The Arab's Berlin Wall has Crumbled

Bodacious

Newbie
Joined
Nov 22, 2004
Messages
1,052
Reaction score
0
Source

The Arabs' Berlin Wall has crumbled
By Mark Steyn

Three years ago - April 6 2002, if you want to rummage through the old Spectators in the attic - I wrote: "The stability junkies in the EU, UN and elsewhere have, as usual, missed the point. The Middle East is too stable. So, if you had to pick only one regime to topple, why not Iraq? Once you've got rid of the ruling gang, it's the West's best shot at incubating a reasonably non-insane polity. That's why the unravelling of the Middle East has to start not in the West Bank but in Baghdad."

I don't like to say I told you so. But, actually, I do like to say I told you so. What I don't like to do is the obligatory false self-deprecatory thing to mitigate against the insufferableness of my saying I told you so. But nevertheless I did.

Consider just the past couple of days' news: not the ever more desperate depravity of the floundering "insurgency", but the real popular Arab resistance the car-bombers and the head-hackers are flailing against: the Saudi foreign minister, who by remarkable coincidence goes by the name of Prince Saud, told Newsweek that women would be voting in the next Saudi election. "That is going to be good for the election," he said, "because I think women are more sensible voters than men."

Four-time Egyptian election winner - and with 90 per cent of the vote! - President Mubarak announced that next polling day he wouldn't mind an opponent. Ordering his stenographer to change the constitution to permit the first multi-choice presidential elections in Egyptian history, His Excellency said the country would benefit from "more freedom and democracy". The state-run TV network hailed the president's speech as a "historical decision in the nation's 7,000-year-old march toward democracy". After 7,000 years on the march, they're barely out of the parking lot, so Mubarak's move is, as they say, a step in the right direction.

Meanwhile in Damascus, Boy Assad, having badly overplayed his hand in Lebanon and after months of denying that he was harbouring any refugee Saddamites, suddenly discovered that - wouldja believe it? - Saddam's brother and 29 other bigshot Baghdad Baathists were holed up in north-eastern Syria, and promptly handed them over to the Iraqi government.

And, for perhaps the most remarkable development, consider this report from Mohammed Ballas of Associated Press: "Palestinians expressed anger on Saturday at an overnight suicide bombing in Tel Aviv that killed four Israelis and threatened a fragile truce, a departure from former times when they welcomed attacks on their Israeli foes."

No disrespect to Associated Press, but I was disinclined to take their word for it. However, Charles Johnson, whose Little Green Footballs website has done an invaluable job these past three years presenting the ugly truth about Palestinian death-cultism, reported that he went hunting around the internet for the usual photographs of deliriously happy Gazans dancing in the street and handing out sweets to celebrate the latest addition to the pile of Jew corpses - and, to his surprise, couldn't find any.

Why is all this happening? Answer: January 30. Don't take my word for it, listen to Walid Jumblatt, big-time Lebanese Druze leader and a man of impeccable anti-American credentials: "I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, eight million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world. The Berlin Wall has fallen."

Just so. Left to their own devices, the House of Saud - which demanded all US female air-traffic controllers be stood down for Crown Prince Abdullah's flight to the Bush ranch in Crawford - would stick to their traditional line that Wahhabi women have no place in a voting booth; instead, they have to dress like a voting booth - a big black impenetrable curtain with a little slot to drop your ballot through. Likewise, Hosni Mubarak has no desire to take part in campaign debates with Hosno Name-Recognition. Boy Assad has no desire to hand over his co-Baathists to the Great Satan's puppets in Baghdad.

But none of them has much of a choice. In the space of a month, the Iraq election has become the prism through which all other events in the region are seen.

Assad's regime knocks off a troublemaker in Lebanon. Big deal. They've done it a gazillion times. But this time the streets are full of demonstrators demanding an end to Syrian occupation.

A suicide bomber kills four Jews. So what's new? But this time the Palestinians decline to celebrate. And some even question whether being a delivery system for plastic explosives is really all life has to offer, even on the West Bank.

Mubarak announces the arrest of an opposition leader. Like, who cares? The jails are full of 'em. But this time Condi Rice cancels her visit and the Egyptian government notices that its annual cheque from Washington is a month late.

Three years ago, those of us in favour of destabilising the Middle East didn't have to be far-sighted geniuses: it was a win/win proposition. As Sam Goldwyn said, I'm sick of the old clichés, bring me some new clichés. The old clichés - Pan-Arabism, Baathism, Islamism, Arafatism - brought us the sewer that led to September 11. The new clichés could hardly be worse. Even if the old thug-for-life had merely been replaced by a new thug-for-life, the latter would come to power in the wake of the cautionary tale of the former.

But some of us - notably US deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz - thought things would go a lot better than that. Wolfowitz was right, and so was Bush, and the Left, who were wrong about the Berlin Wall, were wrong again, the only difference being that this time they were joined in the dunce's corner of history by far too many British Tories. No surprise there. The EU's political establishment doesn't trust its own people, so why would they trust anybody else's? Bush trusts the American people, and he's happy to extend the same courtesy to the Iraqi people, the Syrian people, the Iranian people, etc.

Prof Glenn Reynolds, America's Instapundit, observes that "democratisation is a process, not an event". Far too often, it's treated like an event: ship in the monitors, hold the election, get it approved by Jimmy Carter and the UN, and that's it. Doesn't work like that. What's happening in the Middle East is the start of a long-delayed process. Eight million Iraqis did more for the Arab world on January 30 than 7,000 years of Mubarak-pace marching.

Thoughts? Iraq war still not justified?
 
Actually, reading that was pretty beautiful. Love it. :thumbs:
 
Bodacious said:
Source



Thoughts? Iraq war still not justified?

I love the title "Arab's" lol, I hear they like being called that :dozey: .

That's great stuff there but no, the war is not justified. It won't be justifiable until we are out of there and Iraq is on their own. Despite President Bush standing on an aircraft carrier beneath the banner "Mission Accomplished" it is not accomplished. Only when we are gone can we look back and decide if it is justified.

You cannot possibly justify a war that is not over.
 
' the West's best shot at incubating a reasonably non-insane polity. That's why the unravelling of the Middle East has to start not in the West Bank but in Baghdad."

common sense really if your going to liberate a country as one of your motives, but what the hell is a polity? :/ and still why seemingly randomly bomb the crap out of Baghdad, so many civilians where killed or hurt by the super accurate targetting techniques. Its intervention for a multiple purpose objective, this being a truthful media focal point, but the other 'capitalist' and 'economic' motives should be stated atleast. oh no wait, that might sound too unethical and immoral.
 
clarky003 said:
common sense really if your going to liberate a country as one of your motives, but what the hell is a polity? :/ and still why seemingly randomly bomb the crap out of Baghdad. Its intervention for a multiple purpose objective, this being a truthful media focal point, but the other economic motives should be stated atleast. oh no wait, that might sound too unethical and immoral.

But teh war is teh Just!fi!ed!
 
Color me cynical, but it seems a bit odd that the leaders of these countries are all of a sudden sucking up and calling themself democratic. Democracy doesn't start from the top down, it starts from the bottom up. To me, Egypt and Saudi Arabia seem to be saying "Hey America! Look at me, I'm democratic, no need to stop by!" when in reality nothing has changed. Just because a country has an election doesn't make it democratic. The war in Iraq has suceeded in one sense, it freak the Middle East out... but not enough for the leaders to give up their power. If the war has had any positive effect in terms of spreading democracy, it is far too premature to call it another Berlin Wall. Remember, Communism had already completely crumbled from the inside when the wall fell... today we are at best chipping away from the outside.
 
umm thanks, lol.. although the browser isnt liking that site. so ill just check my universal dicitonary ;).
 
I'm not really seeing any indication that the Iraq war is the cause of these myriad events. Whoever wrote the article didn't really prove that point either. He just had one quote from a guy, and that was about it.

As nice as it would be if Iraq did have all these unexpected benefits, I don't see how he jumped to conclusions like the palestinian/israeli peace thing being a direct result, other than the timeframe.
 
Mechagodzilla said:
I'm not really seeing any indication that the Iraq war is the cause of these myriad events. Whoever wrote the article didn't really prove that point either. He just had one quote from a guy, and that was about it.

As nice as it would be if Iraq did have all these unexpected benefits, I don't see how he jumped to conclusions like the palestinian/israeli peace thing being a direct result, other than the timeframe.

Agreed, but americans have a hard-on for themselves (ya im american) and think that anything good is a direct result of our intervention. Look at the guy who posted this "Arab's" it's like we gave the middle east the blessing of the US intervention and miraculously all is well.
 
kmack said:
I love the title "Arab's" lol, I hear they like being called that :dozey: .

Is arab racist or something? So if someone calls me American or white I should look upon them in disdain?

That's great stuff there but no, the war is not justified. It won't be justifiable until we are out of there and Iraq is on their own. Despite President Bush standing on an aircraft carrier beneath the banner "Mission Accomplished" it is not accomplished. Only when we are gone can we look back and decide if it is justified.

You cannot possibly justify a war that is not over.


Thanks for your input.
 
Bush admin made it clear WMD was the justification for war ..they didnt find any and have been attempting to use one weak excuse after another to justify their actions ..it's a complete reversal of their initial excuse .."we killed you through sanctions for 12 years just so you can be free" ..propaganda nonsense ..conservative rallying ..what-have-you ..it still doesnt negate the fact you destroyed a nation for selfish gain


For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz May 28, 2003
 
CptStern said:
Bush admin made it clear WMD was the justification for war ..they didnt find any and have been attempting to use one weak excuse after another to justify their actions ..it's a complete reversal of their initial excuse .."we killed you through sanctions for 12 years just so you can be free" ..propaganda nonsense ..conservative rallying ..what-have-you ..it still doesnt negate the fact you destroyed a nation for selfish gain


For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz May 28, 2003

ya, but conservatives can point to the fact that in the bill (passed by congress) we stated that we went to war not only for WMD's but to liberate the people. Though far and away the main reason for public (and political?) support was the fact that our President said there were WMDs in Iraq. We now know that there were no WMDs there, but we can still liberate the people!
 
kmack said:
ya, but conservatives can point to the fact that in the bill (passed by congress) we stated that we went to war not only for WMD's but to liberate the people. Though far and away the main reason for public (and political?) support was the fact that our President said there were WMDs in Iraq. We now know that there were no WMDs there, but we can still liberate the people!

Yeah, kind of like how a couple of weeks ago I was looking for a parking space, and a friend of mine was in the car with me. I saw an open spot, and at the same time, a couple of girls were walking by that spot. My friend said to me, "Dude you were staring at their asses!" To which I replied, "well actually I was looking for a parking spot... that was just a fringe benefit." The difference? I found what I was looking for.
 

The full word being Arabian.

Agreed, but americans have a hard-on for themselves (ya im american) and think that anything good is a direct result of our intervention. Look at the guy who posted this "Arab's" it's like we gave the middle east the blessing of the US intervention and miraculously all is well.

That means you have a hard-on now, right? I mean, you intervened championing yourself with a heros merit -- c'mon, you know people are going to see that tent somewhere.

don't see how he jumped to conclusions like the palestinian/israeli peace thing being a direct result, other than the timeframe.

He was conveying that Israelis and Palestinians are beginning to tire of this conflict. He would've been better writing that sentence I just provided you.
 
K e r b e r o s said:
He was conveying that Israelis and Palestinians are beginning to tire of this conflict. He would've been better writing that sentence I just provided you.


HAHAHA, yes obviously American intervention in Iraq made them begin to tire over a conflict that has been raging for THOUSANDS of years.
 
Umm, reading my sentence over, and seeing how you perpetrated it as having to do with Iraq; makes the mind boggle.

Where did you get Iraq from Palestine and Israel?
 
kmack said:
HAHAHA, yes obviously American intervention in Iraq made them begin to tire over a conflict that has been raging for THOUSANDS of years.

The Israeli-Palastinean conflict has only been around for about a half a century. Israel didn't exist until it was created by the western powers from Palastinean land after World War II. Now the Muslim-Western culture conflict has been on going since the dark ages. Is that what you refering to?
 
K e r b e r o s said:
Umm, reading my sentence over, and seeing how you perpetrated it as having to do with Iraq; makes the mind boggle.

Where did you get Iraq from Palestine and Israel?

Whoever wrote the article is attributing the recent peace between Israel and Palestine (amoung other things) as being a result of the elections of Iraq.
He didn't present any justification as to why that would be the case though.

So you're right, it doesn't make sense to link the two.
 
Whoever wrote the article is attributing the recent peace between Israel and Palestine (amoung other things) as being a result of the elections of Iraq.

Maybe the Pals need to worry now that once the Iraq situation is cleared up, the US might decide to more openly support Isreal by rolling in US tanks and demolishing the Pal. terror system.

Not necessicarily true, but if I was a dictator of any kind/terrorist supporting nation I would have a lot more sleepless nights then I did before the US invaded Iraq. Countries can no longer bank on the idea that the US will stay out of it.
 
Of course, they (not just palestine, but other 'terrorist' nations) may also realize that we cannot overextend ourselves. A large portion of our army and money is in Iraq right now, and we cannot feasibly support another large scale invasion.

And we have always openly supported Israel, it was part of the reason (according to Osama Bin Laden) that we were attacked on 9/11.
 
staticprimer said:
The Israeli-Palastinean conflict has only been around for about a half a century. Israel didn't exist until it was created by the western powers from Palastinean land after World War II. Now the Muslim-Western culture conflict has been on going since the dark ages. Is that what you refering to?

Um, you realize that it is the war is between Muslims and Jews. And that conflict has gone on four a few thousand years now. Palestine was inhabited since about 10,000 years ago, The jewish settlements are relatively recent but the ongoing conflict is one between jew and muslims (not muslims and the "west") . If you don't know what you are talking about, it would serve you best not to talk.
 
I was referring to the conflict occurring today, which is a direct result of the creation of Israel. Just because the two sides have always been at odds does not mean they have always been fighting. Muslims (more the radical side today) have been at odds with Christianity for over a thousand years, but they haven't always been fighting. The point is, the fighting between the Jews and Muslims has escalated in the last half century because of the creation of Israel. Before that, the fighting wasn't as pronounced. And I do believe they concider the Jews as part of the west, its more of a culture thing than a regional.
 
staticprimer said:
Yeah, kind of like how a couple of weeks ago I was looking for a parking space, and a friend of mine was in the car with me. I saw an open spot, and at the same time, a couple of girls were walking by that spot. My friend said to me, "Dude you were staring at their asses!" To which I replied, "well actually I was looking for a parking spot... that was just a fringe benefit." The difference? I found what I was looking for.


:LOL: :LOL: :LOL:
beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeyewtiful
 
kmack said:
Um, you realize that it is the war is between Muslims and Jews. And that conflict has gone on four a few thousand years now. Palestine was inhabited since about 10,000 years ago, The jewish settlements are relatively recent but the ongoing conflict is one between jew and muslims (not muslims and the "west") . If you don't know what you are talking about, it would serve you best not to talk.

Ummmm do you realize that Islam was founded by Mohamed in 622 AD?

Jewish settlements relatively recent? Israel has been inhabited by Jews for thousands of years.

The conflict is between muslims and anyone not muslim, largely because of the racist and vile hatred Islam has for all non muslims (infidels).

If you would get your head out of CNN or listen and learn beyond what your communist public education teachers provided you, it would allow you to see why things are the way they are.
 
Scoobnfl said:
Ummmm do you realize that Islam was founded by Mohamed in 622 AD?

Jewish settlements relatively recent? Israel has been inhabited by Jews for thousands of years.

The conflict is between muslims and anyone not muslim, largely because of the racist and vile hatred Islam has for all non muslims (infidels).

If you would get your head out of CNN or listen and learn beyond what your communist public education teachers provided you, it would allow you to see why things are the way they are.


Muslims don't hate non-Muslims, Muslim terrorists hate non-Muslims, get it right.

And the war will be justified when Coalition troops are out of Iraq and Iraq is standing tall on their own.
 
Razor said:
Muslims don't hate non-Muslims, Muslim terrorists hate non-Muslims, get it right.

And the war will be justified when Coalition troops are out of Iraq and Iraq is standing tall on their own.

No, that would be a good outcome of the war, the justification is at the beginning, and that is still dodgy (WMD's).
 
Grey Fox said:
This is what happend the last time americas politics were influenced by a domino theory.


you got it a lil wrong. the domino effect was communism spreading through asia and us trying to stop it. we prevented it in thailand, singapore, s. korea etc........ unfortunate for vienam
 
too bad you had bomb cambodia to do it, not to mention open the door for pol pot's murderous regime
 
too bad you had bomb cambodia to do it, not to mention open the door for pol pot's murderous regime

Wrong wrong wrong - Pol Pots murderous regime was what happens when America is restrained from stopping communism and murderous tyrants by the do-gooding left. Not an example of what happens when it tries to stop them.

But America had to sit on the sidelines and do nothing with Cambodia because of the backlash from the Vietnam war. So don't blame the USA for that, or the bombing of Cambodia for causing the massacres of a COMMUNIST regime. They guys we were over there to stop in the first place.

And the bombing of Cambodia, was necessary given that the Vietcong were operating there. Let them have it as a safe haven? Hell no. Bomb them wherever they may go.
 
Calanen said:
And the bombing of Cambodia, was necessary given that the Vietcong were operating there. Let them have it as a safe haven? Hell no. Bomb them wherever they may go.

Wow, you really are a proper neo-con! Never met one before, you see, I'm a "neo-con virgin". Although, does this count because we're on the internet? It's a bit like having cyber and then saying you had sex
 
Calanen said:
And the bombing of Cambodia, was necessary given that the Vietcong were operating there. Let them have it as a safe haven? Hell no. Bomb them wherever they may go.

By that logic we should bomb the US, Great Britian, France, Germany, Spain (among other places), and nuke Iraq, because well, terrorists operate in each of those places in some form or another.
 
staticprimer said:
By that logic we should bomb the US, Great Britian, France, Germany, Spain (among other places), and nuke Iraq, because well, terrorists operate in each of those places in some form or another.

i disagree with the bombing..

we should send troops/police officers/mI5 agents/SAS there to arrest these people. (or kill)
 
Scoobnfl:
you got it a lil wrong. the domino effect was communism spreading through asia and us trying to stop it. we prevented it in thailand, singapore, s. korea etc........ unfortunate for vienam
Reply With Quote

the domino theory was that if vietnam fell to communism the rest of south asia would follow, well you lost, and still those other countries didn't fall to communism.

Calanen:
Wrong wrong wrong - Pol Pots murderous regime was what happens when America is restrained from stopping communism and murderous tyrants by the do-gooding left. Not an example of what happens when it tries to stop them.

But America had to sit on the sidelines and do nothing with Cambodia because of the backlash from the Vietnam war. So don't blame the USA for that, or the bombing of Cambodia for causing the massacres of a COMMUNIST regime. They guys we were over there to stop in the first place.

And the bombing of Cambodia, was necessary given that the Vietcong were operating there. Let them have it as a safe haven? Hell no. Bomb them wherever they may go.
Reply With Quote

And Ironicly it was the communist vietnamese who liberated cambodja form the khamear rouge.
 
the domino theory was that if vietnam fell to communism the rest of south asia would follow, well you lost

You only think the US lost because you don't understand their true goals. From a millitary standpoint, Vietnam was a huge sucess.
 
What were their true goals?

Genuinely intereted, I don't know a great deal about this war and it's pretty central to a lot of discussion so I'd like to know :)
 
What were their true goals?

Genuinely intereted, I don't know a great deal about this war and it's pretty central to a lot of discussion so I'd like to know

Freeing Vietnam would only have been a ancilliary accomplishment. In truth the goal was to weaken North Vietnam so much that it would not be able to sustain a push into neighboring nations. The North Vietnamese had a huge army, and the NVA were gathering at strategic points along the borders. This was how the NV would spead communism. Through outright invasions and coups. People often mistakenly think that the NK would spread communism by simply by idea alone. In truth they were poised to control the whole penninsula, with China to the North and the USSR bordering China. Basically it would have created one giant "communist zone". Which was the great fear of proponents of the domino theory. India would have been the next target creating a "united in principle" communist continent.

Anyway, with the goal in mind to stop the millitary expansion by NV, US forces proceeded to completely decimate the NVA, killing over a MILLION soldiers and seriously wounding 600,000 more, and totally wiping out the VC. NV was then left with a depleted army and infrustructure, requiring all of its resources simply to hold onto NV and maintain some order in SV.

From a purely millitary standpoint, Vietnam was one of the greatest victories ever. The US were killing them at a rate of 50-1. Goals are often more complex then they seem.
 
Back
Top