from the Arab News today:
Everyone says that this is the first free elections in Iraq for fifty years. That is another lie. There has never been one single free election in the long history of the Arabs ever. This is the first one.It took the Americans to conduct it and force it down the throats of dictators, terrorists, exploding deranged humans, and odds as big as the distance between the USA and the Middle East.
British guns and soldiers were in the area for so long yet did not care to look at the people.
They waltzed with people Gerty and Lawrence (their colonial spies) baptized and were happy to see the nations slip into slavery.
Likewise, the French could not bring themselves to see that the Arabs were good enough to cast a vote. And even when it happened in Algeria, the French orchestrated a putsch to annul it.
On Sunday America vindicated itself to all doubters, including me. They delivered on the promise of an election, so I am sure they will deliver on the promise of withdrawal.
RTWT.
He celebrated by going to a McDonalds?!? Oy. I guess a shot of Jack Daniels was out of the question.
Nice to see this in a Saudi paper, though. Wonder if our friend the author is a Shi'ite....
Don't know, but he has a commentary article in the Arab News every Thursday (just before the holy day).
Every now and then, you really got to hand it to the Arab News. That's the difference between them and the New York Times.
We should keep in mind that if President Bush is successful, he will have touched off a revolution in the Middle East. And I, for one, do not expect showers of praise from many of the recipients of that change. The ensuing battles for the hearts and souls of the Arab world will probably be good for democracy -- but it will be a roiling, unstable process whose pain will likely be blamed on the US.
Bring it on.
Aren't the arab states (except Syria) the satelites of the US just as Eastern Europe was to the USSR? Don't see why you would want a democratic arabia
"Aren't the arab states (except Syria) the satelites of the US just as Eastern Europe was to the USSR?"
The short answer is "no."
John at Crossroads Arabia has some perspective on Dr. Al-Rasheed and Arab News here.
And no means yes
snicker
"Aren't the arab states (except Syria) the satelites of the US just as Eastern Europe was to the USSR? Don't see why you would want a democratic arabia"
Only if you have no idea how the Soviets in fact ruled their satellite states. Ask the people of Prague circa 1968. Sometimes i wonder if you lefties are completely ignorant of the history you quote so freely, or if its just childish hyperbole. Either way, a waste of time, which is why no-one takes you seriously in this country.
I could ask the people of Algeria in 92?
ps. I don't consider myself to be a lefty and it maybe childish hyperbole but i think the US has the same problem with the Middle East as the USSR had with Eastern Europe. Officially they are alies but in reality they see you as their greatest enemy
American tanks rolled into the streets of Algiers in 1992?
Openly, Syria 56 IIRC
Algeria is more like Poland. It was behind the curtain
Officially they are alies but in reality they see you as their greatest enemy
Are you sure you're not talking about the French?
Seriously, the states of Eastern Europe were not the "allies" of the Soviets, they were the vassals. Their governments took orders from Moscow (and had large numbers of Russian troops stationed withing their borders to enforce those orders--which is very different from the purpose of US troops in Iraq or even Saudi Arabia) in a way that no government currently takes orders from the US.
And Syria and Iran are not even "allies" of the US in name, never mind reality.
Really, the USSR/Europe comparison isn't hyperbole, it's just utterly disconnected from historical reality.
Agreed, Rob.
a, your comments just don't match the historical facts. Syria was part of the Soviet sphere of influence, but not (as Rob notes) a vassal. Nevertheless, the US never invaded Syria -- not in 92 and not in 56.
This sounds a lot like the conspiracy theories that circulate and only slowly fade away. If you have specifics -- facts with details -- to the contrary, you are welcome to post them here. But your comments won't get a lot of respect or agreement unless you do....
You are right. It was lebanon in 58 they send marines to. Syria in 56 was just a CIA coup attempt.
Syria, Iran & libya are the Albania & Yugoslavia of the Middle East. I think it is quite clear that the others are "allies". You should also consider the question what Eastern Europe would have done in a case of WWIII. Would they really have fought with the sovjets or would they do what slovakia did in 1944?
Well, you could call Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi "allies," I suppose. But not great ones; mostly we bribe them not to make too much trouble. And you will find many Americans critical of our relatinship to those countries. Pakistan is a better example for you: certainly an ally, but with lots of anti-US sentiment in both the population and government.
But still none of them are under the direct control of our government the way that, say, the DDR or Communist Bulgaria were.
And I think it fairly likely that the armies of Eastern Europe would have fought alongside the Soviets in WWIII. The privileges of power which their Politburos and high military commands enjoyed would have been lost if the West were to win. Just like the Sunni commanders in Iraq.
The Eastern Block was not under direct control. Why else was the trade between them so lobsided against the USSR.
High civil servants don't have to fear goverment changes that much if their hands are reasonable clean which they were in Eastern Europe. And that is especially true if they were the persons that changed alliance to the winning group
Well, A, you've finally revealed yourself:
"The Eastern Block was not under direct [Soviet] control."
This statement says more about your ignorance and political procilivities than anything else could.
Your side lost the Cold War, dude. Your side will lose this one, too - and America will be the winner once again. Sucks to be you, I guess.
There is a difference between not being able to refuse a request and being under direct controle. Claims that Moscow micro managed Eastern Europe are simply untrue and i believe that Eastern Europe even refused requests from time to time.
ps Albania was a Warsaw pact member that left it in the sixties so i think i'm right when i claim that it wasn't under direct control of the USSR
High civil servants don't have to fear goverment changes that much...
Well, that's no doubt true if you're talking about the bean counters at the Agricultural Ministry. But they aren't the ones who decide which way the guns are going to point, are they?
And the generals who coups succeed are hero's (atleast until the next coup)
I also assumed that the goverment would change with a change of alliance but that isn't necesary. For examples see Yugoslavia and especially Albania during the cold war.