I thought it is a beginner's exercise for me to write some thing on How Bush Created a Theocracy in Iraq By Juan Cole
There are too many problems with this article! Actually one may find too many problems in all left based articles on how Bush's policy is doing in Iraq and the mideast. And then there are laughable points in his article about Iran, of course.
First there are some things I'd like to mention about the late Shah of Iran and the myth surrounding the last monarch:
1- MSM (basically left wing media) made all westerners believe that the Shah government is just an evil form of government and has thousands of people in prisons and on death row.
That is totally absurd! Even regime's data show that less than 2500 Terror suspects with deep relations to hardline Marxist and Islamist groups were executed over a period of 45 years.
2- There is no doubt that CIA and UK intel services staged a coup against Prime minister Mossadegh in August of 1953 to save and stop Iran from falling into the hands of the Soviets and their proxies in Iran Tudeh Party.
3- The Mossadegh government wasn't popular at the time when it was overthrown. The fact that the Shah of Iran was greeted by milions of Iranians after his return from Rome in the same week after the coup proves that The Shah was far more popular than his ousted premier who had put the country on the verge of destruction and isolation.
All these said, I'd like to say that these pathetic liberals should stop acting like kids.
Sometimes, I wonder if they really care about the well-being of people of the world (Read those who really need their attention) and especially people of Iraq in this case.
They keep claiming that the shiite triumph in the series of elections in Iraq is bad since they may have their own version of Iranian mullahcracy. However they just keep crying and do not offer any real solution though.
But this is, again, absurd. If we believe in the structures of democracy taking place in the middle east and especially in Iraq then we shouldn't also be worried about who wins the election in that country.
Do we get worried who wins the election in France, Canada, Sweden, Turkey or Japan?
Of course, not.
Why do we not get worried? Because they are democracies and all democracies do not pose threats to their neighbors and other members of the world community!
That is the point of planting democracies in the middle east. It is not about the US interests or Energy reserves any more. It is about DEMOCRACY and rule of people over the people.
Why should they care if shiites in Iraq win in a legitimate election?
Well, if the majority of Iraqis find the shiite based government's performance bad in the period of time they are holding the power, they [Iraqis] can oust them in a civilized fashion and in another legitimate election, just like the US, France, Japan and any other democracy of the world!
I guess they just care as long as they can bash Bush adminstration with their blind hatred for President Bush's policies.
The liberals do not try to understand that in the long run Iraq will be a peaceful and democratic country if the democracy and freedom the American & Iraqi soldiers are sacrificing their lives for, takes place.
It shouldn't matter who wins the election in Iraq! What really matters is that the Iraqis learn the basics of democracy and debate.
4 comments:
"That is the point of planting democracies in the middle east. It is not about the US interests or Energy reserves any more. It is about DEMOCRACY..."
Very good!
This is a hilarious response with so many pointless ad hominem attacks and ridiculous assertions (MSM-left wing? baha).
I don't think the point of Cole's article was to say "It's horrible that Iraq is becoming a 'mullahcracy'".
I definitely don't think this a "left wing" held belief either.
I think it has been shown that Muslim theocracies aren't exactly democracies. Ridiculous things like honor killings of women are allowed because some religious council says its ok. There is no concept of human rights.
The point of the article is to say the Bushies didn't get what they wanted. This outcome is not what they want. This whole "planting a democracy" line is just bullshit anyway. They're not interested in democracy, they're interested in having a controlling interest in the area.
to the previous anonymous>
Yes the entire article was left leaning. the mainstream media in america is tilted so far to the left, i'm surprised their not hailing marx/lennin as gods on CNN.
So basically you're saying it doesn't matter who wins so long as it's a democracy? A very noble sentiment. I agree. It is good to support the choice of the people. So, do you, who consider yourself pro-American and pro-Israeli, support Hugo Chavez (in my opinion an over-hyped "threat")? What about Hamas? Not to mention Al Gore.
Concerning the MSM, they're really mostly out to make money, not to promote any ideology. No one in the MSM questioned the assertion that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the invasion (or if you prefer "the liberation") started. After all, the notion of a madman with huge stockpiles (or even small stockpiles) of chemical and nuclear weapons would sell.
Then after the war went on for a while, and only depleted chemical weapons were found, the MSM realized that the notion that Bush had lied to the American people would sell. At that point it was more sensational to claim that everyone had died for a lie, so that was what the MSM claimed.
Remember the USS Maine?
Post a Comment