Could Saudi Arabia be next?

[GannonFan]

Eduard Shevardnadze was a dictator who ruled Georgia for 30+ years and was also accused of mass murder of political opponents and minorities


Cripes.

You sure you have the right story with Shevardnadze? He did get tossed aside after the protests following the widely regarded rigged elections in Georgia in 2003, but few would call him a dictator. Heck, he was the USSR foreign minister in the 80's and was widely seen as one of the more vocal advocates of letting the USSR break up and letting democracy and freedom take their course. And he was elected by a wide margin as Georgian President in '92 with little or no controversy about that election. I'm sure he did some things that were unsavory, but I wouldn't classify him as some 30+ years dictator of Georgia.

[kalm]

Eduard Shevardnadze was a dictator who ruled Georgia for 30+ years and was also accused of mass murder of political opponents and minorities


Cripes.

You sure you have the right story with Shevardnadze? He did get tossed aside after the protests following the widely regarded rigged elections in Georgia in 2003, but few would call him a dictator. Heck, he was the USSR foreign minister in the 80's and was widely seen as one of the more vocal advocates of letting the USSR break up and letting democracy and freedom take their course. And he was elected by a wide margin as Georgian President in '92 with little or no controversy about that election. I'm sure he did some things that were unsavory, but I wouldn't classify him as some 30+ years dictator of Georgia.

Bullshit. Just like with Bush liberating the middle east, everyone knows Reagan broke up the Soviet Union. It had nothing to Shevardnadze or Gorby.

[GannonFan]

You sure you have the right story with Shevardnadze? He did get tossed aside after the protests following the widely regarded rigged elections in Georgia in 2003, but few would call him a dictator. Heck, he was the USSR foreign minister in the 80's and was widely seen as one of the more vocal advocates of letting the USSR break up and letting democracy and freedom take their course. And he was elected by a wide margin as Georgian President in '92 with little or no controversy about that election. I'm sure he did some things that were unsavory, but I wouldn't classify him as some 30+ years dictator of Georgia.

Bullshit. Just like with Bush liberating the middle east, everyone knows Reagan broke up the Soviet Union. It had nothing to Shevardnadze or Gorby.

It was a team effort - Reagan, the Pope, Gorby, Lech Walesa, the Beatles, etc.

[Ibanez]

And ammunition?

And canned goods and seeds.

And duct tape.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

Bullshit. Just like with Bush liberating the middle east, everyone knows Reagan broke up the Soviet Union. It had nothing to Shevardnadze or Gorby.

It was a team effort - Reagan, the Pope, Gorby, Lech Walesa, the Beatles, etc.

and sodomy.

[Skjellyfetti]

You sure you have the right story with Shevardnadze? He did get tossed aside after the protests following the widely regarded rigged elections in Georgia in 2003, but few would call him a dictator. Heck, he was the USSR foreign minister in the 80's and was widely seen as one of the more vocal advocates of letting the USSR break up and letting democracy and freedom take their course. And he was elected by a wide margin as Georgian President in '92 with little or no controversy about that election. I'm sure he did some things that were unsavory, but I wouldn't classify him as some 30+ years dictator of Georgia.

Yeah, he won in 1992 by a wide margin. 98% for him. 2% for the "opposition." Would you laugh at someone trying to claim that Saddam Hussein legitimately won the Iraqi elections with 99.6% of the vote? Probably. As you should. But for some reason you claim there was "little or no controversy" with the 1992 Georgian election.

He was the Communist party boss of Georgia for decades before becoming president (and while he was foreign minister for the USSR). He suppressed separatists in South Ossetia who were fighting for independence... he's accused of mass excecutions, torture, etc.

He was a dictator in every sense of the word.

[GannonFan]

You sure you have the right story with Shevardnadze? He did get tossed aside after the protests following the widely regarded rigged elections in Georgia in 2003, but few would call him a dictator. Heck, he was the USSR foreign minister in the 80's and was widely seen as one of the more vocal advocates of letting the USSR break up and letting democracy and freedom take their course. And he was elected by a wide margin as Georgian President in '92 with little or no controversy about that election. I'm sure he did some things that were unsavory, but I wouldn't classify him as some 30+ years dictator of Georgia.

Yeah, he won in 1992 by a wide margin. 98% for him. 2% for the "opposition." Would you laugh at someone trying to claim that Saddam Hussein legitimately won the Iraqi elections with 99.6% of the vote? Probably. As you should. But for some reason you claim there was "little or no controversy" with the 1992 Georgian election.

He was the Communist party boss of Georgia for decades before becoming president (and while he was foreign minister for the USSR). He suppressed separatists in South Ossetia who were fighting for independence... he's accused of mass excecutions, torture, etc.

He was a dictator in every sense of the word.

I thought he won with 70% of the vote in '95. And as for the "dictator" label, you sound like an Ossetian. I'm sure he didn't do some good things, but very few dictators help bring an end to the Cold War by helping to dismantle the USSR from within, as he did. You'll find very few people would agree with your "dictator" labelling of him.

[Skjellyfetti]

You didn't say 1995. You said 1992. And he won in 1992 with 98% of the vote.

And what he did in dismantling the USSR has nothing to do with how he ran the Georgian state.

Running the government for 30 years... with no opposition and sham elections meets the definition of dictator to me. But, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree there.

Foreign Policy magazine doesn't hesitate to call him a dictator:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... revolution" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://oilandglory.foreignpolicy.com/po ... s_playbook" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BDKJMU]

Let me know how you expect real change to take place. Seems as though some folks think all they need to do is to wave some magic "fairness" wand and everyone will sing songs together and share bread peacefully.

You know there's middle ground between the two extremes, right?

Sure, sitting around in burning incense and singing folk songs doesn't change governments effectively... And bombing countries into submission, instituting martial law, killing 100,000 civilians isn't a very good way to force democracy onto a country. If you think the latter isn't a good way to spread democracy... it doesn't mean you support the former.

Typical left wing talking point exaggeration.

[BDKJMU]

You know there's middle ground between the two extremes, right?

Sure, sitting around in burning incense and singing folk songs doesn't change governments effectively... And bombing countries into submission, instituting martial law, killing 100,000 civilians isn't a very good way to force democracy onto a country. If you think the latter isn't a good way to spread democracy... it doesn't mean you support the former.

This statement (above) is so obviously true and also so historically true it's sad it has to even be printed as though it were some kind of revelation...

I repeat:
Democracy CAN NOT be given - it must be taken - and only by those who are willing to die for it...
Carpet bombing for Democracy - does not work - will not work - has never worked (the end)


ANd this just in Cluck Iraq will never be a Democracy on it's own...
we'll have to stay forever to make that happen

Worked the last time the US did it large scale, in WWII.

[Grizalltheway]

This statement (above) is so obviously true and also so historically true it's sad it has to even be printed as though it were some kind of revelation...

I repeat:
Democracy CAN NOT be given - it must be taken - and only by those who are willing to die for it...
Carpet bombing for Democracy - does not work - will not work - has never worked (the end)


ANd this just in Cluck Iraq will never be a Democracy on it's own...
we'll have to stay forever to make that happen

Worked in WWII.

How did it work in Vietnam?

[BDKJMU]

Worked in WWII.

How did it work in Vietnam?

Vietman wasn't close to as large scale and cetainly wasn't unchecked. WWII carpet bombed and wiped out entire German and Japanese cities.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Worked in WWII.

How did it work in Vietnam?

It would appear to me that he is answering Chizz's statement. I doesn't appear that he was putting Vietnam forth as an example.

[93henfan]

Iraq will never be a Democracy on it's own...
we'll have to stay forever to make that happen

Bingo.

As soon as we pull out, that place turns into a Shiite cleric-state faster than you can say Iranian intervention.

[Chizzang]

Iraq will never be a Democracy on it's own...
we'll have to stay forever to make that happen

Bingo.

As soon as we pull out, that place turns into a Shiite cleric-state faster than you can say Iranian intervention.

But but but... we gave them Democracy

[Chizzang]

This statement (above) is so obviously true and also so historically true it's sad it has to even be printed as though it were some kind of revelation...

I repeat:
Democracy CAN NOT be given - it must be taken - and only by those who are willing to die for it...
Carpet bombing for Democracy - does not work - will not work - has never worked (the end)


ANd this just in Cluck Iraq will never be a Democracy on it's own...
we'll have to stay forever to make that happen

Worked the last time the US did it large scale, in WWII.

If you think WWII was about giving people democracy we need to chat

[Grizalltheway]

How did it work in Vietnam?

Vietman wasn't close to as large scale and cetainly wasn't unchecked. WWII carpet bombed and wiped out entire German and Japanese cities.

Are you serious? We dropped more ordinance in Vietnam than in all ow WWII combined. And the comparison between Vietnam and Iraq is much more valid than that between Iraq and WWII.

[Grizalltheway]

How did it work in Vietnam?

It would appear to me that he is answering Chizz's statement. I doesn't appear that he was putting Vietnam forth as an example.

Fine, but the WWII example is bollocks. We only decided to enter the war and "bring them democracy" after we were directly attacked.

[BDKJMU]

Worked the last time the US did it large scale, in WWII.

If you think WWII was about giving people democracy we need to chat

And what form or govt came out of (West) Germany and Japan after WWII?

[Skjellyfetti]

And what form or govt came out of (West) Germany and Japan after WWII?

And what government came out of our dear allies, the Soviets, after WWII?

[TwinTownBisonFan]

good lord...

we didn't START WWII by choice... we didn't declare a need for pre-emptive war in Europe or Asia - we were attacked and had war declared on us. BIG DAMN DIFFERENCE.

we then defeated the AGGRESSORS and SUBDUED their countries... we split Germany in to zones of freaking occupation (along with Austria) we occupied Japan - and we STILL haven't left EITHER of those two countries to this day.

[BDKJMU]

And what form or govt came out of (West) Germany and Japan after WWII?

And what government came out of our dear allies, the Soviets, after WWII?

Did the Soviets end up occupied and surrendering at the end of WWII

[Skjellyfetti]

Did the Soviets end up occupied and surrendering at the end of WWII

If we were fighting primarily under the banner of democracy, we wouldn't have been aligned with them, dingus.

[BDKJMU]

good lord...

we didn't START WWII by choice... we didn't declare a need for pre-emptive war in Europe or Asia - we were attacked and had war declared on us. BIG DAMN DIFFERENCE.

we then defeated the AGGRESSORS and SUBDUED their countries... we split Germany in to zones of freaking occupation (along with Austria) we occupied Japan - and we STILL haven't left EITHER of those two countries to this day.

Only reason WWII was mentioned is because I was simply disputing Chizz's assertion that democracy in a country has never resulted from a war where it was carpet bombed. Thats all.

[Chizzang]

And what government came out of our dear allies, the Soviets, after WWII?

Did the Soviets end up occupied and surrendering at the end of WWII

Normally I would use the word "stupid" here...

But I'm not because thats not nice and clearly you have a different perspective on what "bombing people for democracy" and WWII are as comparative distinctions

But I do need to use one of these