As usual, it's BUSH'S FAULT

Democracy has come to Afghanistan.

Democracy has come to Iraq.

Democracy has come to the Palestinians.

Democracy is coming to Lebanon.

Syria will be out of Lebanon by May.

Egypt is making moves towards true democracy.

Iran's mullah's have flop sweat.

Saudi princes are looking over their shoulders.

Damn that fucking George W. Bush!!!!!

Peevishly yours,

FFF

If by "democracy"you mean control of these nations by the folks the oil companies and the cheney/shrub machine want to be puppets then that is correct.

If you mean true democracy then you are,as usual,wrong.

Just this week they annouunced that Afghanistan was on the verge of being a total narco-state. The people jockeying for power in Iraq are Iranian spies and sympathizers. Syria hasn't done anything yet except blow that guy up; Libya was trying to assasinate the Crown prince of Saudi Arabia. There is as yet no peace in the Middle East.

Pardon my naivete, but, what is flop sweat?

>Just this week they annouunced

Ah yes, THEY.

Thank you for building your rebuttal on a pronoun. Are "they" the same "they" that says you're an idiot?

Anonymously yours,

FFF

>If by "democracy"you mean control of these nations by the

>folks the oil companies and the cheney/shrub machine want to

>be puppets then that is correct.

>If you mean true democracy then you are,as usual,wrong.

(Why do I even bother?)

Are you really an idiot or do you just play one on the message boards?

8 million Iraqs went to the polls under threat of death and you want us to believe they were rushing to the polls so they can vote in representatives that will benefit American oil companies?

You're a regular geopolitical genius. Stick to hiring hookers and leave the running of the world to the professionals.

Incredulously yours,

FFF

>

>You're a regular geopolitical genius. Stick to hiring hookers

>and leave the running of the world to the professionals.

>

>Incredulously yours,

>

>FFF

Well, um, the 'professionals' have seemed to have done some 'hiring' themselves. Bulldog Jeff was fake press for a fake president.

Fairlawn Fairly Footer, I think it is a bit to soon to be tooting the Repiglican horn about the 'spreading democracy' in Middle East. What this will look like in 6 months from now is anybodys guess.

"They"

In this case, "they" are the people who President Bush asked to report on the subject.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050304.wafgh0304/BNStory/International/

I think it is way too early for anyone

to start blowing the victory trumpet.

Remember “Mission accomplished”. However, I

for one would be extremely happy if everything

you posted came to fruition. Unfortunately many

neocons think you can sprinkle some sort of

democratic “fairy dust”, have elections, and any

country, regardless of its history, will stand

hand-in-hand sing Kumbayah, and live democratically

ever after. Unfortunately it does not work that

way. While the seeds of democracy has been or is

being planted, at this point we do not know if it

will take hold. Regarding specifics:

Afghanistan: Lucky is correct that country is on

the verge of becoming a narco-state; moreover, the

Afghan government controls little more than Kabul.

The warlords (hardly democrats) still control many

parts of the country.

Iraq: Shi’ite fundamentalists were the big winners

in the recent election. There is still significant

terrorist activity – within the past week 115 Iraqis

were murdered by a bomber in Al Hillah, elsewhere a

top judge and his son were assassinated. U.S. deaths

in Iraq are at 1507 of which 1142 were the result of

hostile action – a high price to pay especially if the

result of Iraqi “democracy” is an anti-U.S. coalition

with their neighbor Iran.

The Palestinians: They may have elected a new leader,

but only because Arafat died. So unless the Bush

administration poisoned Arafat not sure he take

credit…did Bush’s policies have anything to do with

who/how the “new” Palestinian leaders was chosen - perhaps;

nonetheless, the “new” Palestinian leadership does not

seem to be able to stop suicide bombers in Israel any

better then Arafat – not sure if there is any real change.

Lebanon: Bush’s policies were a significant factor

(although Syria blowing up the former PM certainly

accelerated the situation); however, the Syrians have

not left yet, and a lot can happen between now and May.

Moreover, news reports state that Hezbollah is planning

pro-Syrian rallies in Beirut next week. I hope that

Syrian does pull out; however, I fear that after 15

years of peace there is a chance that the Lebanon might

return to civil war.

Egypt: sorry I do not see any significant changes

currently occurring there.

Iran: the mullah’s may have “flop sweat” but they

also may soon have nuclear weapons –a “reformer”

was democratically elected years ago – not much

reform though.

Saudi Arabia: the princes may be “looking over their

shoulders”, but neither the princesses, nor other Saudi

women are – because they have no voice and will not in the

foreseeable future – does not seem very democratic.

Sudan: you did not mention the Sudan in which its arab-muslim

leaders continue their genocide against the black Christian/animist

south. Little talk - no action from the Bush Administration.

Pakistan: what is the democratic trend is this ally?

North Korea: although outside of the Middle East, what is

the Bush administration’s success with this country which

(1) has a nuclear program

(2) probably has several nuclear bombs

(3) has missile technology/capability.

(4) within a few years North Korea will probably have the

ability to hit the western U.S. with a nuclear weapon.

Again I hope that democracy is established and grows

throughout the Middle East and the world. I hope that

the Bush administration’s Middle East policies are

hugely successful. Unfortunately, based on my experience

and knowledge of the region – and based on the facts

of the current situation – I see success as unlikely.

- Fisher

> Regarding specifics:

It's true that these countries aren't yet perfect bastions of harmony, peace, and love.

You point out some of the things that are still unsettled in these places, but how does the current situtation there compare to what these places were like pre-Bush?

Afghanistan, for instance, may have had marginally less opium production in 1999, but it also had free reign for Al Qaeda to run their nice little terrorist camps ummolested by anything. Now, there's still opium, but Osama bin Laden has to hide under a rock and Al Qaeda can't exactly train there unbothered. That's a pretty good development, don't you think?

As for Egypt, if you don't see any changes there, it's only because you're not reading any newspapers. The New York Times (that bastion of neoconservative propaganada), just today published an article entitled "Unexpected Whiff of Freedom Proves Bracing for the Middle East," the very first paragraph of which reported:

"The leaders of about half of Egypt's rickety opposition parties sat down for one of their regular meetings this week under completely irregular circumstances. In the previous few days, President Hosni Mubarak opened presidential elections to more than one candidate, and street demonstrators helped topple Lebanon's government.

The mood around the table in a battered downtown Cairo office veered between humor and trepidation, participants said, as they faced the prospect of fielding presidential candidates in just 75 days. "This is all totally new, and nobody is ready," said Mahmoud Abaza, deputy leader of the Wafd Party, one of Egypt's few viable opposition groups. "Sometimes even if you don't know how to swim you just have to dive into the water and manage. Political life will change fundamentally."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/06/international/middleeast/06mideast.html?hp&ex=1110085200&en=ed037f4802507fca&ei=5094&partner=homepage

The problem for liberals right now is that Bush is motivating true change in the Middle East. The left has no positive agenda for anything. You can criticize Bush and call him names and claim that the positive developments aren't perfect, but you have no alternative to the bold steps he has taken to change a region that had to be changed for our most vital security interests, and most people see that.

Only lacking Peace, harmony and love Dougie??

Reuters

No One Safe on Baghdad's Roads, Iraqis Say

Sat Mar 5, 1:55 PM ET

By Elizabeth Piper

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Jawdat Abd al-Kadhum was not surprised that U.S. troops opened fire at a car carrying a freed Italian hostage to safety. He lost a leg to an American bullet fired from a convoy traveling ahead of him.

The 23-year-old says fear, confusion and misunderstandings on all sides have made roads in Iraq (news - web sites)'s capital perilous. Now he says he makes sure that any car he is in stops when a U.S. military convoy transporting soldiers or equipment nears.

"There is no safety on the roads. Everyone should expect anything to happen on these roads. Foreigners, Iraqis we are all exposed to the same risks," said al-Kadhum, his left tracksuit trouser leg tied around the stump of his leg.

"Now if I see an American convoy, I stop until it has gone."

Many have a tale to tell of someone they know that has been shot at, killed or harassed by U.S. forces in convoys or at checkpoints dotted across the country.

And the love reflected in the faces of the citizens is heart warming.

>Pardon my naivete, but, what is flop sweat?

Flop sweat is nervous perspiration caused by a fear of failure before an audience. One of the earliest references is in the 1966 Jacqueline Susann book, Valley of the Dolls:

The applause had been deafening on her entrance, but after ten minutes the air was heavy with "flop sweat".

...Hoover

doug69 wrote

>The problem for liberals right now is that Bush is motivating

>true change in the Middle East. The left has no positive

>agenda for anything. You can criticize Bush and call him

>names and claim that the positive developments aren't perfect,

"The positive developments aren't perfect"...

Iraq is, so far, a disaster. All the enthusiasm is

about how y'all hope it will turn out, as if anyone

knew for sure. In the meantime there's no security

there, basic services are a shambles, and the USA

spends about $1 billion a week to be there.

Wait 10 years and then tell us about the positive developments.

>but you have no alternative to the bold steps he has taken to

>change a region that had to be changed for our most vital

>security interests, and most people see that.

OK, here's one alternative: use less imported oil.

Bush hasn't done as much to promote conservation

and alternative sources as he should have. Don't

underestimate how much of an effect that could have.

>OK, here's one alternative: use less imported oil.

But lemme guess: NO DRILLING IN ANWAR, right?

Intuitively yours,

FFF

FFF wrote

>>OK, here's one alternative: use less imported oil.

>

>But lemme guess: NO DRILLING IN ANWAR, right?

You guessed wrong. I support drilling there.

>FFF wrote

>

>>>OK, here's one alternative: use less imported oil.

>>

>>But lemme guess: NO DRILLING IN ANWAR, right?

>

>

>You guessed wrong. I support drilling there.

The mind reels.

Stupifidely yours,

FFF

And now THIS!!!

Where will it all end????

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2005-03-07T133854Z_01_DEN748623_RTRUKOC_0_KUWAIT-WOMEN.xml

Kuwaitis demonstrate for women's suffrage

Mon Mar 7, 2005 1:39 PM GMT

By Haitham Haddadin

KUWAIT (Reuters) - Around 500 Kuwaiti activists, mostly women, have demonstrated outside parliament to demand female suffrage amidst tensions in the Gulf Arab state over a government drive to grant women political rights.

"Women's rights now," chanted the crowd, which included women dressed in abayas, or traditional long black cloaks. Some of the demonstrators at Monday's protest wore veils over their faces.

"Our democracy will only be complete with women," said a placard written in Arabic. "We are not less, you are not more. We need a balance, open the door," said one written in English.

The crowd later attended a parliamentary session which approved a state request for a committee to speed up reviewing a bill allowing women to vote and run for parliament.

But the 50-man assembly, in which Islamists have a powerful bloc, did not set a date to discuss the draft law.

"In all Muslim countries from Indonesia to Morocco, voting and running for office are among women's rights but we in Kuwait alone say 'No' ... Is it possible that 1 billion Muslims are wrong and we in Kuwait are right," lawmaker Mohammed al-Saqr said to applause from female activists in the public gallery.

Kuwait's constitution stipulates gender equality. U.S-allied Kuwait proposed legislation last May allowing women to vote and run in parliamentary polls after a previous attempt in 1999 was shot down by Islamist and tribal lawmakers.

Kuwaiti newspapers said Prime Minister Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah had threatened to dissolve parliament if it failed to approve the latest bill.

At the session, lawmakers passed a municipal election law -- part of the broader bill -- without a government-proposed article to allow women to take part, setting back hopes for approval of wider women's suffrage.

But Sheikh Sabah vowed it would make no difference. "It has no bearing. We have big hopes the female suffrage draft will be approved," he told reporters after the session.

Mariam al-Jassar, a retired civil servant, said Islam did not deny women's rights.

"I am very optimistic this time around that we will get our rights because ministers and deputies are working for this," said the 55-year-old mother of seven.

Some Islamic lawmakers have said they would back women voting but not running. Other Islamists and tribal legislators oppose the bill.

"For the past 40 years, Kuwait's society has been used to the idea that elections take place in such a manner (without women)," said parliamentarian Khaled Adwah.

Washington has been pressing its allies in the Middle East to bring in political reforms, saying lack of freedom and democracy have fostered violent Islamic militancy.

Kuwaiti women have traditionally been more liberal and educated than those in other Gulf states, who have already won political rights in Bahrain and Qatar.

Gleefully yours,

FFF

>"The positive developments aren't perfect"...

>Iraq is, so far, a disaster. All the enthusiasm is

>about how y'all hope it will turn out, as if anyone

>knew for sure.

This is false. January 30, 2005 is in the past, not the future. That's the day when all of the Arab world saw that it was genuinely possible for true democracy and liberty to replace tryanny. That event, as the previously anti-war leader of the Lebanese opposition himself pointed out, has catalyzed, and continues to fuel, incredible positive change throughout that entire region.

We know for sure that happened and is happening. The fact that liberals have to call the downfall of Saddam Hussein and the advent of democratic elections in Iraq a "disaster" -- all because you can't admit that maybe the Bush Administration was right about the need to change that region -- is pretty illustrative of just how corrupt and narrow your premise is.

In the meantime there's no security

>there, basic services are a shambles, and the USA

>spends about $1 billion a week to be there.

How ironic that liberals are now reduced to arguing that we shouldn't oppose tyranny and help people achieve liberty because . . . well, it's just too expensive!

>Wait 10 years and then tell us about the positive

>developments.

It's a pretty good sign for Bush that his critics are reduced to saying: "Well, it may look good now, but it may not be good in 10 years!" Isn't that true for pretty much everything? Do you actually hope to persaude people who are seeing democracy and fundamental change unfold before their eyes in the Middle East that they shouldn't be too happy because it may not be that good in 10 years? Don't you think you have to come up with something a bit more compelling than this if you want to dampen the enthusiasm for these truly moving events?

>OK, here's one alternative: use less imported oil.

>Bush hasn't done as much to promote conservation

>and alternative sources as he should have. Don't

>underestimate how much of an effect that could have.

LOL! So, after September 11, you would have stood up and said: "I have the solution to terrorism. Forget all that business about the military and war and stuff like that. Let's start building more fuel-efficient cars and put solar panels on our homes!"

So, Bush's idea as to how to combat Muslim extremist terrorism is to attack the states and structures which support it and to diffuse the resentment and hatred that fuel terrorism by enabling the people of the Middle East to have the opportunities for freedom and liberty that we in the Western World have.

Your idea as to how to combat Muslim extremist terrorism is to build more fuel-efficient cars. Gosh, I can't believe that Bush got re-elected given that contrast.

While it's true that reducing dependency on Middle Eastern oil can't hurt and can even help, that is such a tiny fraction of the problem. Europe's governments are filled with environment-lovers who embrace every new fuel-efficient fad. Ask them - they'll tell you - they ride their stupid bikes and don't buy SUV's. And yet, they are at least as dependent on Middle East oil as the U.S. is - really, more so.

So while we build smaller cars and look for oil wells in the U.S., what do you propose to do about those not nice Muslims who are trying to get biological and chemical and radiological weapons and use them to destroy U.S. population centers? Bush's plans to combat that are clear for all the world to see. What's the alternative?

>>You guessed wrong. I support drilling there.

>

>

>The mind reels.

>

>Stupifidely yours,

That's what you get for pigeonholing.

Thank You :-)

>This is false. January 30, 2005 is in the past, not the

>future. That's the day when all of the Arab world saw that

>it was genuinely possible for true democracy and liberty to

>replace tryanny.

For now, Iraqis still live under an appointed government,

under many laws imposed by the USA,

with many held by the USA in prisons in their own country.

True liberty? As if that were in place yet.

The Allawi government has kicked out journalists.

Not a peep out of Bush about this lack of freedom of the press.

You may live for these "mission accomplished" moments,

but the elections were just a step.

>You may live for these "mission accomplished" moments,

>but the elections were just a step.

I'll ask again:

So while we build smaller cars and look for oil wells in the U.S., what do you propose to do about those not nice Muslims who are trying to get biological and chemical and radiological weapons and use them to destroy U.S. population centers? Bush's plans to combat that are clear for all the world to see. What's the alternative?

>>You may live for these "mission accomplished" moments,

>>but the elections were just a step.

>

>I'll ask again:

>

>So while we build smaller cars and look for oil wells in the

>U.S., what do you propose to do about those not nice Muslims

>who are trying to get biological and chemical and radiological

>weapons and use them to destroy U.S. population centers?

>Bush's plans to combat that are clear for all the world to

>see. What's the alternative?

>

>

>

and i'll ask again:

you've already told us that you use your sexual orientation as an excuse not to serve your country.

but, you still have not told us what other obligations you shirk using sexual orientation as an excuse.

>you've already told us that you use your sexual orientation as

>an excuse not to serve your country.

>

>but, you still have not told us what other obligations you

>shirk using sexual orientation as an excuse.

Serving in the military in the US is an honor, a privilege, and a choice (all 3 denied to out gay men & lesbians), not an obligation. Do you deny the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of Mr. Nunn (D-Ga), or are you just thick?