The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
The State of the Middle East [Talking 'dominos]
Posts
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12295864
Also another U.S.-propped dictator there.
Yes you do. It's exactly what the US is doing right now. Your comments about "all those years they supported Mubarak" are irrelevant to this.
They may have supported him for years, but once it looks like he might be ousted, they switch to a position of not taking sides and will probably try and cozy up to whoever comes out on top. Till that's settled, they make bland non-comments so as not to be seen backing the wrong horse.
You seem to be all pissed off the US is practicing realpolitik exactly like you'd expect them too.
Maybe because we expect that we'd actually learn from fucking history? The US has a history of installing unliked dictators into countries because they will play ball with us. And that policy has had a history of blowing up in our face.
"Realpolitik" is bullshit.
Especially since a) Mubarak was just about the only leader in the area we could count on to not inflame Arab-Israeli tensions, and b) we have no real idea what the opposition, should they gain power, have in mind for policy reconstruction. This could be Hamas/Hezbollah all over again, where (quasi-)democratically installed governments are simply manifest forms of sectarian populism and seek to do more violence against their neighbors.
If by "blowing up in our face" you mean "usurped by ignorant mobs of communists/theocrats/sectarians who only seek to make things worse," you're dead on.
The only real ways to establish fair democracies in that region are not pretty, or cheap, or quick.
Or, you know, we could stop buying into the myth that Israel is a victim and not an active participant, and actually understand what's going on.
What does this have to do with what I said?
Like the Iran situation, the US will back off from any overt support till it's sure who is going to come out on top. It's the smart way to play this. Especially considering the importance of Egypt in several areas.
We've no idea what the sides are really like down there or how this is all gonna play out, so taking sides is sticking your hand in a cage full of battling wolverines. It's dumb.
No matter how unliked Mubarak may be, if he comes out of this still in power, being seen to have been supporting the people trying to oust him will cause problems for US interests in the region and may cost them one of their best allies.
You're fucking kidding, right?
We enacted Operation Ajax for the benefit of the Iranian people? We supported the installation of a brutal dictator in Chile because it was the best solution for the people? Buddhist priests in Vietnam lit themselves on fire because they were ignorant?
No, i'd say the ignorant person is you. Read a real history book, and not the hagiographic pieces of shit we foist on US students, and you'll very quickly realize that we were more than happy to oppose democracy to better our bottom line.
Edit: shryke, the point is that us trying to play the neutral party doesn't make it so. People in the region know where we stand and what we've done, and trying to make it look like we haven't is just going to be a time bomb, as the Palestine Papers have clearly shown.
Is that what's going on here?
And is all democracy created equal?
Democracies exist with constitutions demanding genocide or condemning people death for failing to live up to misogynist standards. Democracy for democracy's sake is not an admirable policy.
I don't condone or advocate totalitarianism in the mode of Mr. Mubarek, but I'm certainly going to wait and see what the opposition's goals are before I throw my support behind them.
You know, we didn't start out shit-hot either. There was that whole "three-fifths of a person" nonsense, for starters. So I doubt we're really in the position to be casting stones.
Furthermore, you're ignoring the fact that we have killed moderate democracies for our own benefit, like for example, in Iran. In fact, Iran is a pretty good example of what could happen in Egypt - and if it does, it will be on our heads, again.
So let's not try. Let's not even try to make the transition from totalitarism to democracy, because it might take a few generations to get it right.
O_o
I'm not really seeing "there's a risk our democracy movement might be subverted" as a reasonable argument for not having a democracy movement at all. In no small part because there's some fun extensions involving the imperfection of existing democracies.
No, a revolution is not neccesarily an improvement. But you kind of have revolutions, because you're willing to take the risk.
Of course, the huge gains in the 2005 parliamentary elections allowed the Brotherhood to pose "a democratic political challenge to the regime, not a theological one" .[39] Initially, there has been widespread skepticism regarding the movement's commitment to use its influence to push Egypt forward towards a democratic state. For instance, briefly after the elections Sameh Fawzy remarked in the Al-Ahram Weekly newspaper, "If the Muslim Brotherhood were in a position to enforce its ideological monopoly, the vast majority of the populace would face severe restrictions on its freedom of opinion and belief, not just on religious matters, but on social, political, economic and cultural affairs as well" [40] However, considering its actions in the Egyptian parliament since 2005, it appears that those skeptics misjudged the movement's scope. In an article for the Middle East Report Samer Shehata from Georgetown University and Joshua Stacher from the British University in Egypt claim that, in fact, it was the Muslim Brotherhood that revived a parliament that till then had "a reputation for being a rubber stamp for the regime" .[41] First of all, according to their observations, the movement did not simply "focus on banning books and legislating the length of skirts" .[42] Instead, the movement's involvement shows attempts to reform the political system. Unlike other MPs, those associated with the Brotherhood took their parliamentary duties very seriously as an "unmatched record of attendance" [41] already shows. Moreover, they also took their role as members of the opposition to the ruling NDP quite seriously. A significant example is the creation of a considerable opposition to the extension of the emergency law when MPs associated with the Brotherhood "formed a coalition with other opposition legislators and with sympathetic members of the NDP, to protest the extension" .[39] The overall involvement leads Shehata and Stacher to the conclusion that the Brotherhood has convincingly attempted to transform "the Egyptian parliament into a real legislative body, as well as an institution that represents citizens and a mechanism that keeps government accountable".[41]
Meanwhile, approved opposition parties won only 14 seats. This revived the debate within the Egyptian political elite about whether the Brotherhood should remain banned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood
All forgetting the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood has publicly stated they would not join the protests as an organisation but individuals could. Most of the organisation of the current protests was though internet advocacy groups intiall started by Lawyers aka the middle classes.
But hey we don't know what the situation is so lets be afraid of Muslim Straw-men and instead support proven murderous and corrupt dictatorships against their own people.
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
I said I, like our government, am withholding judgment on either side until the details are more clear.
How you translated that into a wild-eyed rant against racist colonialism, I never guess.
I actually would love to see widespread revolution in the Middle East; it would seriously help ease global preconceptions that the place is a untamable hinterland of rabid, barbaric fundamentalism.
What I am offering is that the word "democracy" does not objectively have a positive value. Populism has led to some awful, awful shit, and continues to to this day.
So let's wait. And see. And let this thing run its course.
Democracies exist with constitutions demanding genocide or condemning people death for failing to live up to misogynist standards. Democracy for democracy's sake is not an admirable policy.
The sentiment that show you have no clue at all about the situation so the default is: arab + freedom + islam = misogynous and genocide.
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
Well, the United States started with White + Freedom + Christianity = misogyny, slavery, and genocide (of Native Americans).
So yeah, Democracies can take centuries of work. The United States didn't start out perfect, but it has continually worked towards the perfection of the union.
Might as well get started as soon as you can.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
I was merely citing an example of how certain democracies offer very little "freedom" or any other positive civil values. I was not suggesting this was a certainty in this case.
You jumped to those conclusions, and I suspect because it's easier to refute polarizing views that aren't being espoused.
Watch Massive Riots In Lebanon Egypt Video Click Here
What does this have to do with, say, anything, that is being discussed in this thread?
Even if U.S. government is not saying anything out loud that does not mean that it is impartial in this issue. It has strong diplomatic, military and financial ties with pretty much all the regimes discussed in this threat and their support through those channels is very well documented. It's false to say that they have not taken one side or another.
EDIT: Nobody has anything to say about Yemen? Two countries inside one month is big, three is pretty massive.
Officially, they haven't. Though immediately not aiding the current regime could at least be seen as passive support of the opposition, I suppose.
Officially the Mubarak regime in Egypt is a major U.S. Ally, has been for long and has been said to be such by all recent administrations including this one. Just because there isn't an U.S. military intervention against protesters doesn't mean that they aren't on Mubarak's side.
And really, who the fuck cares about "official" statements hidden under massive layers of diplomatic niceties. In the end they don't mean anything.
You were merely creating a straw man then, a straw man that was dealing with unspecific philosophical issues with democracy that might not actually be connected to what is happening in egypt, tunisia yemen or Lebanon. . . right well done. . .
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
"Enligthened despots" are a myth, and democracies - however flawed the opinions of the electorate are when held up to, say, the standards of human rights - do have advantages in their ability to change. Though, yes, they can certainly use this ability to change for the worse.
(Essentially, I think you're arguing that it's better to be poor, because if you had money, you could spend it on the wrong things.)
ElBaradei flies in the Cairo to join the protests, says that the country must change.
I agree. Democracies represent the average of the people. Despots can run to either extreme, however, it's a lot easier to be extremely stupid and cruel than it is to be extremely wise and kind. Especially when you've been insulated your entire life from the issues that most affect the common people.
A member of the group's Executive Bureau and its spokesman, Dr. Mohamed Morsi, said that the group will participate in a demonstration after Friday prayers in order to "achieve popular demands." The Brotherhood is keen on pushing the people's demand for reform as the group is part of the people, he said in a statement to reporters. A member of the group's Guidance Office, Dr. Saad al-Katatni, said the demonstration has been successful so far because it represents the whole society.
He said in a statement to Al-Masry Al-Youm that it is not necessary for the Brotherhood to take a leading role in the protests, but if the situation requires, its members will maintain a strong street presence.
But Suez is where it seems to be serious business. They're the first ones to set a cop shop on fire, and it really seems to be escalating from there.
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
Tomorrow is the big one. The authorities will do their best to quash it before it gets off the ground. They'll round up a bunch of people tonight, have police and/or troops on the streets before the demonstration gathers. Good luck to the peeps on the streets.
I think we're all being cautious before operation massive crackdown is launched. Yemen would probably be pretty bad for the US, as we've been huge assholes there. Even more than Egypt.
As for the movements elsewhere, let them shake out. A popular uprising that topples the government in Yemen or Egypt could be pretty devastating to US Middle East policy, but could also turn out a state that might be amicable toward the US without the taint of dictatorship. Granted, the positive side seems unlikely, but with the troubles facing a lot of countries (the US undoubtedly included), the last thing we need to be doing is wandering all over with our big stick telling people whose culture we don't understand how they ought to live. I could be wrong about this, but I feel like whenever the US leans on a government, it just causes more grassroots extremists to pop up.
Someone finally suggested making Jerusalem an independent city-state?
That's how it ends up playing out in the Tom Clancy/Jack Ryan universe. The Swiss Guards police the place.
So like some multi-denominational Vatican? I could dig it.
Sadly, an old Israeli nuke is found by some terrorists who are all pissed about the peace thing, so they try to trigger world war three by nuking the Super Bowl.
I'm sad that I know this.
Was this before or after the president and the entire congress were killed by a suicidal japanese pilot?