I was watchinhg msnbc and they had some members of the senate on. Long story short one of them said something that got me to thinking. Now first, I think it is important to tell you I beleive he (Bush) is correct when he says that the war has slowed terror on western targets. However, this fella said that the Government in Iraq is shia, put there by the US (kinda) because , in my opinion, Saddam was a sunni. The thing is he says Iran is also shia, so it makes perfect sense that they would have relations. I have to concurre, I don't want to because Iran's intentions are clear, but in any other situation (no terrorists) the 'western nations' would turn to a neighbour to help revive the nation. So this is a real 'catch 22' in my limited opinion.

   

You are absolutely correct. Whether it is right or wrong, it is certainly not absurd that Iran would support the insurgency in Iraq. There are a ton of analogies where you would assume "western" nations would do the same.

As far as the war on terror having slowed terrorism, I'd like to see any evidence of that.

   

What I mean is that western targets are not being hit, quite obviously all the terror calling cards are there, but not here, if I am making sense.

   

I get ya.

It's tough one to determine though, because the sample size for terror attacks on US soil is tiny; in fact, it's one. Are we really preventing any? It's truly hard to tell. The right would say yes, the left, no. Personally, I believe we're doomed for another one, no matter how hard we try. In fact, I'm whipping up an article about this as we speak.

As far as Iraq/Iran here's something else to chew on. It's in Iran's interest for Iraq to "fail". If the US succeeds in installing an independent government, and democracy thrives, then how many people/nations would be behind the same coup in Iran/Syria/Saudi Arabia/Lebanon/North Korea. I know I would. This is a huge reason why the US will never 'cut and run'.

Unfortunately, you need much more intelligent people behind the operation, but that's a whole other issue.

   

I fear you are correct, Iran will never foster democracy. Nor will Syria or the Saudis. So the US cant cut and run, but if they don't do something to stop the others, they never get out and if they do something; every one calls them (insert colorful words here).
As to the other, I was including Europe, though I will concide it is still too small of a 'sample size'. Maybe the war in Iraq is why is is a small sample

   

I don't think it's so much of "Iran" not wanting a democracy, as those who lead Iran. Power is a funny thing, and when you have it you don't want to give it up. That goes for Iran, America or Mars.

True democracy is pretty hard to criticize, and in general it's good for the people. Had the US succeeded in liberating Iraq, were greeted as such (blah blah, you know that fairy tale), and created a true democracy? I'm sure Iranians would have looked next door (eventually) and saw what they could have. People are selfish. Democracy is good.

The problem comes from associating democracy with 'western culture'. The latter is what the Arab world does not want, and I'm sure their propagandists are just as guilty as ours for associating the two. If you tell your people that democracy=gay marriage, porn everywhere etc etc, you can keep them from wanting it, maintaining the governement status quo. But I'd guess that your average Iranian would like a democracy as much as the next guy, when defined properly.





That's a question for 2015, me thinks.