A Perfect One Two Punch?

[SnakeBoy]

Despite some of the liberals view that that US is irrelevant in the happenings of other countries, I can't help but think about how this country may have influenced what we are currently witnessing in Iran. Something that I would have thought impossible a year ago. I find the argument that this is all coincidental to be the ultimate in intellectual laziness.

Although I disagreed with the neocon philosophy that the establishment of a democracy in Iraq would greatly change the political climate in other countries in the region I think it is impossible to look at the middle east today and think that it didn't have some influence.

Still I don't think that alone would have emboldened the Iranian people enough to stand up the way they are. Which leads me to Obama. There is no doubt that because of his personality, life story and message of change he became incredibly inspirational around the world.

So could Bush's unrelenting stubborness in establishing a democratic Iraq followed by Obama's inspirational message of change have been the perfect one two punch to the Iranian regime?

Discuss.

[ChumpDumper]

Still claiming US repsonsibility for everything positive in the world and none of the negative, eh?

The Iranians overthrew a dictator in 1979 as well -- a US-supported dictator -- nobody saw that coming.

The Iranians know their country's current situation and history better than you. They have their own experiments with democracy and their own ideas of what their government should do. It's really not all about the US.

[jman3000]

Nobody thinks like that. It's just that conservatives see everything in black and white, right and wrong, true or false, when in reality there are numerous reasons why this is happening.

If I had said that Obama would inspire the ME world after his Cairo speech, most conservatives on this board would call bullshit. Now all of a sudden he's some inspirational figure?

The fact is it's only a small piece of a larger pie. It's Obama, it's the lies which were apparent in the election results, it's the living conditions, it's the feeling of the youth to improve relations with the West, it's brotherhood, it's Iraq... it's many many many other things... but the US is amongst the least of these. A small variable in an otherwise large equation.

[SnakeBoy]

Still claiming US repsonsibility for everything positive in the world and none of the negative, eh?


Strawman. Good job of putting words in my mouth though.

[boutons_deux]

"it is impossible to look at the middle east today and think that it didn't have some influence."

dubya and dickhead's phony invasion of Iraq took over 150K men and the industrial throwpower of the United States, to produce an Iraqi "democracy" is a corrupt sham, with the Sunnis seriously cut out and aggrieved, while Shiite-Sunni violence, aka the boiling pot, in increasing as the US pulls out of the cities.

I don't think the Iranians are taking any lessons from the very probable US and democracy failure next door.

These ME countries simply are incapable of democracy in the US/Western Europe style.

If the opposition throws out the current power structure, nobody knows what they will put in its place, after what would be probably a prolonged civil war.

Had Moussavi won, he wouldn't have had the power to run Iraq, just like the current guy doesn't have the power to run Iraq. The real power with the Supreme Leader and his hard-liners, supported by their thugs and religious police.

[PixelPusher]

Strawman. Good job of putting words in my mouth though.

You would know all about stawmen, wouldn't you?


Despite some of the liberals view that that US is irrelevant in the happenings of other countries,

[ChumpDumper]

Strawman. Good job of putting words in my mouth though.That is precisely what you did the first time you brought this up.

The simple truth is that while Iranians may look favorably on our freedoms as we have them in our country, they don't trust the US because of over a half century of our fucking around with them. I think one of the biggest hurdles to reestablishing trust already happened when Obama expressed some regret for the US role in the 1953 coup that completely shat upon the democratic movement in Iran. Mousavi explicitly mentioned this before the election.

Like I said, words matter -- but not quite the way you think.

[Winehole23]

So could Bush's unrelenting stubborness in establishing a democratic Iraq followed by Obama's inspirational message of change have been the perfect one two punch to the Iranian regime?

Discuss.Not likely IMO. A democratic Iraq isn't a fait accompli, and I think you might be overstating the influence of Obama's campaign euphony on Iranians. What message do you say inspired them? Can you be more specific about that, Snakeboy?

I object to this line of reasoning because, inasmuch as it construes events on the ground in Iran as part of the narrative of America's national greatness (or requiring its influence, if you like) -- it minimizes the indispensible courage and spirit of Iranians who, by putting their bodies and their voices in the street to demand their due, are shaking the status quo in Iran.

The credit is all theirs, IMO.

[PEP]

Still claiming US repsonsibility for everything positive in the world and none of the negative, eh?

The Iranians overthrew a dictator in 1979 as well -- a US-supported dictator -- nobody saw that coming.

The Iranians know their country's current situation and history better than you. They have their own experiments with democracy and their own ideas of what their government should do. It's really not all about the US.
Why do you hate this country so much?

[ChumpDumper]

Why do you hate this country so much?I don't.

I hate idiots like you who pretend that is a real question.

[DarrinS]

Despite some of the liberals view that that US is irrelevant in the happenings of other countries, I can't help but think about how this country may have influenced what we are currently witnessing in Iran. Something that I would have thought impossible a year ago. I find the argument that this is all coincidental to be the ultimate in intellectual laziness.

Although I disagreed with the neocon philosophy that the establishment of a democracy in Iraq would greatly change the political climate in other countries in the region I think it is impossible to look at the middle east today and think that it didn't have some influence.

Still I don't think that alone would have emboldened the Iranian people enough to stand up the way they are. Which leads me to Obama. There is no doubt that because of his personality, life story and message of change he became incredibly inspirational around the world.

So could Bush's unrelenting stubborness in establishing a democratic Iraq followed by Obama's inspirational message of change have been the perfect one two punch to the Iranian regime?

Discuss.



Did you really think you could come in here and have a rational, adult conversation on this topic? Liberals are quite reasonable, so long as you agree with them.

I happen to agree with much of your post, BTW.

[SnakeBoy]

Did you really think you could come in here and have a rational, adult conversation on this topic?

Not really but I thought it would be interesting to hear what people thought now before the talking heads and political parties put their spin on the topic. There will be plenty of threads on this topic once the media boner for all the violent videos and compelling tweets wears off and they start talking about it. It was worth a shot.


What message do you say inspired them? Can you be more specific about that, Snakeboy?

Dammit, I had a feeling you would come up with a tough question WH. Hope, change, we'll extend a hand if you unclench your fist??? Admittedly, it's the weakest part of my premise. I just took what I thought the left and right would soon be saying and combined it into one unified theory. It's not perfect but then again Einstein could never quite make it work either.

[SnakeBoy]

It's much easier to make the case for Dubya's stubborness than than Obama inspiration.


President Bush Lays Out Vision for Democracy in the Middle East
(November 6, 2003)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you all very much. Please be seated. Thanks for the warm welcome, and thanks for inviting me to join you in this 20th anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy. The staff and directors of this organization have seen a lot of history over the last two decades, you've been a part of that history. By speaking for and standing for freedom, you've lifted the hopes of people around the world, and you've brought great credit to America.

I appreciate Vin for the short introduction. I'm a man who likes short introductions. And he didn't let me down. But more importantly, I appreciate the invitation. I appreciate the members of Congress who are here, senators from both political parties, members of the House of Representatives from both political parties. I appreciate the ambassadors who are here. I appreciate the guests who have come. I appreciate the bipartisan spirit, the nonpartisan spirit of the National Endowment for Democracy. I'm glad that Republicans and Democrats and independents are working together to advance human liberty.

The roots of our democracy can be traced to England, and to its Parliament -- and so can the roots of this organization. In June of 1982, President Ronald Reagan spoke at Westminster Palace and declared, the turning point had arrived in history. He argued that Soviet communism had failed, precisely because it did not respect its own people -- their creativity, their genius and their rights.

President Reagan said that the day of Soviet tyranny was passing, that freedom had a momentum which would not be halted. He gave this organization its mandate: to add to the momentum of freedom across the world. Your mandate was important 20 years ago; it is equally important today. (Applause.)

A number of critics were dismissive of that speech by the President. According to one editorial of the time, "It seems hard to be a sophisticated European and also an admirer of Ronald Reagan." (Laughter.) Some observers on both sides of the Atlantic pronounced the speech simplistic and naive, and even dangerous. In fact, Ronald Reagan's words were courageous and optimistic and entirely correct. (Applause.)

The great democratic movement President Reagan described was already well underway. In the early 1970s, there were about 40 democracies in the world. By the middle of that decade, Portugal and Spain and Greece held free elections. Soon there were new democracies in Latin America, and free institutions were spreading in Korea, in Taiwan, and in East Asia. This very week in 1989, there were protests in East Berlin and in Leipzig. By the end of that year, every communist dictatorship in Central America* had collapsed. Within another year, the South African government released Nelson Mandela. Four years later, he was elected president of his country -- ascending, like Walesa and Havel, from prisoner of state to head of state.

As the 20th century ended, there were around 120 democracies in the world -- and I can assure you more are on the way. (Applause.) Ronald Reagan would be pleased, and he would not be surprised.

We've witnessed, in little over a generation, the swiftest advance of freedom in the 2,500 year story of democracy. Historians in the future will offer their own explanations for why this happened. Yet we already know some of the reasons they will cite. It is no accident that the rise of so many democracies took place in a time when the world's most influential nation was itself a democracy.

The United States made military and moral commitments in Europe and Asia, which protected free nations from aggression, and created the conditions in which new democracies could flourish. As we provided security for whole nations, we also provided inspiration for oppressed peoples. In prison camps, in banned union meetings, in clandestine churches, men and women knew that the whole world was not sharing their own nightmare. They knew of at least one place -- a bright and hopeful land -- where freedom was valued and secure. And they prayed that America would not forget them, or forget the mission to promote liberty around the world.

Historians will note that in many nations, the advance of markets and free enterprise helped to create a middle class that was confident enough to demand their own rights. They will point to the role of technology in frustrating censorship and central control -- and marvel at the power of instant communications to spread the truth, the news, and courage across borders.

Historians in the future will reflect on an extraordinary, undeniable fact: Over time, free nations grow stronger and dictatorships grow weaker. In the middle of the 20th century, some imagined that the central planning and social regimentation were a shortcut to national strength. In fact, the prosperity, and social vitality and technological progress of a people are directly determined by extent of their liberty. Freedom honors and unleashes human creativity -- and creativity determines the strength and wealth of nations. Liberty is both the plan of Heaven for humanity, and the best hope for progress here on Earth.

The progress of liberty is a powerful trend. Yet, we also know that liberty, if not defended, can be lost. The success of freedom is not determined by some dialectic of history. By definition, the success of freedom rests upon the choices and the courage of free peoples, and upon their willingness to sacrifice. In the trenches of World War I, through a two-front war in the 1940s, the difficult battles of Korea and Vietnam, and in missions of rescue and liberation on nearly every continent, Americans have amply displayed our willingness to sacrifice for liberty.

The sacrifices of Americans have not always been recognized or appreciated, yet they have been worthwhile. Because we and our allies were steadfast, Germany and Japan are democratic nations that no longer threaten the world. A global nuclear standoff with the Soviet Union ended peacefully -- as did the Soviet Union. The nations of Europe are moving towards unity, not dividing into armed camps and descending into genocide. Every nation has learned, or should have learned, an important lesson: Freedom is worth fighting for, dying for, and standing for -- and the advance of freedom leads to peace. (Applause.)

And now we must apply that lesson in our own time. We've reached another great turning point -- and the resolve we show will shape the next stage of the world democratic movement.

Our commitment to democracy is tested in countries like Cuba and Burma and North Korea and Zimbabwe -- outposts of oppression in our world. The people in these nations live in captivity, and fear and silence. Yet, these regimes cannot hold back freedom forever -- and, one day, from prison camps and prison cells, and from exile, the leaders of new democracies will arrive. (Applause.) Communism, and militarism and rule by the capricious and corrupt are the relics of a passing era. And we will stand with these oppressed peoples until the day of their freedom finally arrives. (Applause.)

Our commitment to democracy is tested in China. That nation now has a sliver, a fragment of liberty. Yet, China's people will eventually want their liberty pure and whole. China has discovered that economic freedom leads to national wealth. China's leaders will also discover that freedom is indivisible -- that social and religious freedom is also essential to national greatness and national dignity. Eventually, men and women who are allowed to control their own wealth will insist on controlling their own lives and their own country.

Our commitment to democracy is also tested in the Middle East, which is my focus today, and must be a focus of American policy for decades to come. In many nations of the Middle East -- countries of great strategic importance -- democracy has not yet taken root. And the questions arise: Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty? Are millions of men and women and children condemned by history or culture to live in despotism? Are they alone never to know freedom, and never even to have a choice in the matter? I, for one, do not believe it. I believe every person has the ability and the right to be free. (Applause.)

Some skeptics of democracy assert that the traditions of Islam are inhospitable to the representative government. This "cultural condescension," as Ronald Reagan termed it, has a long history. After the Japanese surrender in 1945, a so-called Japan expert asserted that democracy in that former empire would "never work." Another observer declared the prospects for democracy in post-Hitler Germany are, and I quote, "most uncertain at best" -- he made that claim in 1957. Seventy-four years ago, The Sunday London Times declared nine-tenths of the population of India to be "illiterates not caring a fig for politics." Yet when Indian democracy was imperiled in the 1970s, the Indian people showed their commitment to liberty in a national referendum that saved their form of government.

Time after time, observers have questioned whether this country, or that people, or this group, are "ready" for democracy -- as if freedom were a prize you win for meeting our own Western standards of progress. In fact, the daily work of democracy itself is the path of progress. It teaches cooperation, the free exchange of ideas, and the peaceful resolution of differences. As men and women are showing, from Bangladesh to Botswana, to Mongolia, it is the practice of democracy that makes a nation ready for democracy, and every nation can start on this path.

It should be clear to all that Islam -- the faith of one-fifth of humanity -- is consistent with democratic rule. Democratic progress is found in many predominantly Muslim countries -- in Turkey and Indonesia, and Senegal and Albania, Niger and Sierra Leone. Muslim men and women are good citizens of India and South Africa, of the nations of Western Europe, and of the United States of America.

More than half of all the Muslims in the world live in freedom under democratically constituted governments. They succeed in democratic societies, not in spite of their faith, but because of it. A religion that demands individual moral accountability, and encourages the encounter of the individual with God, is fully compatible with the rights and responsibilities of self-government.

Yet there's a great challenge today in the Middle East. In the words of a recent report by Arab scholars, the global wave of democracy has -- and I quote -- "barely reached the Arab states." They continue: "This freedom deficit undermines human development and is one of the most painful manifestations of lagging political development." The freedom deficit they describe has terrible consequences, of the people of the Middle East and for the world. In many Middle Eastern countries, poverty is deep and it is spreading, women lack rights and are denied schooling. Whole societies remain stagnant while the world moves ahead. These are not the failures of a culture or a religion. These are the failures of political and economic doctrines.

As the colonial era passed away, the Middle East saw the establishment of many military dictatorships. Some rulers adopted the dogmas of socialism, seized total control of political parties and the media and universities. They allied themselves with the Soviet bloc and with international terrorism. Dictators in Iraq and Syria promised the restoration of national honor, a return to ancient glories. They've left instead a legacy of torture, oppression, misery, and ruin.

Other men, and groups of men, have gained influence in the Middle East and beyond through an ideology of theocratic terror.Behind their language of religion is the ambition for absolute political power. Ruling cabals like the Taliban show their version of religious piety in public whippings of women, ruthless suppression of any difference or dissent, and support for terrorists who arm and train to murder the innocent. The Taliban promised religious purity and national pride. Instead, by systematically destroying a proud and working society, they left behind suffering and starvation.

Many Middle Eastern governments now understand that military dictatorship and theocratic rule are a straight, smooth highway to nowhere. But some governments still cling to the old habits of central control. There are governments that still fear and repress independent thought and creativity, and private enterprise -- the human qualities that make for a -- strong and successful societies. Even when these nations have vast natural resources, they do not respect or develop their greatest resources -- the talent and energy of men and women working and living in freedom.

Instead of dwelling on past wrongs and blaming others, governments in the Middle East need to confront real problems, and serve the true interests of their nations. The good and capable people of the Middle East all deserve responsible leadership. For too long, many people in that region have been victims and subjects -- they deserve to be active citizens.

Governments across the Middle East and North Africa are beginning to see the need for change. Morocco has a diverse new parliament; King Mohammed has urged it to extend the rights to women. Here is how His Majesty explained his reforms to parliament: "How can society achieve progress while women, who represent half the nation, see their rights violated and suffer as a result of injustice, violence, and marginalization, notwithstanding the dignity and justice granted to them by our glorious religion?" The King of Morocco is correct: The future of Muslim nations will be better for all with the full participation of women. (Applause.)

In Bahrain last year, citizens elected their own parliament for the first time in nearly three decades. Oman has extended the vote to all adult citizens; Qatar has a new constitution; Yemen has a multiparty political system; Kuwait has a directly elected national assembly; and Jordan held historic elections this summer. Recent surveys in Arab nations reveal broad support for political pluralism, the rule of law, and free speech. These are the stirrings of Middle Eastern democracy, and they carry the promise of greater change to come.

As changes come to the Middle Eastern region, those with power should ask themselves: Will they be remembered for resisting reform, or for leading it? In Iran, the demand for democracy is strong and broad, as we saw last month when thousands gathered to welcome home Shirin Ebadi, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. The regime in Teheran must heed the democratic demands of the Iranian people, or lose its last claim to legitimacy. (Applause.)

For the Palestinian people, the only path to independence and dignity and progress is the path of democracy. (Applause.) And the Palestinian leaders who block and undermine democratic reform, and feed hatred and encourage violence are not leaders at all. They're the main obstacles to peace, and to the success of the Palestinian people.

The Saudi government is taking first steps toward reform, including a plan for gradual introduction of elections. By giving the Saudi people a greater role in their own society, the Saudi government can demonstrate true leadership in the region.

The great and proud nation of Egypt has shown the way toward peace in the Middle East, and now should show the way toward democracy in the Middle East. (Applause.) Champions of democracy in the region understand that democracy is not perfect, it is not the path to utopia, but it's the only path to national success and dignity.

As we watch and encourage reforms in the region, we are mindful that modernization is not the same as Westernization. Representative governments in the Middle East will reflect their own cultures. They will not, and should not, look like us. Democratic nations may be constitutional monarchies, federal republics, or parliamentary systems. And working democracies always need time to develop -- as did our own. We've taken a 200-year journey toward inclusion and justice -- and this makes us patient and understanding as other nations are at different stages of this journey.

There are, however, essential principles common to every successful society, in every culture. Successful societies limit the power of the state and the power of the military -- so that governments respond to the will of the people, and not the will of an elite. Successful societies protect freedom with the consistent and impartial rule of law, instead of selecting applying -- selectively applying the law to punish political opponents. Successful societies allow room for healthy civic institutions -- for political parties and labor unions and independent newspapers and broadcast media. Successful societies guarantee religious liberty -- the right to serve and honor God without fear of persecution. Successful societies privatize their economies, and secure the rights of property. They prohibit and punish official corruption, and invest in the health and education of their people. They recognize the rights of women. And instead of directing hatred and resentment against others, successful societies appeal to the hopes of their own people. (Applause.)

These vital principles are being applies in the nations of Afghanistan and Iraq. With the steady leadership of President Karzai, the people of Afghanistan are building a modern and peaceful government. Next month, 500 delegates will convene a national assembly in Kabul to approve a new Afghan constitution. The proposed draft would establish a bicameral parliament, set national elections next year, and recognize Afghanistan's Muslim identity, while protecting the rights of all citizens. Afghanistan faces continuing economic and security challenges -- it will face those challenges as a free and stable democracy. (Applause.)

In Iraq, the Coalition Provisional Authority and the Iraqi Governing Council are also working together to build a democracy -- and after three decades of tyranny, this work is not easy. The former dictator ruled by terror and treachery, and left deeply ingrained habits of fear and distrust. Remnants of his regime, joined by foreign terrorists, continue their battle against order and against civilization. Our coalition is responding to recent attacks with precision raids, guided by intelligence provided by the Iraqis, themselves. And we're working closely with Iraqi citizens as they prepare a constitution, as they move toward free elections and take increasing responsibility for their own affairs. As in the defense of Greece in 1947, and later in the Berlin Airlift, the strength and will of free peoples are now being tested before a watching world. And we will meet this test. (Applause.)

Securing democracy in Iraq is the work of many hands. American and coalition forces are sacrificing for the peace of Iraq and for the security of free nations. Aid workers from many countries are facing danger to help the Iraqi people. The National Endowment for Democracy is promoting women's rights, and training Iraqi journalists, and teaching the skills of political participation. Iraqis, themselves -- police and borders guards and local officials -- are joining in the work and they are sharing in the sacrifice.

This is a massive and difficult undertaking -- it is worth our effort, it is worth our sacrifice, because we know the stakes. The failure of Iraqi democracy would embolden terrorists around the world, increase dangers to the American people, and extinguish the hopes of millions in the region. Iraqi democracy will succeed -- and that success will send forth the news, from Damascus to Teheran -- that freedom can be the future of every nation. (Applause.) The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution. (Applause.)

Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe -- because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo. (Applause.)

Therefore, the United States has adopted a new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. This strategy requires the same persistence and energy and idealism we have shown before. And it will yield the same results. As in Europe, as in Asia, as in every region of the world, the advance of freedom leads to peace. (Applause.)

The advance of freedom is the calling of our time; it is the calling of our country. From the Fourteen Points to the Four Freedoms, to the Speech at Westminster, America has put our power at the service of principle. We believe that liberty is the design of nature; we believe that liberty is the direction of history. We believe that human fulfillment and excellence come in the responsible exercise of liberty. And we believe that freedom -- the freedom we prize -- is not for us alone, it is the right and the capacity of all mankind. (Applause.)

Working for the spread of freedom can be hard. Yet, America has accomplished hard tasks before. Our nation is strong; we're strong of heart. And we're not alone. Freedom is finding allies in every country; freedom finds allies in every culture. And as we meet the terror and violence of the world, we can be certain the author of freedom is not indifferent to the fate of freedom.

With all the tests and all the challenges of our age, this is, above all, the age of liberty. Each of you at this Endowment is fully engaged in the great cause of liberty. And I thank you. May God bless your work. And may God continue to bless America. (Applause.)

[Marcus Bryant]

ykSkFOUMsFE

[ChumpDumper]

Seriously, the protests are over the democratic process, such as it is, that already exists in Iran.

[Winehole23]

Did you really think you could come in here and have a rational, adult conversation on this topic? Liberals are quite reasonable, so long as you agree with them.Was I irrational or childish, Darrin?

You are irrational and unfair to anyone who disagrees with you. Instead of responding to what people actually say, you substitute your own outlandish strawmen and respond to that. Your version of colloquy is a dialogue with yourself.

Is that adult and rational?

No.

It's infantile and narcissistic. You either don't want to, or are incapable of listening to others. You have zero credibility to call others out for childishness and irrationality.

You're the poster child for it in my fucking opinion.

[Winehole23]

Hilarious. This speech is from 2003 or so, isn't it? It's Wilsonian idealism and liberal interventionism at its best.


Historians in the future will reflect on an extraordinary, undeniable fact: Over time, free nations grow stronger and dictatorships grow weaker.Really? They grew stronger in the wake of the first war *to make the world safe for democracy*. Was that a coincidence?


They knew of at least one place -- a bright and hopeful land -- where freedom was valued and secure. And they prayed that America would not forget them, or forget the mission to promote liberty around the world. Forget self determination. Democracy was *a gift we gave them*


Historians in the future will reflect on an extraordinary, undeniable fact: Over time, free nations grow stronger and dictatorships grow weakerUtopianism. This unicorn ride isn't any more credible than Mr. Obama's.


Freedom is worth fighting for, dying for, and standing for -- and the advance of freedom leads to peace. (Applause.) Except if you vote for Hamas.


And now we must apply that lesson in our own time. We've reached another great turning point -- and the resolve we show will shape the next stage of the world democratic movement. Not only did George Bush believe in nation building, he believed it is our duty to remake the whole world in our image.

What's so conservative about that?


And now we must apply that lesson in our own time. We've reached another great turning point -- and the resolve we show will shape the next stage of the world democratic movement. Let's make Egypt have free elections, so they can propel the Muslim Brotherhood to power.


Many Middle Eastern governments now understand that military dictatorship and theocratic rule are a straight, smooth highway to nowhere.Unless, like Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and Egypt, they are allied with us. Then it's ok.


The Saudi government is taking first steps toward reform, including a plan for gradual introduction of elections.Bold.


The great and proud nation of Egypt has shown the way toward peace in the Middle East, and now should show the way toward democracy in the Middle East.:lol


Successful societies limit the power of the state and the power of the military -- so that governments respond to the will of the people, and not the will of an elite.We should try that here. Seriously.


They prohibit and punish official corruption, and invest in the health and education of their people.Again, we need more of this here.


As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export.If repressed ME nations are permitted to vote for the those who would free them from their oppressors, this could be even more true in the future.


And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo.Was it reckless for Reagan to allow AQ Khan to develop nukes and to hide it from Congress? Why did we do that?


As in Europe, as in Asia, as in every region of the world, the advance of freedom leads to peace. The prevalence of total, nation killing wars in the 20th and 21st centuries tends to refute this.


Working for the spread of freedom can be hard. A fool's errand, conservatives used to say.


And as we meet the terror and violence of the world, we can be certain the author of freedom is not indifferent to the fate of freedom.God is on our side.

This is hubris, y'all. Pride ever goeth before a fall...

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

The seeds of revolution in the Iranian youth were planted long before a single U.S. troop set foot in Iraq.

It's feasible that some saw what happened in Iraq and grew emboldened by it, but this has been coming for a while.

I'm sure a few folks who aren't drinking the Ahmedinikoolaid over there are also well aware of the fact that Israel will be making a very visible visit to Iran's nuclear facilities well before the day they roll out a nuke.

[boutons_deux]

The speech looks historically wonderful on paper, but when held up next to dubya's then-ongoing atrocities (phony invasion of Iraq for oil), it's just cheap talk. Talk is cheap, dubya talked the talk, but walked through one of the worst, most illegal, incompetent presidencies.

Watch what he did, not what he said.

Wrongie revisionists will point to dubya's cheap words, parroted from somebody's else speech-writing, as proof of what a wonderful man and president he was. You know it's coming, as it did for the disastrous St. Ronnie.

[Marcus Bryant]

Hilarious. This speech is from 2003 or so, isn't it? It's Wilsonian idealism and liberal interventionism at its best.

Really? They grew stronger in the wake of the first war *to make the world safe for democracy*. Was that a coincidence?

Forget self determination. Democracy was *a gift we gave them*

Utopianism. This unicorn ride isn't any more credible than Mr. Obama's.

Except if you vote for Hamas.

Not only did George Bush believe in nation building, he believed it is our duty to remake the whole world in our image.

What's so conservative about that?

Let's make Egypt have free elections, so they can propel the Muslim Brotherhood to power.

Unless, like Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and Egypt, they are allied with us. Then it's ok.

Bold.

:lol

We should try that here. Seriously.

Again, we need more of this here.

If repressed ME nations are permitted to vote for the those who would free them from their oppressors, this could be even more true in the future.

Was it reckless for Reagan to allow AQ Khan to develop nukes and to hide it from Congress? Why did we do that?

The prevalence of total, nation killing wars in the 20th and 21st centuries tends to refute this.

A fool's errand, conservatives used to say.

God is on our side.

This is hubris, y'all. Pride ever goeth before a fall...


:tu

Nowadays, you're an "isolationist" if you don't believe in that speech. Of course, we assume "they hate us" because "we're free."

But otherwise "conservatives" have to be suspicious of a creeping "socialism" in other areas of our lives and be vigilant against "big government." Nevermind that the current occupant of the White House is essentially continuing where the last one left off on the domestic front. Me-tooism, conservative progressivism, compassionate conservatism, the permanent Republican majority, or whatever it's called, marks the end of political "conservatism" as conservatism.

The general move by the left to impose its values through increasing state involvement in our lives has ultimately been met by "conservatives" not by seeking to roll back that intervention but rather to shape it to suit "conservative" tastes. We are truly at the point at which a raw political will to power will be what determines what is considered to be our constitutional liberties.

Instead of seeing GWB's presidency as a heresy of conservatism, "conservatives" continue to pay homage to him, for they simply cannot delineate between conservatism and that which appeals to certain member groups of the 'conservative movement.' In a way, the existence of a conservative movement signals the end of conservatism, as movements are creatures of the left.

The last Republican candidate for the presidency idolized Teddy Roosevelt, railed against big business, embraced environmentalism, thought that the US should continue to wield its big stick abroad, emphasized the primacy of the people over the individual, and offered redemption for sycophantic state worshippers through the state (much like his opponent).

Our politics is nothing more today than a duopoly of two progressive parties, each extending the state into every nook and cranny of our lives when their members have the opportunity. The line between the state and the Constitution is increasingly blurred.

Wilson openly denigrated the Constitution, seeing it as an antiquated shackle on the federal government, which needed to be removed so as to do all the wondrous things that a government unhindered by mere things like individual liberty could do. Today it's a "Constitution that grows" for the left and right. No politician today is going to come out and directly attack the Constitution. The gentle herd of grazing citizens across the land have been programmed through years of uncritical "education" in our public "schools" to regard the Constitution as something sacred, not because of what it created, but because it is part of American mythology, or better, the American State Religion.

One has to wonder how the current era in American history will be viewed 8 decades hence. Today, Wilson is largely seen in a positive light even as 'the man who wanted to do too much.' But since we are told they were good things, such as 'spreading democracy around the globe,' we blithely accept this whenever some obscure reference is made to his previous existence. Bush was in keeping with the tradition he and Roosevelt (Teddy) established more than most today realize. To the extent you saw some kind of fascism in the last Bush's administration, he was merely following the precedent which came long before.

[DarrinS]

Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today’s world do not have.

— Ronald Reagan

[DarrinS]

A New York Slimes article. Yes, I did read it in its entirety.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/weekinreview/21cooper.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss





“We don’t want this regime to fall. We want our votes to be counted, because we want reforms, we want kindness, we want friendship with the world.” — Ali Reza, an Iranian actor, on the sidelines of protests in Tehran.

WASHINGTON — Could there be something to all the talk of an Obama effect, after all? A stealth effect, perhaps?

As the silent protests in Tehran dominated television screens around the world last week, a peculiar debate in Washington erupted. On one side, a handful of supporters of President Bush said Iranian protesters had taken to the streets because they were emboldened by President Bush’s pro-democracy stance, and the example of Shiite democracy he set up in Iraq. On the other side, some of President Obama’s backers countered that the mere election of Barack Obama in the United States had galvanized reformers in Iran to demand change.

Both of those arguments gave the United States an outsize role at the epicenter of an unfolding story that most experts, and a great many Iranians who talked to pollsters, said was actually not about America at all; it was about Iran and its own problems, notably a highly disputable vote count and the performance of its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

“We have to be a little humble about our understanding about what’s going on in Iran,” said R. Nicholas Burns, who was a State Department under secretary for President Bush. “There’s been massive disappointment in Ahmadinejad’s stewardship over the years.”

Even so, something else was also at play: the wistful comments of many Iranian protesters who dreamed of better relations with the world. That strand of thought, however slender among the other huge issues, was evident at the protest demonstrations on behalf of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s principal challenger, Mir Hussein Moussavi. Sign after sign at his rallies was emblazoned: “A new greeting to the world.”

“Behind closed doors, most Iranian officials have long recognized that the ‘death to America’ culture of 1979 is bankrupt, and that Iran will never achieve its enormous potential as long as relations with the United States remain adversarial,” said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He and others argue that many Iranian pragmatists and moderates believe that their country in 2009 is facing a now-or-never moment.

“If Tehran’s hardliners are incapable of making nice with an American president named Barack Hussein Obama who preaches mutual respect and wishes them a happy Nowruz, it’s pretty obvious the problem is in Tehran, not Washington,” Mr. Sadjadpour said.

During the Bush years, Iran’s regime was able to coalesce support by uniting the country against a common enemy: President Bush, who called Iran a pillar of the “axis of evil” in a speech that alienated many of the very reformers whom the United States was trying to woo. For much of his administration, even as he strengthened Iran by toppling Iran’s nemesis Saddam Hussein, Mr. Bush struck a confrontational public line against the Iranian regime.

The result, according to many experts here and in Iran, was that Iranians, including reformers, swallowed their criticism of the hard-line regime and united against the common enemy. Iranians with reformist sympathies even began advising Americans to stop openly supporting them, lest that open them to attack as pawns of America.

Mr. Obama seemed to be taking that kind of advice to heart last week — to a fault, perhaps, as even some Democratic allies said. He kept his remarks about the Iranian election so cool and detached that Republicans quickly attacked him as showing weakness in the defense of democracy.

On the other hand, he had already put in play a tool that the reformists could use in their internal debate — the notion that this could be the best time in many years in which to seek better relations with America.

Even before he was elected, Mr. Obama struck a conciliatory note towards Iran, saying that the idea of not talking to adversaries was “ridiculous.” And while the substance of his Iran policy does not vary that much from Mr. Bush’s — the United States still seeks to rein in Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, still criticizes Iran’s support for militant Islamist organizations, still allies itself staunchly with Israel — he has taken pains to flavor that policy with different atmospherics.

He has offered direct talks between his administration and the Iranian regime, without preconditions. He has videotaped a message directly for the Iranian people, on the celebration of Nowruz, the 12-day holiday that marks the new year in Iran. In the video, with subtitles in Persian, he directed his comments not just to the Iranian people but to Iran’s leaders, and referred to Iran as “the Islamic Republic,” further flagging a willingness to deal with the clerical government. He even went so far as to quote from the vaunted Persian poet Saadi, dead for 700 years now.

Mr. Obama has also removed the ban against American diplomats around the world consorting with their Iranian counterparts. And in his Cairo address June 4, he accepted responsibility for America’s part in the enmity between the United States and Iran.

“In the middle of the cold war, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government,” Mr. Obama said — a reference to the 1953 coup in which an Iranian prime minister, under whom Iran had nationalized its oil industry, was overthrown and the now-despised Shah was restored to power.

The response to Mr. Obama’s overtures from the Iranian alliance of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad has been, largely, silence.

But Afshin Molavi, an Iran expert at the New America Foundation, said that the vast majority of Iranians today want better relations with the United States, and middle-class Iranians in particular, he said, were hoping that the Iranian regime would capitalize on Mr. Obama’s much talked about unclenched fist.

Even though Mr. Moussavi shared the leadership’s commitment to Iran’s nuclear program, many middle-class Iranians believed that he would be better able than Mr. Ahmadinejad to strike a warmer relationship with Mr. Obama, said Mr. Molavi, author of “Persian Pilgrimages: Journeys Across Iran” (Norton). “When the election results were announced, for the Iranian middle class, it was not only an insult and an injustice, but it dashed their hopes for a U.S.-Iran rapprochement and told them that they would continue to be isolated in the world.”

In his campaign, Mr. Moussavi used many tactics that echoed Mr. Obama’s. He pledged to re-engage politically with the United States; he used posters of himself and his wife side by side, and he hired a young chief strategist who said he looked to the Obama campaign for ideas. Mr. Moussavi, like Mr. Obama, even used social networks on the Internet to campaign. And once the count was in, his supporters found new uses for the networks in their uniquely Iranian fight.

[FaithInOne]

Seeing as how we are all Citizens of the World... :lmao

[Winehole23]

Mr. Obama has also removed the ban against American diplomats around the world consorting with their Iranian counterparts.Which you said projected weakness, and which soi disant conservatives said amounted to coddling dictators.

Which is it, Darrin? Was the extended hand a leg up for reformers or *Ahmadinekoolaid*? You can't have it both ways.


And in his Cairo address June 4, he accepted responsibility for America’s part in the enmity between the United States and Iran.This meant something to Iranians. You denigrated it as part of a guilty minded *apology tour*.

Changed your mind, have you?

[DarrinS]

Which you said projected weakness, and which soi disant conservatives said amounted to coddling dictators.

Which is it, Darrin? Was the extended hand a leg up for reformers or *Ahmadinekoolaid*? You can't have it both ways.

This meant something to Iranians. You denigrated it as part of a guilty minded *apology tour*.

Changed your mind, have you?



I pretty much acknowledged yesterday that Obama's words may have inspired Iranians.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3476422&postcount=100

I even pointed out the same youtube message to Iranians that was sited in the NYT article.

Of course, I was called an idiot for saying this as it had "nothing to do with America". Now this same logic is the premise of the article.

Maybe I have changed my mind. Still, I don't think Obama should go out of his way to blame America for all the world's ills.

[DarrinS]

I'm more than willing to give Obama credit where credit is due, but I do think there have been numerous missteps.

[MannyIsGod]

Not a single person here doesn't have a problem with many of the things Obama has done. Even the staunchest Obama supporters new they were going to be dissapointed in several way when he was in office. It was inevitable.

[ChumpDumper]

No shit. I do enjoy watching the flip-flopping though. "Maybe Obama did some good, but I still hate him for it."

[Winehole23]

I'm more than willing to give Obama credit where credit is dueActually, damn near the whole board flamed you for two straight days before you caved.

[LnGrrrR]

Seeing as how we are all Citizens of the World... :lmao

Ah, so you weren't a fan of Ronald Reagan huh? :D

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=42644

[DarkReign]

Did you really think you could come in here and have a rational, adult conversation on this topic? Liberals are quite reasonable, so long as you agree with them.

Thats not even remotely true. I am no liberal, nor conservative, but you approach all your topics and conversations with predetermined biases just like everyone else you claim to be irrational.

Youre just as, if not worse than the people here you seem to despise.

You lack an open mind, you have the world figured out. When someone claims to have a) the answer to everything or B) can regularly identify the wrong approach without equivocation, this speaks to irrationality.

[SnakeBoy]

Hilarious. This speech is from 2003 or so, isn't it? It's Wilsonian idealism and liberal interventionism at its best.

Really? They grew stronger in the wake of the first war *to make the world safe for democracy*. Was that a coincidence?

Forget self determination. Democracy was *a gift we gave them*

Utopianism. This unicorn ride isn't any more credible than Mr. Obama's.

Except if you vote for Hamas.

Not only did George Bush believe in nation building, he believed it is our duty to remake the whole world in our image.

What's so conservative about that?

Let's make Egypt have free elections, so they can propel the Muslim Brotherhood to power.

Unless, like Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and Egypt, they are allied with us. Then it's ok.

Bold.

:lol

We should try that here. Seriously.

Again, we need more of this here.

If repressed ME nations are permitted to vote for the those who would free them from their oppressors, this could be even more true in the future.

Was it reckless for Reagan to allow AQ Khan to develop nukes and to hide it from Congress? Why did we do that?

The prevalence of total, nation killing wars in the 20th and 21st centuries tends to refute this.

A fool's errand, conservatives used to say.

God is on our side.

This is hubris, y'all. Pride ever goeth before a fall...

All good stuff WH but how do you respond to the parts of the speech (bolded) which can used to take credit for what's happening in Iran now.




Our politics is nothing more today than a duopoly of two progressive parties, each extending the state into every nook and cranny of our lives when their members have the opportunity.


Very true but on foreign policy they have quite different marketing strategies for why we have to blow shit up. Neocons on the right go for the patriotic angle, anything that inspires chants of USA! USA! Neocons on the left use compassion to justify it. How many Neda's will it take before the left starts saying we have to do something?

[Winehole23]

All good stuff WH but how do you respond to the parts of the speech (bolded) which can used to take credit for what's happening in Iran now. I don't see how any of those emboldened Iranians to take to the streets six years later. Sorry.

[DarrinS]

Thats not even remotely true. I am no liberal, nor conservative, but you approach all your topics and conversations with predetermined biases just like everyone else you claim to be irrational.

Youre just as, if not worse than the people here you seem to despise.

You lack an open mind, you have the world figured out. When someone claims to have a) the answer to everything or B) can regularly identify the wrong approach without equivocation, this speaks to irrationality.



Welcome to two days ago. I only despise maybe two people on this board. For one of them, his/her only goal in life seems to be to discredit other posters and he/she doesn't contribute much of anything else to a discussion.


As for my lack of an open mind, I really don't know what you're talking about. I have since changed my opinion about how Obama handled this situation. Not so much for particular comments made by any other posters here, but more so because Obama did take a more critical stance, something I predicted would happen. Also because the supreme leader had already suggested western media were "meddling" in their affairs.


If it makes you feel better to "pile on", good for you.


Good luck with that Michigan economy.

[DarkReign]

Welcome to two days ago.

...

If it makes you feel better to "pile on", good for you.

I wasnt a part of "2 days ago", whatever that means. I'll try and keep up on the ST political forum drama next time, I promise.



Good luck with that Michigan economy.

Blow me.

[DarrinS]

I wasnt a part of "2 days ago", whatever that means. I'll try and keep up on the ST political forum drama next time, I promise.



ok



Blow me.


CumDumper -- has mouth, will travel.


Or is it ChumpDumper? Regardless, he's your tranny.

[Winehole23]

Regardless, he's your trannyYou say that like it's a bad thing.

[DarrinS]

you say that like it's a bad thing.

lol

[Winehole23]

CumDumper -- has mouth, will travel. Everybody has a mouth.

[DarrinS]

Everybody has a mouth.


Are you hitting the Chardonnay again? Just kidding.

[Winehole23]

Are you hitting the Chardonnay again?I'm not a big chardonnay guy, unless it's champagne or white burgundy.