Author Topic: The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it." (Read 1044 times)

Krusher · « **on:** February 24, 2005, 11:03:14 AM »

The leader of this Lebanese intifada [for independence from Syria] is Walid Jumblatt, the patriarch of the Druze Muslim community and, until recently, a man who accommodated Syria's occupation. But something snapped for Jumblatt last year, when the Syrians overruled the Lebanese constitution and forced the reelection of their front man in Lebanon, President Emile Lahoud. The old slogans about Arab nationalism turned to ashes in Jumblatt's mouth, and he and Hariri openly began to defy Damascus...

"It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq," explains Jumblatt. "I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world." Jumblatt says this spark of democratic revolt is spreading. "The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it."

mosgood · « **Reply #1 on:** February 24, 2005, 11:42:05 AM »

And Saudi Arabia isn't for behind also......

NUKE · « **Reply #2 on:** February 24, 2005, 12:40:20 PM »

Isn't it ironic that OBL attacked the US because he wanted US influence out of the middle east and now he may well have been the spark that created just the opposite effect?

Now instead of strick, Islamic run states, those states may be crumbling and giving way to democracies. Way to go OBL!

Dinger · « **Reply #3 on:** February 24, 2005, 02:56:55 PM »

Anyone who remembers the Lebanese civil war knows the Druze are crazy. Hell most Muslims don't consider the Druze to be Muslim.

...Though I gotta say, I never felt more comfortable in Syria than I did in a Druze village. Good people. Crazy though.

People say the same thing about the Iraqis.

Makarov9 · « **Reply #4 on:** February 24, 2005, 02:58:20 PM »

Clearly you ladies didn't get the memo. It was all for oil...

Krusher · « **Reply #5 on:** February 24, 2005, 06:36:23 PM »

an article in Der Spiegel "Could George W. Bush Be Right?"

President Ronald Reagan's visit to Berlin in 1987 was, in many respects, very similar to President George W. Bush's visit to Mainz on Wednesday. . . . When Reagan stood before the Brandenburg Gate--and the Berlin Wall--and demanded that Gorbachev "tear down this Wall," he was lampooned the next day on the [German] editorial pages. He is a dreamer, wrote commentators. Realpolitik looks different.

But history has shown that it wasn't Reagan who was the dreamer as he voiced his demand. Rather, it was German politicians who were lacking in imagination--a group who in 1987 couldn't imagine that there might be an alternative to a divided Germany. Those who spoke of reunification were labelled as nationalists and the entire German left was completely uninterested in a unified Germany. . . .

Maybe history can repeat itself. Maybe the people of Syria, Iran or Jordan will get the idea in their heads to free themselves from their oppressive regimes just as the East Germans did. When the voter turnout in Iraq recently exceeded that of many Western nations, the chorus of critique from Iraq alarmists was, at least for a couple of days, quieted. Just as quiet as the chorus of Germany experts on the night of Nov. 9, 1989 when the Wall fell.

Sandman · « **Reply #6 on:** February 24, 2005, 07:14:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by NUKE
Isn't it ironic that OBL attacked the US because he wanted US influence out of the middle east and now he may well have been the spark that created just the opposite effect?

Now instead of strick, Islamic run states, those states may be crumbling and giving way to democracies. Way to go OBL!

Ahem... I believe the term is democratically elected islamic state... er... I meant Shi'a.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #7 on:** February 24, 2005, 07:45:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
Ahem... I believe the term is democratically elected islamic state... er... I meant Shi'a.

True but democratically elected nontheless.
And considering the vast vast vast majority of the population there is muslam no matter what way it went it would still be an islamic state.

200+ years ago we were largely a Christian state

ygsmilo · « **Reply #8 on:** February 24, 2005, 10:43:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
Ahem... I believe the term is democratically elected islamic state... er... I meant Shi'a.

Sandman,

Do you think that if there were elections similar to Iraq in Iran that the mullahs would be in power?

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #9 on:** February 24, 2005, 10:49:29 PM »

I believe that if the majority of the citizenry is Muslim, and democracy means that the majority rules, then it would follow that Muslims would rule that democratic state.

mosgood · « **Reply #10 on:** February 25, 2005, 07:17:52 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by DREDIOCK

200+ years ago we were largely a Christian state

and if our present President has anything to say about it.... we will be again.

Krusher · « **Reply #11 on:** February 27, 2005, 12:27:48 AM »

CAIRO, Feb. 26 - President Hosni Mubarak asked Egypt's Parliament on Saturday to amend the Constitution to allow for direct, multiparty presidential elections this year for the first time in the nation's history.

Raider179 · « **Reply #12 on:** February 27, 2005, 02:57:17 AM »

cough cough theocracy....

Zulu7 · « **Reply #13 on:** February 27, 2005, 07:17:51 AM »

Religious states fighting each other. All those people who belive they have a monopoly on the truth trying to beat other peoples ways of life out of them because they disagree. I hope it doesn't come to that? Oh but hang on it already has?

I'm sure American style democracy is great but ask the chaps in the body bags, their families, those children and women laying dead in the rubble of their homes, under desert sands, those victims of bombings and attrocities to come, if war was the right way to achieve it?

I don't know maybe they will think it was. But can we be sure. After all they can't tell us anymore.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #14 on:** February 27, 2005, 07:25:40 AM »

Future historians may believe that the sanction policy in effect prior to the military option was the better policy to follow.

Unless they believe UNICEF, who in 1995 counted over 1 million Iraqis dead (half under the age of 5) due to the more humanitarian and peaceful sanction policy.