George Bush planted a seed in Iraq
 

And democracy started to grow in the Middle East. Largest protests in Iran over their last election since the 1979 Iranian Revolution.

Wouldn't that be something if in the next 50 years democracy DID spread far and wide in the middle east?

http://inapcache.boston.com/universa...1_19361479.jpg
http://inapcache.boston.com/universa...2_19361189.jpg
http://inapcache.boston.com/universa...3_19377861.jpg
http://inapcache.boston.com/universa...6_19379725.jpg

It was Obama's ankle grabbing Cairo speech that did this... all good thing must come from our dear leader Obama. Didn't you get that message?

Oh give me a break.. Iran has always had a underground that didn't support the BS leadership. How the hell do you think the CIA was able to do their shit back in the 70's/80's or when ever it was.

George Bush did nothing, but strengthen the hold the nut jobs had on the country by reinforcing their fear mongering that America would attack them.

No, no, no you totally missed the point.

In the here and now, things are clear in recent memory. Of course we don't attribute the growth of reform movements in Iran to George Bush.

I'm just saying that as time passes, history has a funny way of remembering things. If big advancements are made in stability and democracy in that region over the next 50 years. If for instance Palestine becomes a real state, Iran continues to become more moderate and so fourth, then one might reasonably say, looking back, that it started with the Bush policies.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...inst-Iran.html

If the USA was behind this, it's probably a Bush program. The USA in my opinion doesn't have anything to do with this; the Mullahs were just stupid and rigged a landslide when 51% would of prevented a second election and without demonstrations erupting.

They wanted the landslide because rumors are the Supreme Leader is sick and wanted capital to appoint a real hard liner to that post with reformists meddling.

Americans are fucking pansies.

I don't suppose they'll ever grow a pair of fucking balls like those Iranians.. nah.

Look like they decide to say no to their leader.We gonna see how this gonna end up

Well your 50 years prognostication is about right since it's been 50 years since the parliamentary democracy of Mohammed Mossadegh came to an end when he nationalized the energy industry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh

The spread of democracy only counts when our companies have unfettered access...

I have said all along that Bush basically bet his legacy on Iraq and the middle east. If 30,40, 50 years from now democracy has spread around the middle east and things are relatively peaceful, Bush will be credited as the guy who started the ball rolling with the invasion of Iraq. If that doesn't happen Bush will be seen as the guy who nearly bankrupted the country while fighting a war we didn't need to fight.

My opinion is that it will never happen. That part of the world has known nothing but violence and unrest since the beginning of recorded time and I see no evidence of that changing during our lifetime.

Anyone who thinks the legacy of the Bush/Cheney crime regime will turn out to be anything other than: The worst and most disastrous Presidency in this nations history...is delusional and most likely just trying to justify thier support of war criminals that hijacked the nation for 8 years...

Iran did have democracy until the US stepped in to undermine it and place a person of their choosing in power.... of course, it was done so at England's request....
which led to American hostages, which led to hostilities, which led to where we are today.

As "the sultan of smut" said, far too late for this... the US should have kept it's nose out 50 years ago.

Which makes me wonder, in all this time... could history be repeating itself?

Its easy to make hindsight arguments with the benefit of having 30 years to look at the issue and its after effects.

Such arguments do not take into account the issues of the day, the threats of the day, the national security interests of the day, the shifting of threats and interests at that time, predicted future shifts and so on. the decision to fuck with Iran's leadership wasn't just a random act by some bored people.

At the end of the day for example, we took a totally lawless nation 100% in support of terrorism, training terrorists and exporting terrorism who was harboring Bin Laden, like Afghanistan and turned it into a democracy where more people participate in elections than idiots in this nation do. Similar thing happening in Iraq - although its not the popular thing to talk about obvious successes.

Are those two countries perfect today? Of course not. there will be a lot of continued difficulty associated with making the transition from an autocratic state ran by a brutal, genocidal regime or a theocratic state governed by random idiots, toting AK-47's, running around raping and killing and beating the shit out of people in the name of "Sharia Law" - but to deny the positive change and the positive direction these nations are taking right in the middle of some of the worlds most volatile and unstable nations is being disingenuous.

Bush will never be remembered for anything good in the West. He will be remembered for being the poorly spoken, redneck jackass that he often was. That's the nature of history. It is the middle east in 50 years that will still remember Bush... just as when i moved to Russia in 96 for 10 years and people were still remembering and regularly discussing Reagan and his role in bringing down the Soviet Union.

To say that the changes in the last 10 years in the middle east, the emergence of new democracies and their success have had ZERO influence on today's events in Iran is not a very intellectually honest position.

How the fuck do you relate that to George W Bush invasion and occupation?

it doesn't matter if democracy would spread as they would most likely elect hardcore muslim leaders who would take it away.

:2 cents:

Sig. (tee hee hee hee giggling like a school girl :1orglaugh )

Oh please, 50 years ago it was about oil fields.. not about stopping terrorism. England asked the US for help because Iran wanted their land back... there was no high and mighty US mission to prevent terrorism.

They stepped in to stop Iran from electing an Iranian leader rather than an English or American appointed leader and that's that, no matter how much you try to spin it.

That's not to say that anything happening today has anything to do with oil fields as I believe it doesn't, but... the operation 50 years ago was done in secret, no one knew about it for 40+ years. How do we know there isn't more behind the scenes now that we might not know about for another 40 years?

As for anything in the last 10 years having an influence? I'd say everything in the last 100 years have had an influence.. and most of it negative. If England and US had just kept their noses out, would it be better or worse? Would their democracy 50 years ago put them on a better path?

Thing is, we'll never truly know. But it's done wonders for other countries 50 years after they moved to a democracy so there is at least a chance. But all that was taken away.

Makes me wonder, if the US decided to become it's own nation and pick it's own leader and that was all taken away and plunged into many more decades of outside rule and influence... would the US people be as understanding?

let them buy internet porn...

i didn't say that one motivation is better than another. i specifically used the term national interests... which oil is certainly a part of.

as i've tried to explain with a fair degree of eloquence, that geopolitics is not about anyone's personal, subjective interpretation or moral righteousness or "fair" or "right" and "wrong" or anything else.

intervention in a nations politics is rarely about the stated intention or motivation that people are asked to buy into. its about national interests. oil is an important issue to the US and was projected to be an issue of even greater importance. if you step back and look at an understanding of the exponentially rising demand for oil at that particular point in time and consider that there were few oil producing countries at that time, its not hard to understand why these nations and their leadership are important to the west in the 1950's.

if any developed nation in the world had significant interests in Africa, it wouldn't be a continent perpetually plagued by war and famine. no one has any significant national interests in Africa... hence the genocides, constant famine, endless wars, imploding economies and so on.

you are using absolutes and idealistic views to pick apart actions without any consideration for the practical matters that existed/exist

Hmmmm don't look to Iran, Iran has a huge amount of young people. Something like 60% of the population is under 30. That's who has been behind the latest events over there. When I see this happening in Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia etc then I might consider giving Bush some credit.

http://inapcache.boston.com/universa...1_19361479.jpg
She looks nice, hehehehe

http://inapcache.boston.com/universa...1_19361479.jpg
She looks nice, hehehehe

Actually, I'm using practical matters "what if's" instead of absolutes "facts" in this case because of what history has taught me.

'53 - Iran elects a leaders, Kermit Roosevelt, a CIA agent, uses the media and other agencies to turn it's people against the new leader and stages huge revolts and changes the course of Iran's future.

'09 - Iran elects a new leader, the people stage huge revolts against it's new leader.

The only thing we're missing is what may or may not be there.... an outside force at work behind the scenes right there in Iran.

Is the US or some other nation meddling? Will a classified document be released 40 years from now detail Operation Ajax part 2?

Good intentions or not, Operation Ajax led to some very bad stuff... hostages, revolutions... hate.

I'd hate for history to repeat itself based on practical matters as yet undetermined.

And yes Martin, Iran is filled with mostly young people as Iran staged a huge reward program for people to have children... they gave them tv's, cars... anything and everything to have more kids because the Iran-Iraq war went on for so long, they wanted to ensure they had more soldiers in the future.
They're all becoming "of age" now.

Sad pics there.....

There are some hot Persian women.

he's not a "new leader" ... he's a leader that was recently re-elected

people aren't "revolting" - they are protesting the results of an election, not trying to overthrow a government. that's hardly the same


well... you're also missing some factual accuracy in your assessment of the situation.

It's good to see the youth stand up for their rights. The old ways are dying in that country. I support them 100% I've watched a few docs on the youth movement in Iran. They seem like regular people that just want to be free. It's good what they're doing. They're showing the world that their country is more then just another Arab country with a chip on it's shoulder looking for a fight.

I agree with you.

Our media often portray Iran as a threat.... and we usually forget that there are people within Iran who are just like us who wants to be free

what is the problem.. calvin klein clothes.. they must be living the high life already..

Iran is not a Arab country.

Yes, I would like to plant my seed there too :winkwink: :1orglaugh

since "the people" aren't the one's making the threats, pursuing nuclear weapons, threatening neighbors, funding terrorism and so on... its pretty much irrelevant who's "just like us" from a security standpoint. a threat is a threat.

I am so glad someone on this board gets this!!! I have been saying it since it started!!!

If you don't like GW who cares, put your emotions aside, look at it with a brain and you can see it!!! You can't beat these people any other way except showing them what they could have and let the people rise!!! They were taken over in '79 by the Islamic revaluation, now they are kickin' ass and comin' back!!! I hope they kick ass and the rise prevails, it's about time for them to have the choice to wear what they want, women walk without a man, and women not get throw in jail for being rape!!! If if someone says that is not happening, well then you have turned a blind eye my friend and that is why it continues to happen!!!

Warchild you are so fucking sexy sometimes it hurts me!!! :1orglaugh

Right on my friend!!! :thumbsup :thumbsup

OMG GFY at it best!!! Good one!!! :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Lurking suspicion that CIA has some involvement haha.

What make you think that Bush is the responsable for what`s going on in Iran? This is completly diferent chapter!

Why don't you read the thread before you reply? It really seems like the most logical approach to forum posting.

Especially when an observant person notices that many of the protest signs are written in ENGLISH.

Just feeding the conspiracy theory...
:winkwink:

It is indeed history repeating itself it seems (with some differences)... The table is being set and the regime change will happen Iraq style after an attack on Iran .. The goal now seems to rally the bleeding hearts liberal to support the spread of democracy (by force) in Iran... I think Iran will be hit... Conservatives will support it for obvious reasons and now Obama supporters, based on what I've seen on Huffington Post for the past week, will support it also...
And btw, it is not that alot of Iranians aren't fed up with Ahmadinejad (the supreme leader is the one in control btw, not presidents) but they are definitely getting "helped" by the west...

A 3rd world war is about to break in the middle east... not sure how is that progress...

So what happens if say 3-5 years from now we completely pull out of Iraq because we are convinced that they are ready to govern and police themselves then a year or two after that there is a coup, some religious nut job takes control of the country and we have a new Saddam? Do we invade again? Do we wait for the Iraqis to fight back. If they don't and just accept the new leader then what?

you do whatever the voting population will tolerate at that exact moment. most likely from the US, there will be the usual strong cries of condemnation, sanctions, refusal to recognize the new government as legitimate and then it will be largely forgotten about.

You could also say Obama had just as much of an effect by openly stating that we were willing to talk to Iran.. Taking away the ability of Iran's current leadership to fear monger and so on..