NationStates Jolt Archive

With the establishment of a democracy in Iraq and the recent collapse of the Syrian puppet government in Lebanon, it's time to ask if the old "Dominoe Theory" applied to Southeast Asia can now be applied to the Middle East, only in reverse.

With a restive younger population in Iran, and Syria no longer able to rely on the flow of revenue they have been getting from Lebanon, it's entirely possible that most of the radical governments in the Middle East could collapse one after the other.

Your thoughts on this?

I think it is a real possibility. Afganistan and Iraq as the beginning, the young in Iran getting tired of being controlled by the old religion. Lebanon seems like it is trying to pull itself out of the radical muslim morass. Syria, hmm don't know enough about it yet.

With the establishment of a democracy in Iraq and the recent collapse of the Syrian puppet government in Lebanon, it's time to ask if the old "Dominoe Theory" applied to Southeast Asia can now be applied to the Middle East, only in reverse.

With a restive younger population in Iran, and Syria no longer able to rely on the flow of revenue they have been getting from Lebanon, it's entirely possible that most of the radical governments in the Middle East could collapse one after the other.

Your thoughts on this?
Wishful thinking? Democracy has not been established in Iraq.....more wishful thinking?

I think it is a real possibility. Afganistan and Iraq as the beginning, the young in Iran getting tired of being controlled by the old religion. Lebanon seems like it is trying to pull itself out of the radical muslim morass. Syria, hmm don't know enough about it yet.
Syria's internal affairs are still a bit of a mystery to me, but surely there is some sort of home-grown discontent ... there is almost everywhere.

Syria's internal affairs are still a bit of a mystery to me, but surely there is some sort of home-grown discontent ... there is almost everywhere.

Not in the US! We all think alike. . . umm, yeah. Honestly, I think Bush's foreign policy has been crafty as hell. So many people think it simple and stupid and yet it keeps accomplishing its goal, even if this is happening slowly. Nope, it ain't perfect but nothing is.

We can only hope.

Wishful thinking. Iraq is as likely to become a theocracy as anything, plus it's still embroiled in basically what is a guerilla civil war. Same with Afghanistan.

It would sure be nice if the theocracies fell one by one like that, though.

Wishful thinking? Democracy has not been established in Iraq.....more wishful thinking?


Actually, the basis for a Democracy has been established. It's not a full-blown democracy like Canada, the U.S., the U.K., etc., but it's a start. Unfortunatly, while Iraq is still occupied it can never be "real" democracy.

Wishful thinking? Democracy has not been established in Iraq.....more wishful thinking?

Never mind that election they had. That and the fact (well, reasonable assumption) that US soldiers will be over there at least untill George Bush is out of office. The government in Iraq will last at least those four years and that'll be plenty of time for it to establish itself. I don't know what you mean by the wishful thinking comment. Are you trying to say that even though they had democratic elections there, they still don't have democracy? If the Iraqis and the coalition are dedicated to upholding the popularly elected government then it will survive. If those insurgents managed to overthrow the government then we have a real problem, because if the United States ever gets in a real war it'll be crushed and/or demoralized in two days.

On that note, our biggest problem could be having the horrors of war brought into our living rooms 24 hours a day. I wonder what effect embedded reporters broadcasting to viewers over a satalite would have had on Americans during our civil war? It might have looked slightly silly seeing soldiers slaughter each other by the tens of thousands by day and get together in two big groups and listen to the opposing side's band for entertainment by night.

With the establishment of a democracy in Iraq and the recent collapse of the Syrian puppet government in Lebanon, it's time to ask if the old "Dominoe Theory" applied to Southeast Asia can now be applied to the Middle East, only in reverse.

With a restive younger population in Iran, and Syria no longer able to rely on the flow of revenue they have been getting from Lebanon, it's entirely possible that most of the radical governments in the Middle East could collapse one after the other.

Your thoughts on this?

Or we can watch as the 90% of the arabs that hate the US take power from the oppressive governments. Then watch gas hit $3 a gallon.

Or we can watch as the 90% of the arabs that hate the US take power from the oppressive governments. Then watch gas hit $3 a gallon.

$3? It's about $2.50 at some gas stations in California right now and this is February. I'd guess higher then that.

Actually, the basis for a Democracy has been established. It's not a full-blown democracy like Canada, the U.S., the U.K., etc., but it's a start. Unfortunatly, while Iraq is still occupied it can never be "real" democracy.
The next year should prove very interesting indeed, especially since the Shiites will have the majority of members in the government. If the Shiites can reach out to the Sunnis in a merger of convenience, then the US will more than likely be asked to leave. Good luck on the US leaving if asked.

The next year should prove very interesting indeed, especially since the Shiites will have the majority of members in the government. If the Shiites can reach out to the Sunnis in a merger of convenience, then the US will more than likely be asked to leave. Good luck on the US leaving if asked.

The idea of the US being asked to leave this early in the game is a bit unsettling, but the thought of the Sunnis being disenfranchised is even more so. We either get kicked out prematurely and risk the government failing or we get stuck there indefinatly a la Kosovo and we never quite get everyone on the side of the government. It's a very precarious situation right now, that's for sure. We need to do everything we can to convince the Sunnis that they don't have to share the beliefs of the Shiites in order to be able to live with them. I don't think we have to worry about the Shiite oppression that Sunnis fear. The Shiites have been a textbook example of how a group should conduct themself in such a situation. The lack of Shiite backlash in the face of the constant terrorist attacks gives me a fairly good feeling about Iraq's future.

Never mind that election they had. That and the fact (well, reasonable assumption) that US soldiers will be over there at least untill George Bush is out of office. The government in Iraq will last at least those four years and that'll be plenty of time for it to establish itself. I don't know what you mean by the wishful thinking comment. Are you trying to say that even though they had democratic elections there, they still don't have democracy? If the Iraqis and the coalition are dedicated to upholding the popularly elected government then it will survive. If those insurgents managed to overthrow the government then we have a real problem, because if the United States ever gets in a real war it'll be crushed and/or demoralized in two days.

On that note, our biggest problem could be having the horrors of war brought into our living rooms 24 hours a day. I wonder what effect embedded reporters broadcasting to viewers over a satalite would have had on Americans during our civil war? It might have looked slightly silly seeing soldiers slaughter each other by the tens of thousands by day and get together in two big groups and listen to the opposing side's band for entertainment by night.
There was some discussion on an earlier thread that the US fudged the true numbers received by the Shiites, giving them far less votes than garnered. There was also discussion regarding Iraqi citizens feeling compelled to vote or they would not get their food rations.

Although Iraq has had an election, the distasteful Bremer's Orders has hijacked the economy and the US is in the process of building 14 "enduring" bases in Iraq. This doesn't sound like "democracy" in action?

The idea of the US being asked to leave this early in the game is a bit unsettling, but the thought of the Sunnis being disenfranchised is even more so. We either get kicked out prematurely and risk the government failing or we get stuck there indefinatly a la Kosovo and we never quite get everyone on the side of the government. It's a very precarious situation right now, that's for sure. We need to do everything we can to convince the Sunnis that they don't have to share the beliefs of the Shiites in order to be able to live with them. I don't think we have to worry about the Shiite oppression that Sunnis fear. The Shiites have been a textbook example of how a group should conduct themself in such a situation. The lack of Shiite backlash in the face of the constant terrorist attacks gives me a fairly good feeling about Iraq's future.
Again, the Shiites are huge supporters of Sistani, who has some linkage to Iran. Also this news:

Iraq's cleric-dominated Shia coalition last night confirmed the Islamist Ibrahim al-Jaafari as its choice for Prime Minister, after his secular rival, Ahmad Chalabi, dropped out of the race.

The head of the Islamic Dawa Party, 58, is now all but certain to lead the new government, amid concern over his links with Iran, where he spent a decade in exile. Iraq's Sunnis view with alarm the elevation of parties backed by Tehran, and the trepidation is shared by some in Washington. Last week Hillary Clinton, the New York senator, visiting Baghdad, said that there were "grounds both for concern and for . . . vigilance" about Dr al-Jaafari's Iranian connections.

So where does this leave the Iraqi "democracy"?

The next year should prove very interesting indeed, especially since the Shiites will have the majority of members in the government. If the Shiites can reach out to the Sunnis in a merger of convenience, then the US will more than likely be asked to leave. Good luck on the US leaving if asked.

We want to get out. However, first we have to A. Make sure the Iraqi Army is strong enough to defend itself. B. Make sure as soon as we leave all hell won't break loose. And C. Make sure the terrorists don't gain a foothold. When that's done, we'll be outta there faster than you can say "Mission Acomplished".

There was some discussion on an earlier thread that the US fudged the true numbers received by the Shiites, giving them far less votes than garnered. There was also discussion regarding Iraqi citizens feeling compelled to vote or they would not get their food rations.

Although Iraq has had an election, the distasteful Bremer's Orders has hijacked the economy and the US is in the process of building 14 "enduring" bases in Iraq. This doesn't sound like "democracy" in action?

Yeah, I think I was part of that discussion. I was part of one very similar to that anyway. I posted this (http://doctormatt06.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/3/134855/3139) article showing that the numbers the media was giving were regurgitated and not actually double checked.

There's not much I can say about Iraqis believing that they wouldn't get their rations. It's obviously not true. At the same time there's not much that could be done to calm those fears.

As for the 'enduring' bases, as long as they 'endure' until Iraq has a sizeable military I don't really care what they build over there. After they have built up their military we can just leave one base to endure.That way we can keep tabs on them and make sure the government doesn't collapse under its own weight.

$3? It's about $2.50 at some gas stations in California right now and this is February. I'd guess higher then that.


Its under $2 a gallon here.

I hope so, but I fear that the rest of the middle east will sit and watch Iraq and say to themselves "Democracy leads to crusader friendly government and we don't want that." :(

We want to get out. However, first we have to A. Make sure the Iraqi Army is strong enough to defend itself. B. Make sure as soon as we leave all hell won't break loose. And C. Make sure the terrorists don't gain a foothold. When that's done, we'll be outta there faster than you can say "Mission Acomplished".
You may want US troops out but it doesn't appear to be part of the US administrations' long term plans, hence the bases and Bremer's Orders.

You may want US troops out but it doesn't appear to be part of the US administrations' long term plans, hence the bases and Bremer's Orders.

Of course we want a long term prescense there. We have soldiers in Japan and Germany to this very day. If we secure a victory, we want to overlook the situation for any problems and quickly handle it. And of course Americans companies are going to try to build up offices in Iraq. We are capitalists, after all.

There's not much I can say about Iraqis believing that they wouldn't get their rations. It's obviously not true.
Who knows?

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/21145/

Dahr Jamail, writing for Inter Press Service, reported that "Many Iraqis had expressed fears before the election that their monthly food rations would be cut if they did not vote. They said they had to sign voter registration forms in order to pick up their food supplies. Just days before the election, 52 year-old Amin Hajar, who owns an auto garage in central Baghdad, had said, 'I'll vote because I can't afford to have my food ration cut. If that happened, me and my family would starve to death.'"

As for the 'enduring' bases, as long as they 'endure' until Iraq has a sizeable military I don't really care what they build over there. After they have built up their military we can just leave one base to endure.That way we can keep tabs on them and make sure the government doesn't collapse under its own weight.
More thought for the grist mill, from the same web site:

"We have consistently argued," continued al-Kubaysi, "that elections can only occur in a democracy that enjoys sovereignty. Our sovereignty is incomplete. Our sovereignty is usurped by foreign forces that have occupied our land and hurt our dignity. These elections ... are a means of establishing the foreign forces in Iraq and keeping Iraq under the yoke of occupation. They should have been postponed."

Al-Kubaysi likewise raised grave concerns about low turnout in Sunni areas such as Baghdad, Baquba and Samarra, and stated flatly that the deep secrecy that shrouded the candidates themselves invalidated the process. "The voter goes to the polling stations not knowing who he is voting for in the first place," he said. "There are more than 7,700 candidates, and I challenge any Iraqi voter to name more than half a dozen. Their names have not been announced but have been kept secret. Elections should never have been held under these present circumstances."

These stories all bring me to question the so called "democratization" of Iraq. Myth or fact?

Of course we want a long term prescense there. We have soldiers in Japan and Germany to this very day. If we secure a victory, we want to overlook the situation for any problems and quickly handle it. And of course Americans companies are going to try to build up offices in Iraq. We are capitalists, after all.
So in other words you want to control Iraq. That is NOT democracy.

The "establishment of democracy" is still VERY tenuous. The Kurds have stated that they are going to insist on their own federal region (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GC01Ak01.html) as part of any deal to confirm a new President, and by virtue of controlling three provinces they have assured themselves veto power over any new proposed Constitution (according to the rules set out by the Interim Government, if three provinces vote against a given draft it will not be presented to the people). How this will be recieved by Turkey and how they will respond if it re-starts the issues with their wn Kurdish population remains uncertain.

Meanwhile the Sunni insurgency is still in business alongside the moderate Sunnis who feel left out of the process. With Chalabi's withdrawl from the Pesidential race the Shi'ites with the closest ties to Iran and who are espousing a constitution based on Sharia are most likley to be the ones primarily drafting the new Laws.

Meanwhile, the success of the Shi'ites in IRaq is having spillover into Saudi Arabia (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58262-2005Feb27.html) which may cause tensions to build that actually wind up reversing recent gains in the political power of the masses.

There are so many factors in play that this whole thing could still very easily blow up into a wider destabilization of the region rather than the hoped-for stabilization.

The election was an important step to attempt, however its final impact is far from assured.

I suspect that many of the governments which seemed so monolithic and solid are in actuality little more than toddering shells, waiting for the slightest breeze of freedom and dissent to send them crashing down.

$3? It's about $2.50 at some gas stations in California right now and this is February. I'd guess higher then that.

Still, think yourself lucky compared to what the rest of the world has to pay for petrol...2.50 a gallon is bargain basement prices for pretty much anywhere else!

Never mind that election they had. That and the fact (well, reasonable assumption) that US soldiers will be over there at least untill George Bush is out of office.

Yeah see if we never leave than its not a real democracy because we have all the power. The election was a Electoral vote. Just like America, it is not over by a long shot.


The government in Iraq will last at least those four years and that'll be plenty of time for it to establish itself. I don't know what you mean by the wishful thinking comment. Are you trying to say that even though they had democratic elections there, they still don't have democracy? If the Iraqis and the coalition are dedicated to upholding the popularly elected government then it will survive. If those insurgents managed to overthrow the government then we have a real problem, because if the United States ever gets in a real war it'll be crushed and/or demoralized in two days.

We are giving them republic, not democracy. You see democracy requires everyone to have a say. But instead we vote to have electors to have a say instead of us.

On that note, our biggest problem could be having the horrors of war brought into our living rooms 24 hours a day. I wonder what effect embedded reporters broadcasting to viewers over a satalite would have had on Americans during our civil war? It might have looked slightly silly seeing soldiers slaughter each other by the tens of thousands by day and get together in two big groups and listen to the opposing side's band for entertainment by night.
No, hearing the truth of war is good. If it stops war than all the better.

Some people can find a turd in the garden, all the while forgetting that there are lots of flowers to see.

I suppose the proof of this will be in a few months when things begin to develop both in Iraq and surrounding countries. I for one, am betting that this approach to stability in the Middle East will be successful over the long haul.

Elections do not create democracies, democracies create elections. There is a profound difference.

Some people can find a turd in the garden, all the while forgetting that there are lots of flowers to see.


And some people shut their eyes to the turds on the way to the garden and pretend like nothing messy or ugly ever existed....


I suppose the proof of this will be in a few months when things begin to develop both in Iraq and surrounding countries. I for one, am betting that this approach to stability in the Middle East will be successful over the long haul.

Of course, for you and I this is all an academic exercise. To those living through the daily bombings it is just a little bit more real. Because you are gambling with THEIR lives - not yours.

Elections do not create democracies, democracies create elections. There is a profound difference.
Proof???

And some people shut their eyes to the turds on the way to the garden and pretend like nothing messy or ugly ever existed....

Of course, for you and I this is all an academic exercise. To those living through the daily bombings it is just a little bit more real. Because you are gambling with THEIR lives - not yours.
The last I heard, the only bombings were car bombings and suicide bombings, mostly against Iraqis.

I am at least happy that something is happenning in the Middle East. It may not be the easy way, and it may be really hard on people, but at least it's change.

In Lebanon, at least it appears that the people there want the change.
In Libya, they seem happy enough to give up WMD programs for the right to sell oil.
I would bet that the Shiites and Kurds in Iraq are happier now than they were before - the Sunnis (in general) are probably really unhappy now.

And it looks like the Palestinian-Israeli thing may work out - which would make the majority of people there happy.

But to make these changes requires sacrifice and risk. The protesters in Lebanon could well have been massacred by the Syrian Army.

I suppose that we could have done what was done by the last US President. Risk nothing and do nothing and watch the whole region fester while the Europeans complain bitterly that we're doing nothing.

Major Arrests Show A Shift In Iraq
Christian Science Monitor (BAGHDAD MAR. 01)

The arrest of seven key insurgents in the past two weeks, including Saddam Hussein's half brother and top aides to Abu Musab al Zarqawi, are giving a much needed morale boost to Iraq's counterinsurgency efforts. Indeed, some Iraqi officials see the momentum beginning to shift since the Jan. 30 elections. They say Iraqi citizens are providing more tips, and that a series of videotaped confessions by captured insurgents shown on Iraqi TV are helping discredit the rebels. "We are very close to al Zarqawi, and I believe that there are a few weeks separating us from him," Iraq's interim national security adviser, Mouwafak al Rubaie told the Associated Press. Analysts agree that the string of arrests are likely to hurt the insurgency. But the decentralized nature of the uprising makes it difficult to dismantle. A massive car bombing in Hilla, Iraq, Monday underscored the point. The bomb exploded near a line of recruits for the Iraqi security forces in the southern Iraq town, killing more than 100 people, one of the largest death tolls from a car bomb in Iraq.

Proof???

Read a history book..lol

Saddam had elections too, but it sure as hell wasn't a democracy. Elections do not equal democracy.

Read a history book..lol

Saddam had elections too, but it sure as hell wasn't a democracy. Elections do not equal democracy.

I would find it hard to believe, however, that the current series of elections in Iraq are somehow either less democratic than those of Saddam, or just as bad.

I believe that Iraq is making progress. Leaving Saddam in place is not progress.

The last I heard, the only bombings were car bombings and suicide bombings, mostly against Iraqis.

Oh, well that's OK then I guess right?


As long as they are only killing each other things are just peachy!!!


:rolleyes:

Major Arrests Show A Shift In Iraq
Christian Science Monitor (BAGHDAD MAR. 01)

The arrest of seven key insurgents in the past two weeks, including Saddam Hussein's half brother and top aides to Abu Musab al Zarqawi, are giving a much needed morale boost to Iraq's counterinsurgency efforts. Indeed, some Iraqi officials see the momentum beginning to shift since the Jan. 30 elections. They say Iraqi citizens are providing more tips, and that a series of videotaped confessions by captured insurgents shown on Iraqi TV are helping discredit the rebels. "We are very close to al Zarqawi, and I believe that there are a few weeks separating us from him," Iraq's interim national security adviser, Mouwafak al Rubaie told the Associated Press. Analysts agree that the string of arrests are likely to hurt the insurgency. But the decentralized nature of the uprising makes it difficult to dismantle. A massive car bombing in Hilla, Iraq, Monday underscored the point. The bomb exploded near a line of recruits for the Iraqi security forces in the southern Iraq town, killing more than 100 people, one of the largest death tolls from a car bomb in Iraq.


YEs, but is the new government a whole lot better than the old one? Yopu know - the one you say deserved to be tossed out because it rounded up, tortured and killed it's own people?



Not really according to the US government... (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/01/politics/01rights.html?hp&ex=1109739600&en=6ebac305b8f7d933&ei=5094&partner=homepage)


The State Department on Monday detailed an array of human rights abuses last year by the Iraqi government, including torture, rape and illegal detentions by police officers and functionaries of the interim administration that took power in June.
In the Bush administration's bluntest description of human rights transgressions by the American-supported government, the report said the Iraqis "generally respected human rights, but serious problems remained" as the government and American-led foreign forces fought a violent insurgency. It cited "reports of arbitrary deprivation of life, torture, impunity, poor prison conditions - particularly in pretrial detention facilities - and arbitrary arrest and detention."



Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.....

I would find it hard to believe, however, that the current series of elections in Iraq are somehow either less democratic than those of Saddam, or just as bad.

I believe that Iraq is making progress. Leaving Saddam in place is not progress.

You can't force democracy on a people at gunpoint. It has to come from the inside out, not the outside in. Same as what happened with the USSR, it was the people in the country. Sorry, Ronald Reagan was given far too much credit for what happened there. The people have to want it and do some thing about it.

What I see in the future for the middle east is total chaos. Iraq will either become a theocracy or even worse will be thrown into civil war. There is nothing stable about the middle east at the moment. You may have a child's size band-aid on Iraq at the moment, but as soon as it gets wet, it will fall off.

You can't force democracy on a people at gunpoint. It has to come from the inside out, not the outside in. Same as what happened with the USSR, it was the people in the country. Sorry, Ronald Reagan was given far too much credit for what happened there. The people have to want it and do some thing about it.

What I see in the future for the middle east is total chaos. Iraq will either become a theocracy or even worse will be thrown into civil war. There is nothing stable about the middle east at the moment. You may have a child's size band-aid on Iraq at the moment, but as soon as it gets wet, it will fall off.
Hmm. Must be time for the Zepp and Steph trained attack killer gerbils to go on the offensive. What's the matter, Steph, need to live down something you would rather the rest of us forget? hmmm? :D

What I see in the future for the middle east is total chaos. Iraq will either become a theocracy or even worse will be thrown into civil war. There is nothing stable about the middle east at the moment. You may have a child's size band-aid on Iraq at the moment, but as soon as it gets wet, it will fall off.

I saw total chaos if the US did nothing. So it's total chaos for sure if we do nothing, and maybe chaos if we do something.

You're going to look really funny if it all works out. What will happen to your school of diplomacy?

Sometimes the best diplomatic tool is a fully charged phaser bank.

Read a history book..lol

Saddam had elections too, but it sure as hell wasn't a democracy. Elections do not equal democracy.
At the risk of getting dinged by the mods again, I have to reiterate ... proof??

Hmm. Must be time for the Zepp and Steph trained attack killer gerbils to go on the offensive. What's the matter, Steph, need to live down something you would rather the rest of us forget? hmmm? :D


Aw, you're just so darn cute when you have no response to a stated position except to insult the other debaters.

MAkes me want to get you a change of diapers, pat you on the head, and tell you: "there there - it'll be OK. You can't have everything your way all the time...."

Aw, you're just so darn cute when you have no response to a stated position except to insult the other debaters.

MAkes me want to get you a change of diapers, pat you on the head, and tell you: "there there - it'll be OK. You can't have everything your way all the time...."

I still think you're not happy with anything that's happened in the Middle East. For you two to think that it's all going to be total chaos - well, there's no hope, is there?

As for Reagan getting credit - I don't give him credit for their democratic urges - that's natural. But for spending the Soviet bureaucracy into financial ruin - I can certainly give him that credit, as did Gorbachov.

Hmm. Must be time for the Zepp and Steph trained attack killer gerbils to go on the offensive. What's the matter, Steph, need to live down something you would rather the rest of us forget? hmmm? :D

Zep has you pegged so right. You really can't argue the facts, instead you resort to personal attacks. Why not try staying on subject instead of trying to attack Zep and I. Say some thing useful instead of the same old diatribe we hear from you on a daily basis. I have nothing to live down. Your cryptic message means nothing to me.

At the risk of getting dinged by the mods again, I have to reiterate ... proof??


Here was the referendum held just before the war:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/10/16/iraq.vote/

Like Stephistan was saying - elections do not equate to democracy. Not if they are a farce.

Of course, Saddam did win at least ONE legitimate election when he first came to power. But then agains, so did Hitler......


Which illustrates rather well why the simple act of holding an election does not equate to democracy.

You can't force democracy on a people at gunpoint. It has to come from the inside out, not the outside in. Same as what happened with the USSR, it was the people in the country. Sorry, Ronald Reagan was given far too much credit for what happened there. The people have to want it and do some thing about it.

What I see in the future for the middle east is total chaos. Iraq will either become a theocracy or even worse will be thrown into civil war. There is nothing stable about the middle east at the moment. You may have a child's size band-aid on Iraq at the moment, but as soon as it gets wet, it will fall off.
Come on now, Steph. You're just being paranoid and defeatist about all this. Surely you can find SOMETHING good to say, yes? :D

Come on now, Steph. You're just being paranoid and defeatist about all this. Surely you can find SOMETHING good to say, yes? :D

I'm done playing your childish games. I'll let Zeppistan play with you, he has far more patience for adults who act like children and attack the person instead of the argument than I do.

Here was the referendum held just before the war:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/10/16/iraq.vote/

Like Stephistan was saying - elections do not equate to democracy. Not if they are a farce.

Of course, Saddam did win at least ONE legitimate election when he first came to power. But then agains, so did Hitler......

Which illustrates rather well why the simple act of holding an election does not equate to democracy.
True, but that wasn't the point Stephie made ... she said that elections don't come first, democracy comes first, then the elections, a statement I find to be very confusing.

By all accounts, the recent elections in Iraq, while not perfect, represented a very good first step toward a flowering democracy in that conflict-torn country.

You know what I think? I think one of the reasons you and Stephie are always on the negative side on this issue is that you're afraid that President Bush just might be correct ... that this may in fact be the best road to Middle East peace. :D

I'm done playing your childish games. I'll let Zeppistan play with you, he has far more patience for adults who act like children and attack the person instead of the argument than I do.
OH? Getting to you a bit, am I? Tsk! Just how did I "attack" you, Stephie? By disagreeing with you? I hardly think that qualifies as any sort of "attack," unless that is, you think you should be exempt from all that somehow.

It's a very weak argument which must resort to charges of those who disagree as being "childish," or "paranoid," or "playing games," or "attacking me," or "acting like children." None of which, I might add, have I ever used when referring to you.

Perhaps the real question here is, who's attacking whom?

From NPR I an expert said it is the change in Lebanese attitudes towards Syria that's forcing out the Syrians. Whether due to their regional neighbors in Iraq or the sheer impact of it being the beloved Hariri assassinated, the Lebanese are no longer subduing themselves in fear of Syrian action. Some groups in Lebanon blamed pro-Israeli cells for the road bomb--the cry from the streets drowned them out: Syria. It's the Lebanese who are standing up, he said. And thus Syrians are now really worried about US action, as it would seem to be support by the Lebanese.

I'm not sure there's a Dominoe sequence in motion: Syria's case, situation, and fear of US action is quite unique in the region. I do think there is more cooperation as of late. Syria, due to the Lebanese disatisfaction, Iran due to combined pressures from Europe and the US. But I think it's important to understand that each nation in the Middle East will need to move towards democracy on its own.

Saudi Arabia would doubtless take an entirely different set of stimuli, circumstances, and political motives to bring purer democracy to itself than Syria as it has the Western World by the gas tank. I do think the Iraqi invasion/elections are playin a role in Lebanon (moving the Syrians to fear US action/Lebanese uprising), but I don't feel they're going to be as large of motivations for other Middle East countries to come to democracy or end occupations.

OH? Getting to you a bit, am I? Tsk! Just how did I "attack" you, Stephie? By disagreeing with you? I hardly think that qualifies as any sort of "attack," unless that is, you think you should be exempt from all that somehow.

It's a very weak argument which must resort to charges of those who disagree as being "childish," or "paranoid," or "playing games," or "attacking me," or "acting like children." None of which, I might add, have I ever used when referring to you.

Perhaps the real question here is, who's attacking whom?


Well, let's see - we were actually discussing the issue when you responded with:

Hmm. Must be time for the Zepp and Steph trained attack killer gerbils to go on the offensive. What's the matter, Steph, need to live down something you would rather the rest of us forget? hmmm?


You can play Mr Innocent if you like, but pretending that it was anyone else who turned the discussion personal is lame in this instance Eutrusca.

However, if you think you are getting under anyone's skin - please disabuse yourself of that notion. We just call 'em as we see em, in your case that being a defense mechanism of personal attacks and ridicule of your opponents.

We just point it out to make sure that no-one else misses your juvenile tactics.

I'm done playing your childish games. I'll let Zeppistan play with you, he has far more patience for adults who act like children and attack the person instead of the argument than I do.

Huh, that's funny. Calling Eutrusca one of the "adults who act like children" certainly sounds like a personal attack to me...as does Zeppistan's "MAkes me want to get you a change of diapers, pat you on the head, and tell you: 'there there - it'll be OK. You can't have everything your way all the time....'"

If you're going to come down on personal attacks, be consistent.

Actually Chipmunk, you are right. The fact that we have tired of Eutrusca's constant petty personal slights is no excuse for demeaning oursleves by responding in kind. At that point we become no better than him, and pointing the finger of "well he started it" is a poor excuse.


So Eutrusca, I apologize for my remarks in kind in this thread. They were unworthy of me.



It is just too bad that you can not seem to conduct yourself in a manner commesurate with what one would normally associate with someone of your self-described age and life experience, however we all have our faults I guess.

Hmm. I feel invisible.