-cons) were right...Iraq could still backfire into a mix of civil war and/or terrorist haven.

Hold your horses...

[mickey]

rogue,

What are you talking about? Your wordsa remind me of Bush Sr's "Thousand Spots of Light." I am still trying to figure that one out.


mickey

[kungfu cowboy]

Are you a-gettin'-it? Yes, Armageddon-it! Really gettin' it? Yes, Armageddon-it!!

[David Jamieson]

Once again Scott Ritter opened his loud mouth and is dead wrong. It'll be atleast next winter before that happens. He's got the agenda read wrong. When was the last time the US invaded a middle eastern country in the summer?

I don't really know much about Ritter, but when I've seen him interviewed here and there he strikes me as a very abrasive person, thus I don't like him. Secondly, I think he's just making waves because he wants to run for political office or something like that. Just like Judge Moore in Alabama. On principle I agree with Moore, however, I think he's using it to better himself politically. Big mistake, he'll get burned for it. Just like Ritter will eventually.

-Will

Actually, Ritter was right when he went off the first time. There weren't any wmd's in iraq and as one of the CHief UN weapons inspectors from teh US side of things, mr. Rittersaid this again and again before the attack on Iraq. He was silenced by the way.

And yes he's abrasive, so what? Doesn't mean he can't do his job or didn't do his job and in fact he was highly effective by all accounts when he was doing his job as a weaons inspector in Iraq. He was a midnight raid come in unnannounced kind of guy and he ruffled a lot of feathers, but he thought, and I agree, that if he came in un announced he would have a better chance of finding out if they did indeed have anything in place or going on.

In the end, he said, after many harsh and abrasive searches across Iraq that they did not have any. As mr Ritter made this clear, it rubbed the Bush agenda the wrong way and he was silenced! I think they even brought out some trumped up charges against him to smear his character. It is amazing how people conveniently forget these players in the story.

Anyway, In the case of the middle east, we here are seeing a lot of obfuscation, we are getting fed quite a lot of manipulated perception as opposed to reality. For instance, has anyone noticed yet that the news coming out of Iraq has dropped to a trickle? And yet there is still ahuge standing army there, there are bombs going off everyday, the insurgency thing hasn't ended and there is chaos still. Is this an embarrassment for someone in teh Bush office? You bet it is.

So, again, I'm going with a hearty no. Bush wasn't right then and he's not right now. He's just spinning and spinning and unfortunately his legacy seems to be stalling on him.

Continue watching.

[Merryprankster]

Rogue, in my opinion the "dominoes falling" is coincidence, perhaps spurred on by an unstable Iraq as a neighbor, with ruling powers worried about that instability, but in no way a product of the U.S. invasion in the sense of "a democratic revolution." It's an issue of regime survival, internally.

The Persian Gulf area has been working towards democratic style reform for about 15 years or so. It's a response to internal pressures created by falling GDP per capita. Previously, during the oil boom, the revenue flows were high in real terms, per person. This allowed the Gulf countries to essentially buy off dissenters. It's a very paternalistic, rentier type state.

However, the lack of ability to provide for the people means increased unrest and dissatisfaction with authoritarian governments. Oman and I think either Qatar or maybe UAE instituted a Parliament of sorts in the late 90's. Saudi Arabia recently held elections.

They HAD to to stay in power.

Case in point - guess what issue Iran's government received the most internal criticism for? The Bam earthquake. They were utterly unable to provide disaster relief. That's a serious problem for a soveriegn power, and points out the house of cards to an entire populace.


Lebanon is a totally different issue driven largely by ethnic/sectarian strife. The Syrian influence in Lebanese politics is long standing and entirely corrupt. Methinks the people just got tired of it. Further, while I don't think Syria had anything to do with the bombing, they were blamed for it and the Lebanese were ok with the arrangement provided it was on the down low. However, Syria conducting an attack (perceived, not in actuality) is beyond the pale and embarresses the Lebanese as a nation. It says "WE are in charge and you are not." And that's not something the Lebanese were going to take lying down.

Israel-Palestine also has zero to do with Iraq. Arafat's death finally allowed the process to move forward. He was the single greatest impediment to a solution and anybody who says otherwise doesn't know what the hell they are talking about. There is a REASON Abu Mazen has had to do a bunch of spring cleaning in the PA political and executive machinery. It was full of corrupt old Arafat cronies.

Ironically, IMO, the other major factor is Sharon having the PM spot. It's a sort of "Only Nixon can go to China," situation. However, I should be clear that Israel is a heavily divided nation on the issue. It's not the monolith that everybody seems to want to think. There is no "Israeli position," on the subject. The right wing faction though, is far more inclined to go along with Sharon than a left winger. And since Israel has a proportional representation system, any faction has disproportionate power - if a dissatisfied party leaves the government, that government cannot form a majority and must dissolve, spurring elections. So again, only Sharon could have done this. But Arafat's death was the key. I think that although things could slip backwards there, they're more likely to move forward. Momentum matters.

[rogue]

Rogue, in my opinion the "dominoes falling" is coincidence, perhaps spurred on by an unstable Iraq as a neighbor, with ruling powers worried about that instability, but in no way a product of the U.S. invasion in the sense of "a democratic revolution." It's an issue of regime survival, internally.

I don't think just coincidence. I think that the Iraqi elections, more than the Invasion of Iraq, may have influenced current events over there. As far as I can tell those were free and open elections with the Iraqi people stepping up to the plate. That has to mean something to those people in Lebanon and Palistine. And you are right It is an issue of regime survival, but it's going to be harder for the regimes to keep the status quo if Iraq proves succesful. I have to wonder if you would have the huddled Middle East masses heading to Iraq in the next decade if the other states don't change.

On a side note Syria has got to be feeling a little put upon.

[ZIM]

I don't think just coincidence. I think that the Iraqi elections, more than the Invasion of Iraq, may have influenced current events over there. As far as I can tell those were free and open elections with the Iraqi people stepping up to the plate. That has to mean something to those people in Lebanon and Palistine. And you are right It is an issue of regime survival, but it's going to be harder for the regimes to keep the status quo if Iraq proves succesful. I have to wonder if you would have the huddled Middle East masses heading to Iraq in the next decade if the other states don't change.

On a side note Syria has got to be feeling a little put upon.

Not just the Iraq elections though. They were bookended with the Palestinian elections and it set a fire, maybe.

# Iraq democratic elections.
# Elections in the Palestinian territories.
# Limited elections in Saudi Arabia.
# President Mubarak of Egypt announces Egypt will hold multiparty presidential elections.
# Lebanon’s pro-Syrian government resigns as anti-Syrian, prodemocracy demonstrators fill the streets.

Here's a link MP will love cause it involves this and is actually on topic.

In the words of the author WRT to his version of 'Domino theory' [the Conflict Helix]:

It is a process of things being in equilibrium, an equilibrium that increasingly is out of balance with the underling reality, then a sudden breakdown in the equilibrium caused by some trigger, and a jump to new equilibrium better fitting reality. This also gets increasingly out of balance, breaks down, and another new equilibrium is created, and this over and over ad infinitum.

[wdl]

Actually, Ritter was right when he went off the first time. There weren't any wmd's in iraq and as one of the CHief UN weapons inspectors from teh US side of things, mr. Rittersaid this again and again before the attack on Iraq. He was silenced by the way.

There were two reasons he was silenced, one WMDs, and two he said we were going to loose. He said we weren't even going to be able to take Baghdad in March of 03:

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/I...338708,00.html

He's an idiot. He said we didn't have sufficient military forces in Iraq to take the city and that we'd leave the country with our tails between our legs. Anyone with any decent military knowledge knows that when you drive a division of heavy infantry into a city that doesn't have a heavy infantry, unless you do something STUPID your going to take the city. Retaining control of said city is another issue.

Ritter's been silenced because he hasn't stuck to his guns and been consistant. No one is going to believe him because that's one of many examples of him just spouting off at the mouth. The US media can't put him on the spotlight after he's made statements like that without looking like fools themselves. The foreign media, that too is another issue.

-Will

[Merryprankster]

I think that the Iraqi elections, more than the Invasion of Iraq, may have influenced current events over there.

I disagree. I think you're looking at the culmination of several years of heavy pressure.

IF Iraq proves successful is the key - so we can't call it the first in a line of dominoes. I'll wait about a decade before passing judgment on the success of Iraq. It's too early to tell what impact it is going to have.

However, I remain adamant in my opinion that the current goings on have little to do with Iraq at all.

[Merryprankster]

LOL at not being able to take Baghdad.

Idiot.

It's like people who say we couldn't invade and defeat Iran.

Oh yeah we could. We could whomp the whole middle east in one go. We couldn't keep control of it for ****, but we could bring it ALL down. Depending on our goals, this may or may not be a useful capability...but knocking them out is no issue.

Zim,

Actually, I am very suspicious of anything that attempts to quantify human behavior. I don't think those sorts of models are very useful.

Dig the graph at the end though; however, I think we are at a "new phase" in human history when perhaps the never ending cycle will manifest in very different ways than the past.

[rogue]

You mean we'll have to keep this thread alive that long?

Just wondering why you think Iraq has nothing to do with what's going on. I find it hard to believe that things would be going like they are in Lebanon if we were'nt sitting on one of Syria's borders.