Libya is falling/fallen.
- Thread starter JoMo
- Start date
Interesting... I also see that a top trending topic is #BIEBER ALERT. According to SexyDrRockzo @RockThatBieber, Bieber Fever is uncurable.
Hint: it isn't spreading through the middle east due to Iraq
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy
You do realize that Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya don't count as the middle east and there were already democracies in the middle east (lebanon and the PA)
If you count them as the middle east, then you have to count Turkey as the middle east and Turkey as a democracy still kicks the shit out of Iraq
We changed our minds once he got rid of some of his wmds and started helping us torture terrorists
Last edited:
This has been my point all along. I don't understand why they're protesting, because it's going to be the same thing all over again. Nothing is going to change for them in the long term because of their culture and beliefs.
Any "democracy" achieved will be a complete fraud that will be utilized as a front for another dictatorship. Oh well, just let them kill each other and think that they're somehow making a difference.
It's interesting tho that the left said the same thing when democracy spread through the Communist states in the 80s and 90s. "It'll never ever happen you fucking moron Reagan!" (after it happens) "It wasn't because of Reagan. It's from some internal thing that had nothing to do with our foreign policy. He got lucky."
If not for Iraq's liberation, why is it happening all of a sudden? I don't know. Like I said, I'm working on my midterms and haven't been reading much about it. But, GWB predicted it and everybody else said it'd never happen. If GWB was right about the effect (democratic revolts against dictators), he's probably right about the cause (Iraq's liberation). I'm not saying that that's 100% what happened, but that's a pretty logical conclusion.
NONE of these nations want to be what either Iraq or Afghanistan is. They're "democracries" held up by America, just the same way that Egypt was a "democracy" held up by America.
So if any of these countries become Islamic shitholes, it's Obama's fault?
SPNirology is delusional. Claiming that America's invasion of Iraq some 8 years ago is causing revolts now is retarded.
You'd have a better chance of crediting wikileaks as the mass revolts started in Tunisia and it started shortly after a wikileak cable detailed the levels of corruption in Tunisia.
Again, you seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between "after it, therefore because of it" and cause and effect.
You also seem to be having an issue with attributing straw-man statements to broad groups of people. People never disputed that democracy was possible, people disputed that the way Reagan was attempting to encourage it was appropriate.
The liberation happened how many years ago, the democracy movement is happening 'suddenly' is occurring how many years after that?
So basically you are regurgitating talking points because you have nothing better to do with your time?
Not exactly, he predicted it 'accurately' just about as much as Nostradamus or the Old Testament.
I would also point two things out:
1. People never said popular revolts would 'never' happened, they disputed that Iraq would lead to the appearance of other revolts
2. Iraq was military invasion first - how could that possibly inspire other countries to endure a popular revolt when previous attempts to revolt against Saddam had failed in utter collapse? Wouldn't that point to the REVERSE happening, regimes becoming more secure because the people assume the only way they can get their dictators out is for the US to invade them?
Only if it had occurred sometime near the establishment of democracy in iraq
Do you notice how there is a spill-over effect occurring right now from one country to another? If it had been because of Iraq, then the revolts would have occurred shortly after that rather than many years afterwards.
I'll give you another great example of the post hoc fallacy that some people use to lionize reagan
Reagan supposedly quieted down Qadafi and got him to drop his support for terrorism by bombing Libya (1986) in the same way that reagan won the cold war and brought democracy to the soviet union because it happened after his term.
The mistake there is that as it turns out, the Lockerbie bombing he funded occurred in 1988 - two years after Reagan should have shut him up by bombing him.
In the same way, Qadafi suddenly became more co-operative with us on terrorism post-9/11 because he was being targeted by a faction associated with Al Qaeda and the economic sanctions that the UN and US had imposed in the 90s had been utterly devastating.
Last edited:
Armchair Generals are fucking stupid.
Lets not forget that prior to us "freeing" Iraq, the Shi'a and Kurds were told we would help them get rid of Saddam and then we reneged and let them get their asses handed to them. Yeah, we are real big supporters of Democracy we are
Oh we also helped Russia back on the path of Tyranny.
Geez kizzak. You accuse me of having nothing better to do w/ my time, then post a gigantic wall of miscellaneous text. Normally your posts are pretty good. Not this one.
I think this is your key point. You thought that by bringing democracy to Iraq via invasion, it would draw political blowback against democracy. That was the common left-wing talking point against Bush's Freedom Agenda for the past 8 years.
You were wrong. This is just like 85-92 when all the communist nations were revolting. After Reagan predicted it, took steps to make it happen, and the left blasted him for being a senile-old man, it happened. Then the same guys who said it'd never happen come out and say, "It's not because of Reagan. It's from other internal things. He just got lucky."
You say that the idea of democracy isn't spreading from Iraq because it didn't happen overnight. That doesn't make sense. Why would the people of Egypt, Libya, and everywhere else risk revolt to emulate 2006 Iraq? Now that it's 2011 and Iraq is safe and free (relatively), isn't that when people would actually start to look to it as an example of what's possible for themselves?
I think this is your key point. You thought that by bringing democracy to Iraq via invasion, it would draw political blowback against democracy. That was the common left-wing talking point against Bush's Freedom Agenda for the past 8 years.
You were wrong. This is just like 85-92 when all the communist nations were revolting. After Reagan predicted it, took steps to make it happen, and the left blasted him for being a senile-old man, it happened. Then the same guys who said it'd never happen come out and say, "It's not because of Reagan. It's from other internal things. He just got lucky."
You say that the idea of democracy isn't spreading from Iraq because it didn't happen overnight. That doesn't make sense. Why would the people of Egypt, Libya, and everywhere else risk revolt to emulate 2006 Iraq? Now that it's 2011 and Iraq is safe and free (relatively), isn't that when people would actually start to look to it as an example of what's possible for themselves?
who cares what these ragheads do... theyll have the same corrupt government replace the current one anyway. it has happened in every muslim revolution, itll happen with egypt, itll happen with libya...
why? because islam fuckin sucks thats why
of course foxnews will credit these revolutions to bush... and their failure to obama
Close.
It's not Islams fault.
It's third world, ill educated finger like masses of people. They pollute the earth.
So it is Islam's fault?
You are saying you haven't had time to read up on anything because you are too busy 'working on your midterms'- but not too busy to read up on talking points and then post them over and over again in a thread.
Your lack of affirmation for my posts wounds me greatly
Uhh, do you have evidence for any of those claims at all?
1. That anyone argued there would be political blowback 'against democracy'
2. That it was the common left-wing talking point
3. That Bush ever had anything resembling a 'Freedom Agenda'
Why is Iraq the only possible explanatory variable in your model?
Try to find one Egyptian, Tunisian, Libyan, etc that credits Iraq as a 'stable democracy' as the reason they are pushing for democracy. You won't
Let me repeat, Turkey has been a stable democracy for longer than Iraq and if you are stretching the definition of the middle east to include North Africa (aka Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia) - then Turkey also would easily fall into the middle east as well and therefore has been a beacon for longer.
Why would they be any more inclined to look at 2011 Iraq than Turkey any time since WW2?
if someone lives by a backward philosophy, it sure doesnt help in improving their education. true of any religion of course.