There has long been talk of what the Bush legacy would be, given the two wars. How would they be viewed given the fact that the were unpopular and for the wrong reasons. There was talk and writings of how this would help spread democracy accross the regions once the other countries in the ME saw what was possible.
Well, are we seeing the results now with all the other ME countries rebelling against dictators and seeking their own democracy?
if so, i’d say it was a very slow and staggeringly expensive way to achieve that goal.
-mike
Yeah but we can just print that money to pay back the war bill and like Krugman always says it will boost the economy, its a win-win-win.
Good point. I never said it was a perfect process 
oh god.
maybe i was also sorta talking about ‘expensive’ in terms of political capital, opportunity costs, and uh - lives lost.
not everything is a supporting argument for dismantling the federal reserve.
-mike
No, this is exactly what the Bushites were hoping/looking for. Not sure it’s a good thing though, because every one that topples creates a vacuum, and we have little idea or control over what fills that to become the new govt.
I was speaking with an african muslim last week, he told me that if anything, the iraq war slowed these changes. Conservatives in the ME could point to the awful bloody failure of democracy in Iraq as a warning. It seems to go both ways, though.
The guy I was talking to was Moroccan, he said they are not happy with their monarchy but it beats the shit out of whats going on in libya right now.
I’d say we had better wait a while before judging. There is a very real chance that the next 50 years will be more brutal and bloody than the last 50 years.
I have yet to see democracy break out anywhere. No votes scheduled in Egypt, military in charge. Afghanistan is ruled by puppet. Iraq ruled by a puppet. Maybe puppet states are the new democracy?
And since when do we consider Democracy to be a good thing? The founders of the United States certainly were not fond of it as a form of government.
No, this is exactly what the Bushites were hoping/looking for. Not sure it’s a good thing though, because every one that topples creates a vacuum, and we have little idea or control over what fills that to become the new govt.
Exactly, many times the popular vote does not bring about the government you hoped for. The political leadership of the Palestinians was democratically elected (any election rigging aside).
bingo -
if this is exactly what bush had hoped for, it’s an example of naivete and striking arrogance. toppling governments in that part of the world will lead to totally unpredictable results, and might actually be way worse than learning to accommodate a mostly-benevolent dictator.
-mike
Ah c’mon. Look how well it worked out.
Yeah but we can just print that money to pay back the war bill and like Krugman always says it will boost the economy, its a win-win-win.
Exactly, and the future of the US economy no longer relies on stealing from our children/grandchildren, but Africa & ME’s future population:
I thought unemployment checks boosted the economy?
This new math leaves me all fuzzy…
And since when do we consider Democracy to be a good thing? The founders of the United States certainly were not fond of it as a form of government.
Oh. Dear. God. This isn’t the we’re-a-constitutional-republic-not-a-democracy troll again? It’s the one troll I have no resistance against - sends me into seizures.
**Well, are we seeing the results now with all the other ME countries rebelling against dictators and seeking their own democracy? **
You can’t possibly link the invasion of countries with military force to what is happening in places like Libya or Egypt.
The invasion of Afghanistan was simply done to get OBL, full stop. We didn’t care about the Taliban or the people of Afghanistan until a few years later when it finally hit home that things were getting worse. If we really wanted to destroy the Taliban, we wouldn’t keep giving aid to Pakistan. That aid goes to the military and the military supports the Taliban so we are fighting the same group we are supporting. That’s the kind of circular logic you get when you invade countries where loyalty is to money or a warlord. So, the invasion had nothing to do with giving freedom to the people of Afghanistan.
Ditto for Iraq. Despite the rhetoric the U.S strategic interest was to get rid of Hussein and the possible threat that he possessed WMD. The idea that they went in for humanitarian or other reasons to help the people is just wrong.
The people over there understand this, the U.S does not go to war for other people, they go for their own strategic interest. The displays in Egypt, Yemen, Libya etc., result from the long standing dictators treatment of their people.
There are also numerous factions in those countries that are trying to consolidate power for their own interests so the idea that everyone will be united and a full fledged democracy will emerge is also wishful thinking. I
It will be a long time before we can see the results of what is happening now but given recent history, I would expect a lot more bad than good.
Disagree on Iraq, as my understanding at the time was the influence, of the much maligned by the left “Project for A New American Century”, in the GWB admin was great. I think “democratizing” Iraq was a major goal of the Iraq effort.
The United States must conduct] a foreign policy that boldly and
purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership
that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities.
Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power.
But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the
costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in
maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we
shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests.
The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to
shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they
become dire.
— From the Project’s founding Statement of Principles
—THE PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY—
1150 17
th
Street, N.W., Suite 510, Washington, D.C. 20036
www.newamericancentury.org
Telephone: (202) 293-4983 Fax: (202) 293-4572
Our long term interests also include the currency system
.