For some reason, I flashed on this: I was stationed at Ft. Campbell at the time, and I knew several of these guys personally. That Christmas sucked almost as bad as the first one after my father died. Thanks for the unintentionally melancholy moment, max.
I think if the middle east was as it was...I'm not sure the people of Iran would even have the balls to protest the election.
Excellent point. The liberation of Iraq is already producing far-reaching benefits for the entire region.
Liberal? Since Friedman is a well known, supporter of multi-national large corporate led globalization and as well was a loud and vocal supporter of the war on Iraq, before, during and now, he can't really be considered to be a classic liberal in the way I assume you to mean.
No, the civil unrest in Iran really has nothing to do with Iraq. It had been brewing long before the invasion. If anything, you could say that Obama's approach towards the Middle East contributed to the outburst.
What Obama approach? What liberating Iraq did was to destabilize the middle east, which is why I primarily supported the war. I have been stating all along that the long-term results would be to "westernize" the attitudes of what has traditionally been pretty rigid and to us, unfair. People in Iran see Iraq voting in free elections, and they want the same thing. If Iraq was still a country of Saddam Hussein and his people shredding machines and everyone just took it up the ass, I'm not sure that Iran would be as fervent as they are.
His approach of offering the possibility of dialogue and toning down the war rhetoric. These protestors want normalized relations with the West and one of the main reasons they now want Ahmajenidad gone is because they're tired of the way he continues to pour more fuel on that "fire." It's not the only reason for the protests, but it's an important one. You make the mistake of viewing the Middle East as one collective entity. It's not at all. Iran and Iraq have historical had an antagonistic relationship, and the seeds of this current unrest were being planted in urban areas, among students, clerics, and aristocrats, when these two countries were warring with one another. And while many of the things they're fighting for can be characterized as "Western," it's very different than what the US is trying to do in Iraq. They're fighting for a more softened theocracy (in what they believe is) more along the lines of the original Revolution, not democracy. There was no sudden perspective change after the Iraq invasion, and these protestors would scoff at people who suggest they're fighting for Western values.
I disagree. Obama's stance on this issue has essentially "oh that's fine and dandy". He has not taken any hard stance on the Iran elections other than "I hope they're fair". The problem with Obama is that he is basically all rhetoric. All talk, no action. Speak loudly, carry a small stick. It matters not that Iran/Iraq have an antagonistic relationship. Iran likely saw the Saddam regime being toppled and wanted the same thing...they saw a struggle and violence, but its all part of the process of freedom.
