It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Iraq and the Domino Effect.

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 09:34 PM
Iraq has had democratic 'free' elections.
Palestinians held democratic 'free' elections.
Saudi Arabia held bogus elections.
Lebanon has demanded that Syria end its occupation.
Lebanon will have a democratic 'free' election this Spring (April, I believe).
And now Egypt has come under sway to having democratic styled elections:

CAIRO, Egypt - Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on Saturday ordered a revision of the country's election laws and said multiple candidates could run in the nation's presidential elections, a scenario Mubarak hasn't faced since taking power in 1981.

An open election has long been a demand of the opposition but was repeatedly rejected by the ruling party, with Mubarak only last month dismissing calls for reform as "futile."

The sudden shift was the first sign from the key U.S. ally that it was ready to participate in the democratic evolution in the Middle East, particularly historic elections in Iraq and the Palestinian territories. Mubarak's government has faced increasingly vocal opposition at home and growing friction with the United States over the lack of reform.

Egypt Leader Allows Opposition on Ballot

I guess that this too is Bush's fault?

Forget that....
As such, this is definately a surprise and indicates that what has debatably taken place in Iraq, has acted as a "domino effect." Will democracy increasingly take hold in the Middle East or is this just a temporary situation?

Great news, nonetheless. May it continue to spread and/or catch 'fire' within those moderate Arabs and Muslims seeking and yearning for a more democratic way of life.


[edit on 26-2-2005 by Seekerof]

posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 10:14 PM
I don't know Seekerof the middle east is still a dangerous place even for their own people, and for Iraq, well things has not settler down yet, so before we claim a "change" of hart, we better wait and see what is going to happen next.

What ever it comes from all the turmoil going on in the middle east is still going to be bloody and tragic.

Bombings, our soldiers still dying, It seems like business is still as usual.

[edit on 26-2-2005 by marg6043]

posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 10:17 PM
Change is never instantaneous, especially in regards to the Middle East.
Any and every small step in the proper direction is a good thing. No one claims that while on that road to change, that it will not be bumpy or bloody, but any change is better than no change.


[edit on 26-2-2005 by Seekerof]

posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 10:19 PM
What happens when all of the poor assed muslims that don't have a pot to pee in vote for the local firebrand?

Democratic elections are great and all, but the people need to have something real to vote for.

Real political reform will only come after econimic reform creates a large enough middle class to make democracy work.

[edit on 26-2-2005 by HowardRoark]

posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 10:24 PM
Having a tendency to agree HowardRoark, again, is not any change better than no change? Reform has to start somewhere, despite where we may think it should, agreed?


posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 11:08 PM
I think people need to realize that its going to take a while to make the transition from a dictatorship and rape rooms to a free and open democracy that seeks peace both at home and abroad. Had there been a Democrat in the White House right now doing the exact same thing, I'm sure many more people would have found this patience.

As a Republican who's moderate on some issues, I do feel as though there have been seriouse miscalculations and misjudgements when it came to the aftermath of the war. But that's the price you pay in war. It's easy to be Monday Morning Quarterback. I think the war itself was planned extremely well and went better than anyone could have hoped for. It's the peace after the fact that we must worry about now.

I just wish that all Americans, knowing that we went to war and we're there now with a mission to complete and a job to do, would stop their bickering and stand behind our troops and our goverment 100% in this endeavor. Haven't we learned the lessons of Vietnam? Let's leave now doubt in the minds of the men and women of our armed forces that we support them and support their mission entirely and that we shall see this through to the very end!

posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 11:51 PM
Well said. It is nice to see this view posted here.

I agree, but I don't see it so much as Dems vs. Reps as you have put it.

To me it is simply that the current admin could not publicly state that this was a large part of their intent. This left room for the howling protests from the media, largely fueled by other countries protests. (Due to their loss of income from their illegal activities; weapons and oil for food for example).

Some of the general public only look at the media hype, and not the larger view of the resulting impact from the actions. This shortsightedness left them with the wrong impression of the underlying intent behind the actions and room for imagining inappropriate and misguided intent.

This post may help to open some eyes. Good job guys.

[edit on 26-2-2005 by makeitso]

top topics


log in