George W. Bush, MBA, US President, on Aug. 26, 2003 stated in his remarks to the 85th American Legion Convention: "Iraq's progress toward self-determination and democracy brings hope to other oppressed people in the region and throughout the world. It is the rise of democracy that tyrants fear and terrorists seek to undermine. The people who yearn for liberty and opportunity in countries like Iran and throughout the Middle East are watching and they are praying for our success in Iraq." Aug. 26, 2003 - George W. Bush, MBA* Donald H. Rumsfeld, former U.S. Secretary of Defense, on May 27, 2003 stated in his op/ed, "Core Principles for a Free Iraq," published in the Wall Street Journal: "For if Iraq--with its size, capabilities, and resources--is able to move to the path of representative democracy, the impact in the region and the world could be dramatic. Iraq could conceivably become a model--proof that a moderate Muslim state can succeed in the battle against extremism taking place in the Muslim world today. The transition to democracy will take time and may not always be a smooth road. In Central and Eastern Europe, the process has taken time, but it is succeeding." Bush stated that Iraqi democracy could fuel a revolution in the middle east where a represenative government will replace the totalitarian governments in place. Now we have what is called "the Arab spring". If these governments are replaced with extremist as in Iran , Bush will mostly be blamed for this. My question is , if representative secular governments take over in the middle east will Bush get credit for spreading democracy and freedom to a part of the world with none?Will GWB get a Nobel peace prize for establishing freedom in the middle east if the "Arab spring" turns out to be a success for democracy?I can't see msnbc or any leftist giving GWB any credit for anything positive. They would say bush was a failure and give all the credit to the dear leader Obama.
The democratic iraq envisioned by Bush has not yet emerged and when we leave it will collapse back into strongman rule, this time by a islamist instead of a secular dictator. The war was a mistake and a colossal clusterfugg that removed the only regional counterbalance to Iran. Bush continues to get credit for Iraq. It is his legacy. Bush has zero to do with the Arab spring and neither does Obama. That is a internal matter that the arabs started. We just have to deal with it.
If Iraq does remain a democracy and doesn't revert back to a dictatorship bush's legacy will not be what many think it is today. I know if is a big word. But it still remains, if Iraq continues to remain a democracy and democracy spreads across much of the Muslim world, bush will be seen as a visionary that spread democracy throughout the middle east. If democracy fails then , fairly or not ,bush will be seen as the American president that helped Iran dominate the region.
IMO, the shia are licking their chops right about now. I could be wrong, I hope I'm wrong. The only thing that "might" hold them back is while they hold an overwhelming majority in population of Iraq, they are also some poor sumbitches. The Sunni money may win out but God help them if it doesn't.
You don't think that the Shia and Sunni will be able to live together? Is civil war inevitable? It sounds like you have first hand experience of the situation. I know that the Sunni is the minority but ruled the country. Is this where the hatred comes from or is it seated in religious diffrences. Do they really hate each other that much and how much of it is just for political power.
Yes. It took the iron boot of Saddam to keep a lid on Iraq for three decades. They will fight until another ruthless strongman takes over and clamps down on all dissent.
Bush will get credit, but that's because people believe what they want to believe despite evidence to the contrary.
No, think cobras and mongeese. (is that right? ) That is a really tough one. It all depends on the $$ and who is in control. I've seen a lil bit See the above mentioned answer to "do you think they can live together"? The sunni are much better off mostly because of saddam. Red is absolutely correct, the country was kept in check because he didn't eff around. If you even thought about rising up your ass got took, and in a bad way. Sunni villages were always nice and well kept. The luxuries, you know like water, power, space, play grounds for the kids. The shia .... yeah well not so much. We had on village in our AO that had damn near 1 million people ( around 850k or so) living in a 20 block area. There were families on top of families on top of families. We sunk a bradley to the turret in 100% raw sewage in the middle of town. Make no mistake, the shia feel they are owed and it will take many a generation if ever to get it out of the fabric of their souls. If they have a sliver of a chance at payback I'd lay my shillings on them taking it.
