[Azred]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: President Bush has just recently started being honest with his rhetoric of 'democracising' the middle east. The neo-cons that make up his administration have been pushing for that since the end of gulf war I. WMDs and The war on terror was simple and effective fear-mongering propoganda.

I think history has shown clearly enough that a democratic form of government is the most stable. Why would any rational person not want this to happen?

Originally posted by Chewbacca: As far as "liberating" the Iraqis goes, well its feel-good in theory and a nice side effect of protecting national interests in the region, but it loses gusto when one realizes how many people in the world need to be "liberated" and just how inconsistent this policy of liberation really is.

I don't deny that there are many nations whose people are in need of being liberated from their current government(s) and that the "helpful liberator" mentality is/has been applied inconsistently. These are simply the faults of those in Washington being unwilling to commit themselves fully to the philosophy to which they ascribe.
Even if the "liberator" mentality falls apart as you say it does, how could it be wrong to protect national interests?

Originally posted by Chewbacca: This idea that a "destabilizing force" has been removed kinda boggles my mind. I woud hardly call the region more stable now that Saddam's regime has fallen. And yet other "destabilizing forces: like Isreal, Syria, Lebanon, Iran,ect. have been passed over, at least militarily. I don't buy it. I think the region was more 'stable' with a "contained" Saddam regime in the short term veiw with regards to the "post-war" and in retrospect.

Oh, yes. The other nations you name are indeed "destabilizing forces", as is the plethora of groups that seem to spring up every few weeks trying to accomplish some ridiculous goal. Like I have said many times before, the real reason that no one can seem to bring about any sort of lasting peace in the Middle East is because no one there really wants peace, they want victory.
The short-term solution of a "controlled" Hussein regime was not a workable solution. The most miserable failure of Bush, Sr.'s Presidency was the failure to remove Hussein in 1991; this would have given Iraq 10 years to form a stable government, improve its infrastructure, rebuild its economy, etc. A short-term solution in the Middle East is like a band-aid on a butcher-knife slash--it might keep the skin together for a while and slow the bleeding a little, but it will never help the wound heal.

There will never be any peace in the Middle East as long as the hot-headed children who currently have social or political clout keep trying to:
a) form an fundamental Islamic government, because there is too much history of various Islamic groups trying to kill each other over discrepancies in matters of faith
b) strong-arm their way into power so that they can bully anyone on their "list of enemies" out of existence
c) demand the destruction of Israel, only because there is a history of bad blood between Jews and Muslims and Israel will fight back
The leaders in these nations need to put the past behind them. Of course, as soon as they do that their population will see them as weak and revolt....

When Islamic groups are bombing Muslims during Ramadan in Riyadh I fear that the Middle East is going to kill itself completely.