Bush must be tired of winning. It sure feels like the worldwide momentum is giving tyrants a boot in the rear. Bush called the 21st century "liberty's century". Looks like he might be right.
 

This seems unstoppable. Syria doesn't have the political capital to crack down on the protesters. The US wouldn't stand for it, and Asad is already worried that he's the next Saddam. How many countries have to throw off tyranny before some Democrats admit the war was a good idea?

Highlight from the article you link:

The State Department's annual report on human rights abuses around the world, released Monday, called the events in Lebanon a "Cedar Revolution" — a moniker that brings the country in line with Czechoslovakia's Velvet Revolution, Georgia's Rose Revolution, and Ukraine's Orange Revolution.
 

I don't think they'll EVER admit to it. In fact, I can just hear annoying little voices fifty years from now: WELL, in *retrospect*, it turned out to be a good thing... but still, we didn't find WMD, so Bush was a dirty liar after all! Some people never change...
 

This is a major turning point in the Middle East. If the US supports this, democracy will catch on like wildfire. Like the former SU.

Sharansky must be smiling.
 

PsychoToddler: I think "catch like wildfire" is a good way to paraphrase what Bush is hoping for. Have you read Sharansky's book? I haven't but I should.

Irina: I suspect you're right.
 

First of all, I'm not sure Syria won't install another government in just a little while.

But whatever happens, in the long run the naysayers of today will in the future claim the mantle of longtime supporters (cf. the cold war).

Jeez, this is a cynical comment.
 

I read Sharansky's book, and you should too.

I'll boil it down for you:

You can't make peace with a dictatorship.

Everybody wants to be free.

Free nations don't make war against each other.

Being nice to a dictatorship only helps perpetuate it.

So...
If you want world peace, stand up to dictatorships and punish them until their people have had enough and demand reform. Then support any dissidents that crop up.

Pretty soon, presto, world peace.

I'm not saying that we'll see this here. But I think the bottle has been opened and the Arab dictators are going to have a hard time forcing the Genie back in.
 

PT: That's pretty darned glorious.

His book is definitely on my list now. You've read the articles that talked about Bush & Condy meeting with him because they've read the book? I wonder if this is going to shape the world in the next century. Kind of the new Machiaveli The Prince, but ironically about exactly opposite principles. The Prince is about how to be an effective monarch; Sharansky is about how to rid the world of them.
 

The problem is, most of these dictators aren't really that effective. Look at Assad. He's pretty dumb. Hussein went pretty easily. The Saudis are trying to clamp down on the terrorists, but only half-succeeding, so they aren't really that scary or effective after all.
 

Mommy, if I write a cool book, will I get to meet the president?
 

Irina: but they were stable before Bush. That was the European supreme value: stability. And remember Saddam had a long run. Not too many leaders have a whole country for themselves for that long.

Ralphie: I've read your stuff. My guess is that if you write a book you'll get to meet Dennis Miller or Chris Rock.
 

If you look at current events through Sharansky's lens, everything makes perfect sense.

I just through this morning's paper at my daughter and said, "See? I told you."

Now, this is the important part where the west must not drop the ball, but press the Saudis, Syrians, and Palestinians to continue.
 

The problem with applying Machiavelli to the Middle East is that Machiavelli assumed a variety of small states constantly in the state of warfare over one thing or another. The Middle Eastern states were kindly propped up by the Europeans, and, to some extent, by the green light from the United States. Had the situation been different, had Europeans been a little less chicken-hearted, how long do you think these "powerful" rulers would have lasted?