News Give credit where credit is due in the Middle East

[misskitty]

I hope that it doesn't last very much longer. Part of the reason of why I asked who had more postwar damage is because I think the government might try to predict a cost of reconstrustion for Iraq then over shoot the budget by a few zeros. We shall see.

 

[BobG]

Maybe Bush's Iraq invasion was more well-timed to capitalize on pro-democratic momentum in the Middle East rather than being the spark that started a pro-democratic movement.

This was the state of democracy in the Middle East in February of 2001, prior to 9/11, Afghanistan, etc. - The Fast Eat The Slow

Interesting comments about Al-Jazeera, as well. Prior to 9/11, Al-Jazeera was the little known hero of Arabic journalism, being the only semi-independent Arab TV station; the only Arabic TV station willing to broadcast information many of the Arab governments in the region didn't like. The first most of America heard about the Al-Jazeera was the Bin Laden tapes - one that definitely influenced our impression of the station - and their coverage of Afghanistan and Iraq post-9/11 hasn't done much to change our impression. Here's an article about Al-Jazeera, itself - In Defense of Aj-Jazeera.

 

[TsunamiJoe]

The Clinton administration was much worse than the Bush administration.

I take large offence to that statement, Clinton wasn't for warring with nations to promote his policies, he was a behind the scenes sort of guy, he helped influence saudi arabia, and peace in a multitude of other nations which still last today. The Crowned Prince of Saudi Arabia now believes in womens rights and has a distaste for war, whereas before, both him and his father controlled a country that had some of the fiersest terrorists known to man.

Also after the middle of the page i simply skimmed the rest of it so sorry if I am restating something here, but the US is very hard pressed about the israeli situation, because if they support the palistinians then we loose all of the support of the rest of the arab worlds(no christian nation will attack an arab nation situation) whereas we feel a connection with the palestinians through religion and don't wish to fight israel. Also Israel has the worlds second best trained army, so its not like we could just walk in and dominate.

Also this is a very touchy subject on our reasoning behind invading iraq, now personaly my view is that it was primarily to have a foothold in the oil industry in the middle east. Proof of which is evident in the fact that when we took baghdad where did we send our military? to the foreign officials buildings? not really, we sent them to the oil industry headquarters. Now don't get me wrong, saddam should have been taken out of power, but he should have been taken out of power the right way, we say WMDs, find none, ok now let's get another reason, something our intelligence agencies have been reporting on for years now, such as his chemical weapons testing? personaly i believe that would have brought a much swifter and peacefull end to his "regime".

Also our pre emptive strike policy, though i don't agree with it, is working. Syria has seen what we are doing, same with pakistan and many others, and they have been agreeing to take steps toward democracy and more rights for there people.

 

[kat]

Clinton wasn't for warring with nations to promote his policies, he was a behind the scenes sort of guy,

Heh. I won't say it..really I won't...Eeeee it hurts...