Tom said:

here we are with democracy springing up in the middle east

Really? Have there been elections or bills of rights or free press or free courts or anything else that resembles a democracy?

Ray Jay wrote:Tom said:

here we are with democracy springing up in the middle east

Really? Have there been elections or bills of rights or free press or free courts or anything else that resembles a democracy?

Sorry Tom, but this seems like a remarkably Ricky-like statement. There is rebellion, no doubt. That may or may not lead to democracy. Mr. Jay is on the money.

Spring up, not sprung up
Lots of promise in Tunisia and Egypt, it's moving that way is it not?
and the protests in Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, etc all show great promise as well,
these could simply end up being a new dictator replacing the old, Egypt is run by the military with the promise of elections that may never happen. But we at least have the "shoots" of democracy starting to show here and there

I think I was accurate in the statement
"springing up" is quite apt, just like any plant just starting to spring, it can easily be trampled under foot or eaten by a hungry animal but it's starting to show, very small shoots only right now, but we have hope these shoots will prosper and grow.

I agree with the "shoots" part.

GMTom wrote:I do not propose the Iraq invasion caused this but I can not say it did not either.

eh? So what does "these things would not be possible (nor Egypt or Tunisia) if Bush had not invaded Iraq now would they?" mean if not that you are asserting as part of your question that the invasion of Iraq was a cause.

Besides, when you said that almost nothing had happened for hundreds of years, I was dumbfounded. You think that the Urabi revolt (1881, uprising against the Khedive, led to decline of Ottoman influence and increased British involvement), First Egyptian Revolution (1919, reaction to arrest of the Wafd leadership, led to independence in 1922), 1952 Revolution (military coup accompanied by popular revolt with deposition of royalty) or 1977 Bread Riots (one of many uprisings that affected the latter Sadat years, culminating with his assassination) are all part of some pattern? These all took place in Egypt, and indicate that every generation or so there is a wave of popular revolt which has the potential to (and often does) radically alter the way the country is governed.

In 2008 there was a General Strike as well, which did not pick up much momentum, but can be seen as a precursor to the events in Tahrir Square. The common themes are build up frustration with the leadership, economic hardship, an organised opposition, resentment at 'foreign' influences.

One thing I CAN say however is Bush claimed Democracy would spring up in the middle east, liberals laughed at that statement yet, gee, here we are with democracy springing up in the middle east. Maybe, just maybe Bush was right after all? You simply can not deny that statement was not correct and you can guess for other reasons why, all I know is what he said (and laughed at) is coming true and liberals don't like it one bit do they?

Hmm. In the same way as Napoleon wanted to unite Europe, I guess. But whereas Bonaparte wanted to unite Europe, it ended up uniting to defeat him.
Croesus wanted to fulfil the Oracle's prophesy that if he crossed the river (Orontes?) a great empire would fall. Unfortunately for him, it was his that fell, not the Persian.

Even so, I think the two (Invading Iraq and the current wave of uprisings) are not so clearly related as people would like to hope.

Not saying the invasion is related, not saying it isn't either
We simply can not know for certain
and Bush seemed to call it correctly

and these few isolated past "rebellions" were hardly much to speak of, what democracy was brought to the region because of them? But what are people demanding now? They want to elect their officials and they want a say in their politics, not so before (for the most part)

Hmm...

I think it's fair to say that the people of the Middle East always wanted democracy. They just didn't have much outlet for expressing that desire because every time anybody did they got rounded up and shot. Much as I'd like to claim that Iraq was a contributory factor to the current spate of uprisings in the Middle East I'd want to see a LOT more evidence of that before I'd feel comfortable doing so. A more logical explanation is that the way Ben Ali caved in so easily inspired the rest of the countries to think their own autocrats might follow suit. Without the connivance of the Tunisian army I suspect none of this would have happened.

ohh, and we have no results yet.
Egypt look s"promising" but they are conveniently ruled by the military for now, will they follow through on elections? Will those elections be fair and honest? But it looks as if we have the START of something (I hope)

News today made me think a bit
The rebels rejected the cease fire plan suggested by the African Union

Now things seem to be even more crazy as far as our involvement, we stepped in to supposedly keep a massacre from happening, to keep the bloodshed to a minimum. Some claim this was simply a humanitarian action, but face it, we took sides in a civil war. We suddenly started to attack government forces while avoiding rebel forces who attack government positions. The rebels today said they want no part of any road map to peace, our role most certainly is not one of humanitarian concern but rather as air support for the rebel side of a civil war. The decision was not one of keeping peace but rather one to oust Gadaffi, no humanitarian concern in the least and this is even clearer after refusal to accept peace.

Now that France have dealt with Ivory Coast, they are now focusing back on Libya. So today the French and UK governments asked NATO partners to be more involved in attacking ground targets.

But Tom:

"Not saying the invasion is related, not saying it isn't either"

You clearly said earlier on that these current uprisings could not have happened without the invasion of Iraq. That seems to be asserting a relationship (that at the very least it removed an obstacle). I do wish you'd read what you write properly before claiming not to be contradicting yourself.

I simply can't say it is a 100% link that Iraq allowed these current situations to develop. But neither can any others insist it did not play a part, based n the history of the region I do believe the Iraq invasion most certainly played a major role, That is a personal opinion of course, I can not state 100% this to be a fact however, you are correct there.
But those who want to tell us the invasion had no role at all, that is their opinion and their opinion simply ignores the situation and history of the region. But hell, they could be right!?

By the way, after participating in bombing runs in the early days, the USA is currently only providing logistical support. France and the UK are the ones doing the actual attacking of ground targets.

Getting past varying definitions of Spring and Democracy, I did want to return to Tom's fundamental question. How much influence did Bush's remarks on Democracy in the Arab world and the invasion of Iraq influence the current events.

For those people who do have access to media, I would think that many events influence them, just like many events influence all of us. The latest research on neural pathways suggest that the minds of people work by majority rule. You may have 30% neurons that tell you to vote Obama and 70% of your neurons tell you to vote McCain, so you vote McCain. There's an internal tipping point for all people in making decisions. Some are more ideological than others so there political views tend to be more definitive and predictable; but those of us who are wishy washy such as myself are weighing competing views and taking in more evidence to make a decision. But I digress.

So no doubt the elections in Iraq where citizens showed their ink stained hands, and images of the toppling of Saddaam were relevant. My best guess is that the negative imagery of the Bush years was more powerful. Abu Gharib, Bush's use of the word "Crusade", the endless sectarian violence that followed the US occupation probably had more influence as it became the dominant motiff for viewing events. If you add to this the biases of the Arab media and Mosque, I would expect that this view was even stronger.

You do have to ask yourself why the Arab rebellions didn't happen in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009, and the first 10 months of 2010, full 7 years after the US invaded Iraq. Proximity does not equal causality, but it certainly provides better evidence of the same.

As to Tom's relentless need to blame liberals for a double standard, I think it is fair to say that many Republicans were very surprised and suspcious when Bush talked about democracy in the Arab world. Liberals were cynical because for them Bush had lost credibility. They assumed it was a rationalization for having invaded Iraq for other reasons. But many conservatives were also critical. James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, George Will, and Dick Armey come to mind. Papa Bush probably also had a cynical view, but he was too good a dad and too good a former president to say anything.

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/04/13/us-still-flying-strike-missions-libya?test=latestnews

Although I seldom quote Fox News the SEAD missions are definitely a strike on Libyan facilities.

danivon wrote:By the way, after participating in bombing runs in the early days, the USA is currently only providing logistical support. France and the UK are the ones doing the actual attacking of ground targets.

Not entirely so.

(CBS/AP) WASHINGTON - The Pentagon revealed for the first time Wednesday that U.S. fighter jets have continued to strike Libyan air defenses after turning the mission over to NATO.

However, such US activity has been extremely limited, so this is not a big deal. Danivon is essentially correct, just not 100% so.