Newsweek, The Economist, US News, the New York Times... all publications who's editorial staff has dogged Bush over his invasion of Iraq, are now running sub-headers and even some front page articles (Fareed Z.'s is my favortie) concerning what some might call an optimistic approach to the establishment of democracy in the Middle East.

Now, I know everyone here thinks it was wrong to invade Iraq. I personally saw no reason for nation building; I thought the people of the Middle East incapable of holding such a government because of their long established ties to religion and Hammurabi's laws. But I'm asking now, is this a wave of optimism? Is this us rationalizing for Bush and co. because we've realized he's got 4 more years and there's nothing we can do about it?

Or was I wrong when I said I didn't believe we could do Nation Building. I was certain we would triumph in war and battle as we always do; but ultimately I saw the Middle East as the poorest climate possible for self endowed freedom. I thought it would take war... but Lebanon and Syria have me thinking the region is ripe for some sort of democratic base, so long as religion remains balanced with secular government.

By the way, missed it here.

I need the gravity.

I think it's probably too early for history to say if he was right, although I do believe things are turning around over there, albeit with some problems. I guess time will tell.

And we missed you, James.

I see you already found the Conspiracy Theory Alert thread, in which David and I may have weakly admitted that the Syria/Lebanon thing could have been a positive impact of the Iraq war.

Still a long long way to go, though.

Yes, a long way indeed.

Link

A good start might be getting rid of Zarqawi--another terrorist leader that we can't seem to catch.

Stupid shit like this makes me question it all too:

Link

Here, in the one place where peace is truly needed if you want to see a real shift in the Middle East, they have to fight over roadblocks. You said you'd get out, just get the fuck out if you really want peace.

And let's not forget this either:
Link
A very long way to go indeed. Anyone that thinks otherwise is simply fooling themselves.

Whether its democracy, communism, or a dictatorship, does Iraq have an economy which can support its people? Without an economy to support its people, the country will fail no matter what form of government is in charge.

Their economy is oil-based. They'll be fine once they get basic welfare in place. I mean, IF they get welfare in place.

Russia has a boat load of raw commodities too and there economy has gone nowhere.

http://www.theskyiscrape.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=10914

Interesting story about the economy that didn't get much attention earlier.

Good article. I know a few engineers/scientists who are waiting for Bush's $350B??? to be passed by congress so they can go to Iraq and build some infrastructure.

The countries that are doing in on their own - demanding it and fighting for it - they'll probably succeed eventually.

The contries occupied with democracies forced on them? Not a snowballs chance in hell. People, in general, and most always in mom-group form, have less respect for things that are handed to them. The chances of Iraq becoming a large unorganized country of people who feel 'entitled' to some idea of 'freedom' that they haven't truely pushed for or worked for and falling apart at the seams is pretty high.

You know, 8 million people risked their lives and voted in Iraq on their own volition, even in the face of death and violence. I don't necessarily think this was "forced" on them.

Time will tell.

What does that even mean? Are you saying these people were rounded up and forced to vote?

No, he wasn't right at all. He was dead fucking wrong. At this point though what's left but optimism?

It was forced on them. 16,000+ civilians were killed; hundreds of thousands lost family members, friends and lovers; tens of thousands lost their homes; countless thousands were horribly wounded all for a system of government to be installed that THEY DIDN'T FUCKING ASK US TO COME AND HELP THEM WITH.

So yes, she is correct; it was forced on them. The fact that they're using the system now doesn't change the fact that 'democracy' was violently set up in their country when they didn't ask for it.

Lebannon and Syria may be saying they are moving toward democracy (not that I trust the news coming out of those nations, I think it is meant to lull the US into thinking "bush was right"), but what about N.Korea and Iran and their flagrant nuke programs?

Too many countries in unrest could possibly have a negative impact and not a postitive one.

Neither N. Korea nor Iran has a missile which could reach the US. For all the other countries within airstrike of N. Korea or Iran, good luck with that.

First of all, I think she's a big girl and can answer herself.

Second, who is "they" in terms of "THEY DIDN'T FUCKING ASK US TO COME AND HELP THEM WITH?" (by the way, thanks for yelling, but I would have heard and understood you in small caps). Do you really think "they" were in a position to politely call up the U.S. and say, "um, Mr. President of U.S. of A., you don't know us, but we speak on behalf of all Iraqi citizens and, accordingly, would welcome your trained armed forces to overthrow our ruthless dictator who, if he ever found out we were calling you, would slice our genitals off?" Please.

Third, do you really think if the Iraqi citizens didn't ask for it or want it they would risk their lives to participate in it?

Spare me the anti-war rhetoric -- it's old. It's just like how many of the major news publications and politicians in this country and in Europe were so reticent to acknowledge the success of the elections. Funny how, since the fall of Hussein, we have had elections in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine; Egypt!!! just announced the presidency will be contested; and, Syrian troops are pulling out of Lebanon after Parliament resigned and wide-spread protests (a function of free speech and democracy) occurred. You're right, the region doesn't want democracy.

That's where diplomacy comes in, to make sure they never even consider using them against us (unlikely anyway).

It takes at least two to tango -- N. Korea just pulled out of multi-lateral talks.

Nevertheless, what do you suggest we say to them this time? What do we promise them? What gives us the confidence that their promises to bargain and disengage are sufficient?

For the record, no one country, administration, government, person or entity has been able to verify that N. Korea has a nuclear weapon. All we have is the N. Korean goverment's statement that it does. Perhaps it is using this as a bargaining chip or scare tactic to get us to withdraw from the pennisula.