Wind of Change: Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Bahrain

[gloomyDAY]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12300164

Is Syria next? I hope the Iranian government gets toppled.

[Rudy Tamasz]

It is more complicated than that. In muslim countries popular uprisings often end up putting fundamentalist regimes in place. That is exactly what happened in Iran in 1978 (remember American diplomats taken hostage?). I don't like corrupt undemocratic regimes, but fundamentalist alternative does not attract me either.

[Mark]

But this isn't about religion, it's about basic things such as unemployment and food prices!

[Roy]

It is more complicated than that. In muslim countries popular uprisings often end up putting fundamentalist regimes in place. That is exactly what happened in Iran in 1978 (remember American diplomats taken hostage?). I don't like corrupt undemocratic regimes, but fundamentalist alternative does not attract me either.

And there are countries in Europe who needs a dramatic change for democracy. Isn't Rudy Tamasz?

[Mark]

Well lets remember that many countries in Europe did rise up against dictatorship and overthrow it to usher in democracy. East Germany, Poland, Romania, etc etc.

It does seem the authorities are clamping down on this pretty hard, if you want to overthrow the government, you need the army and police to be on your side, or at least stay out of it.

[Rudy Tamasz]

But this isn't about religion, it's about basic things such as unemployment and food prices!

I understand that people got fed up with corrupt and inefficient governments. Being fed up and throwing the president out of the office won't help, though, if there is no reasonable plan of action and people to implement it. Normally in Muslim countries secular pro-Western opposition is as much corrupt and inefficient as the government they have toppled. It is the fundamentalists who know exactly what to do. That's why they make the most out of carnage. By hook or crook they get on top, establish Sharia law, and voila, you have public stonings etc. Just check the experience of Iran and Afghanistan. Same thing is about to happen to Pakistan. It will be a global disaster, given the size of the country.

I feel for the people of those countries but I have no team to root for in those standoffs.

[Rudy Tamasz]

And there are countries in Europe who needs a dramatic change for democracy. Isn't Rudy Tamasz?

That's true. And we have the same dilemma. Crappy gov't vs. crappy opposition.

[Roamy]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12300164

Is Syria next? I hope the Iranian government gets toppled.

The problem could be - Who will wind up in power - be careful what you ask for. I would imagine if the iranians protested you would see a lot of death. But none the less that is a real powder keg over there and hopefully we will keep our nose out of it. Alternative fueled cars is our answer.

[Daniel]

The problem could be - Who will wind up in power - be careful what you ask for. I would imagine if the iranians protested you would see a lot of death. But none the less that is a real powder keg over there and hopefully we will keep our nose out of it. Alternative fueled cars is our answer.

I almost spat my drink onto my keyboard when I saw who wrote that very sensible post ;)

[Roamy]

yea daniel - I am full of surprises :)

[Roamy]

People keep screwing spewing kids all over in countries that have no jobs. In Egypt half the population is under 30 yrs old and half of those are unemployed. So basically in the next 30 yrs you are going to have the unemployed and underprivlidged blowing the sh!t out of the establishment. I am afraid the world is a rapidly growing cesspool setting on a powder keg. Plus the poorer the nation the less they understand QUIT HAVING KIDS. And those leading us are as dumb. I just laugh when I hear all this carbon crap 1 million care 5 billion don't

[Daniel]

I just laugh when I hear all this carbon crap 1 million care 5 billion don't

Agreed. The problem is that it's a bit rich for us to sit in the west with our cars, homes, tv's and overseas holidays and tell the developing world that they need to cut down too......

[anthonyvop]

That is what they said in Iran.....and Carter believed them

[Hondo]

Give the American oil industry the green light on drilling on all US controlled reserves, said oil produced for the sale price of $70 per barrel. Use Presidential executive orders to slide past restrictive EPA nonsense. Apply the same for new power plants using nuclear, natural gas, coal, and waste fuel (used motor oil, cooking oil, chopped up tires, etc.) and refineries. Add a tariff of $3000.00 to each export ton of wheat, corn, rice, beans, sugar and other foodstuffs. Add a $6000.00 tariff to all imported foodstuffs in kind. Bring the troops home, all of them from every where. Allow our independent fellow humans in other nations to defend themselves or go under. No more foreign aid either, do it yourselves. We don't need a global economy.

An aside to our al-Qaeda friends. Notice how the Tunisian revolution was sparked (pun intended) by a guy setting himself on fire. Why don't you stop all your silly-assed suicide bombings of largely innocent people, issue your troops a Zippo and a can of gasoline, and tell them to go find a busy intersection.

Ignore the Middle East and allow the Arabs and Persians to gleefully cannalibize each other

[Mark in Oshawa]

Gotta love you Hondo, that head in the sand stuff worked SO well for the US in the 30's...

This unrest in the Arab world portends uncertain futures, and into this chaos will step in an order of Muslim fanatics who may find leverage in this. We could end up with a much more hostile Arab world than we see now. The dictatorships that the West tolerated there will be toppled, and the tepid support the West gave to the status quo may fuel more anti western movements; not less. What is more, while this is economic, in any Muslim country, the Muslim Brotherhood will be a factor, and following them, old Bin Laden will be found. It could be one crazy world..and the only revolution in this part of it that may actually work in the West's favour is the Iranians I think will be pushed to the breaking point. Ahmedinajiad may have over played his hand....and apparently even the Mullahs think he is pushing too hard, and they may decide that he is overstepping his authority.

[Bob Riebe]

That is what they said in Iran.....and Carter believed them
Several networks beyond Fox yesterday had talking heads saying this the same way Iran started down the road from a country with muslims in which women had fairly free reign into the muslim cleric cancer it now is.
Carter was shown to be fool in international politics, Obama has done nothing to show he is not worse than Carter.

[Hondo]

No head in the sand to it. It's just not our business. We did not have our heads in the sand in the '30s. We had embargos in place, choking down Japan to do what...save China? Yeah, that one paid off well didn't it? We didn't have our heads in the sand while we engaged in all manner of activities to support Russia and Britain because they had their heads up their asses. We did not have our heads in the sand after WW 1 when we warned the severe terms put on Germany would cause it to rise and bite again.

Ok, a more hostile Arab world. So what? They gonna cut off the oil? I doubt it. Oil is the only thing keeping them from going back to goat herding on an industrial scale. An oil cut off would raise hell for awhile, at least until western production came up to speed ( Canada, Mexico, Russia,and the USA ) but it would also force a serious interest in different fuel sources. Automobiles can be powered by natural gas, alcohol, and other fuel oil type sources.

As has been well demostrated time and time again, elected central governments don't work well in the Arab and Persian lands of tribes, sects, and clans. They only begin to exercise control and order once a "strongman" takes power and ensures he keeps that power through the facade of popular elections. There are many nations with nuclear weapons now and a nutter in any country could launch a nuclear attack against another country. There will be severe retailiation. They know that. The west has nothing to fear from the Arabs. They became dependent on cheap Arab oil and can learn to kick the habit. After that, the Arabs had better learn how to eat oil.

Let Islam devour Islam.

[Eki]

We don't need a global economy.

You wouldn't be driving your Hondo without the Japanese.

[Hondo]

Hondo is a charactor, not a vehicle. I drove other vehicles before Hondas were imported and in fact, have never owned a Honda car. The USA does not live or die based upon access to Honda cars.

I wonder, even now, how many dumbass Americans are in Egypt now, saying "Oh, we're in no danger here...the Egyptians love us..." that will end up dead or as hostages that we will have to jump through hoops for to get them back. Better still, how many had vacation travel plans to Egypt and still intend to go. Stupid.

[Malbec]

Gotta love you Hondo, that head in the sand stuff worked SO well for the US in the 30's...

This unrest in the Arab world portends uncertain futures, and into this chaos will step in an order of Muslim fanatics who may find leverage in this. We could end up with a much more hostile Arab world than we see now. The dictatorships that the West tolerated there will be toppled, and the tepid support the West gave to the status quo may fuel more anti western movements; not less. What is more, while this is economic, in any Muslim country, the Muslim Brotherhood will be a factor, and following them, old Bin Laden will be found. It could be one crazy world..and the only revolution in this part of it that may actually work in the West's favour is the Iranians I think will be pushed to the breaking point. Ahmedinajiad may have over played his hand....and apparently even the Mullahs think he is pushing too hard, and they may decide that he is overstepping his authority.

Mark what you're saying about the Muslim brotherhood and Al-Qaeda is nonsense. Its like saying that voting for the Republicans will bring in an army of Timothy McVeighs into the senate. Forget the crap that your news stations are telling you, it has no link with reality.

I have little doubt that the Muslim brotherhood will have a stronger hand in a post-Mubarak Egypt but they will not introduce a theocracy. Firstly Iran stands there as a warning to the entire Muslim world as to what happens when the mullahs take over and there will be a backlash in Egypt against that. There is a reason Iranians rebel against their theocracy and Arabs don't want to share the same fate. Secondly it looks like the army will be one of the few institutions in Egypt that will survive these troubles and they are overwhelmingly secular in outlook. They won't stand around and let a theocracy emerge whereas in Iran the armed forces did not involve themselves in politics once they abandoned the Shah and were neutered swiftly by the fanatics.

Finally Egypt already has democratically elected institutions in place like Tunisia but unlike Iran under the Shah. These institutions are most likely to carry on with army support while being reformed considerably to allow more political freedom rather than starting afresh from nothing.

Whats interesting about Egypt is that it has always been the most advanced Arab state, providing political and cultural leadership to the Arab Nationalist movement so what happens there is likely to influence other northern Arab countries like Jordan and Syria a lot.

The US is stuck in a quandary. Whatever takes over from Mubarak is unlikely to be as pro-US/Israeli but it will be much more democratic in nature. So what is the US going to do? Support anti-democratic but pro-US forces or stand by its principles and support pro-democracy groups that may not be as pro-US as groups they replace?

[Daniel]

I wonder, even now, how many dumbass Americans are in Egypt now, saying "Oh, we're in no danger here...the Egyptians love us..." that will end up dead or as hostages that we will have to jump through hoops for to get them back. Better still, how many had vacation travel plans to Egypt and still intend to go. Stupid.

You seriously actually think this?

[Eki]

Hondo is a charactor, not a vehicle.
I knew you were a character. You probably drive a Dodge like Al Bundy in "Married with Children". "Hondo" was his favorite movie.

[Zico]

A photographer friend sent me the following link, incredible, moment defining photojournalism of the Egyptian protests.

WARNING- Contains some gory content.


http://totallycoolpix.com/2011/01/the-egypt-protests/

[race aficionado]

A photographer friend sent me the following link, incredible, moment defining photojournalism of the Egyptian protests.

WARNING- Contains some gory content.


http://totallycoolpix.com/2011/01/the-egypt-protests/

Brother against brother . . . . .

[Brown, Jon Brow]

We don't need a global economy.

Welcome to free-market capitalism.

[Hondo]

Nobody could survive unregulated capitalism either. But it did build the industrial western world in which you live and play.

[Hondo]

You bet. It's the way some of our people are. They are still crusing around on 2nd grade geography thinking the entire world loves, admires, and envies Americans. They don't spend time on international forums learning how hated and despised they are and that's a good thing for some. Otherwise this country would swing to nationalism in a heartbeat.

[Bob Riebe]

So what is the US going to do? Support anti-democratic but pro-US forces or stand by its principles and support pro-democracy groups that may not be as pro-US as groups they replace?
As long as Obama, instead of keeping his mouth shut and saying what happens in Egypt is up to the Egyptians, keeps on with his prattle about god given human, or universal human, rights and other such non-existent bs, he will look like a fool who rather than being the President of the U.S. should instead play one on TV.

[Eki]

Otherwise this country would swing to nationalism in a heartbeat.
Isn't it there already? The President of the US wears a pin of the US flag on his lapel, not the flag of the United Nations. I remember hosting an American professor visiting our university. It was the day of our Armed Forces and the birthday of Field Marshall Mannerheim and the Finnish flags were flying. He asked if they were flying everyday, and I replied that just on important days. He said in the US many fly the US flag daily. I asked isn't it like having a Christmas tree all year, it loses its meaning.

[Hondo]

No, I'm talking about a huge popular demand for nationalism. The same way the Tea party displaced some 60 odd politicians last time around. The American people are starting to wake up. With the right trigger, what is happening in Egypt could happen here too.

[BDunnell]

My goodness, this discussion perhaps more than any other is illustrative of the overwrought madness that seems to have taken hold of the American right. I am more than a little disturbed by it.

[Dave B]

Thank goodness they kept their guns to overthrow their pesky government, eh?

[Rollo]

Ok, a more hostile Arab world. So what? They gonna cut off the oil? I doubt it. Oil is the only thing keeping them from going back to goat herding on an industrial scale. An oil cut off would raise hell for awhile, at least until western production came up to speed ( Canada, Mexico, Russia,and the USA ) but it would also force a serious interest in different fuel sources. Automobiles can be powered by natural gas, alcohol, and other fuel oil type sources.

The west has nothing to fear from the Arabs. They became dependent on cheap Arab oil and can learn to kick the habit. After that, the Arabs had better learn how to eat oil.


The major problem with oil (and one of the reasons why a very small amount of countries are able to control the price) is that it isn't petrol which is the main driver for prices but demand for plastics and greases.
In particular Saudi oil contains very long chain hydrocarbons, C60 and beyond. Because it's far easier to "crack" hydrocarbon chains than to add them together, then the longest chains are going to be more useful. Plastics and especially industrial grease require longer chains.

As for powering motor cars, then I ask the question that if the United States had spent the last ten years and the money that they'd spent trying to blow up people and sort out the troubles in the Middle East, would a solution have already have been found?
Their service, how honourable, how useful, or how necessary soever, produces nothing for which an equal quantity of service can afterwards be procured. The protection, security, and defence of the commonwealth, the effect of their labour this year, will not purchase its protection, security, and defence for the year to come.
- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776.
Basically this is a question of the opportunity cost of going to war in the first place. By effectively wasting money on going to war, then it perpetuates the need to be dependent on oil.

[Hondo]

Thank goodness they kept their guns to overthrow their pesky government, eh?

That's exactly why the second amendment is in the constitution.

[anthonyvop]

Nobody could survive unregulated capitalism either. But it did build the industrial western world in which you live and play.

Capitalism is the only truly free society.

[Rollo]

Capitalism is the only truly free society.

What about anarchy?

[Bob Riebe]

What about anarchy?Anarchy is the anti-thesis of society.

[ICWS]

Hey, as long as Democracy is not imposed upon Egypt, then they can have any other form of government as far as I'm concerned...

Democracy is unnatural. Democracy is an illusion. Democracy denies reality. Democracy is unaware of rationality. Democracy is measured by mass rather than quality. Democracy allows for mob rule; thus promoting weak leaders who do what the people want regardless of their wants being right or wrong. Democracy promotes popularity over intelligence and realism. Democracy eventually leads to more bureaucracy. Democracy is political entertainment. Democracy is psychologically burdensome. Democracy leads to exploitation of a country's citizens. Democracy turns people into parasites. Democracy neutralizes unpopular truths. Democracy promotes the idea that a lie that is told often enough eventually becomes a truth. Democracy creates selfishness. Democracy promotes a shallow and materialistic lifestyle. Democracy believes that the wants of the individual outweigh the needs of the whole. Democracy produces mediocrity and banality. Democracy is vunerable to corruption. Democracy is slow to react. Democratic leaders are at the mercy of various oligarchs. Democracies become dominated by greedy oligarchs. Democracies eventually collapse into tyrannies because they counterbalance excessive freedom with excessive authority...

Plato knew all about this in regards to democracy thousands of years ago, and history since then has shown that he was correct in his thinking. Of course, people oftentimes fail to learn from history and thus fail to realize that history can and will repeat itself.

[Bob Riebe]

Hey, as long as Democracy is not imposed upon Egypt, then they can have any other form of government as far as I'm concerned...

Democracy is unnatural. Democracy is an illusion. Democracy denies reality. Democracy is unaware of rationality. Democracy is measured by mass rather than quality. Democracy allows for mob rule; thus promoting weak leaders who do what the people want regardless of their wants being right or wrong. Democracy promotes popularity over intelligence and realism. Democracy eventually leads to more bureaucracy. Democracy is political entertainment. Democracy is psychologically burdensome. Democracy leads to exploitation of a country's citizens. Democracy turns people into parasites. Democracy neutralizes unpopular truths. Democracy promotes the idea that a lie that is told often enough eventually becomes a truth. Democracy creates selfishness. Democracy promotes a shallow and materialistic lifestyle. Democracy believes that the wants of the individual outweigh the needs of the whole. Democracy produces mediocrity and banality. Democracy is vunerable to corruption. Democracy is slow to react. Democratic leaders are at the mercy of various oligarchs. Democracies become dominated by greedy oligarchs. Democracies eventually collapse into tyrannies because they counterbalance excessive freedom with excessive authority...

Plato knew all about this in regards to democracy thousands of years ago, and history since then has shown that he was correct in his thinking. Of course, people oftentimes fail to learn from history and thus fail to realize that history can and will repeat itself.Your thesis above is self-contradicting.

[ICWS]

Your thesis above is self-contradicting.

How so? Please explain.

[ICWS]

When I say "Democracy being imposed upon Egypt", I mean that foreign officials/organizations/countries like the United States, United Nations, European Union, etc. may be attempting to influence or force the Egyptian government to take up the type of democratic government that the pro-democracy movement that are heading the protests are asking for. In fact, the U.S. is getting a head start on that already: http://www.newstimeafrica.com/archives/15699... Apparently, it seems the U.S. government still thinks the Cold War is going on and thus believes it still needs to be the world's police, so it is in its interests for Egypt to become a democracy, regardless if it's the right or wrong thing to do for that country.

Throughout history, the United States has been the only country where this kind of democracy has worked at a large scale. Every other government that attempted this kind of democracy collapsed, and usually turned into a tyranny. That's why I think it would be a mistake for Egypt or any other country that has similar conditions and circumstances to try to become the kind of democracy that the United States is.

The fall of the Roman Republic, Athenian Republic, and Weimar Republic in Germany are classic examples of how democracies eventually collapse and often become tyrannies.

[Rollo]

Throughout history, the United States has been the only country where this kind of democracy has worked at a large scale. Every other government that attempted this kind of democracy collapsed, and usually turned into a tyranny. That's why I think it would be a mistake for Egypt or any other country that has similar conditions and circumstances to try to become the kind of democracy that the United States is.

The United Kingdom has had its current system of government since 1689. Also, the longest continuously sitting legislature in the world belongs to the state of New South Wales which dates from 1855.

[ICWS]

You're half-right with the United Kingdom. Yes, it has similarities with the U.S. but there are several factors that prevent it from being a democracy like the U.S. purports to being. Three things that prevent it from being like the U.S. are 1. The Royal Familiy 2. The House of Lords 3. It has a parliamentary system. With a parliamentary system, the executive and legislative branches of U.K's government are always controlled by the same party, whereas the U.S. executive and legislative branches can be controlled by different parties.

So while Britain may call itself a democracy, it is not as democratic as the U.S. is in the sense of elections... You also have to realize that the United Kingdom is much smaller in both land and population than the U.S., so it is easier to attempt a democracy in that nation than it is in a larger nation. Which brings me back to Egypt... Egypt is larger than the United Kingdom in population (about 20 million more people than U.K.) and in area of land. Its GDP per capita is far lower than the United Kingdom as well, despite reforming its previously centralized economy. These are several factors that leave me to believe that a democracy could make things worse for a country like Egypt.

[Hondo]

Hey, as long as Democracy is not imposed upon Egypt, then they can have any other form of government as far as I'm concerned...

Democracy is unnatural. Democracy is an illusion. Democracy denies reality. Democracy is unaware of rationality. Democracy is measured by mass rather than quality. Democracy allows for mob rule; thus promoting weak leaders who do what the people want regardless of their wants being right or wrong. Democracy promotes popularity over intelligence and realism. Democracy eventually leads to more bureaucracy. Democracy is political entertainment. Democracy is psychologically burdensome. Democracy leads to exploitation of a country's citizens. Democracy turns people into parasites. Democracy neutralizes unpopular truths. Democracy promotes the idea that a lie that is told often enough eventually becomes a truth. Democracy creates selfishness. Democracy promotes a shallow and materialistic lifestyle. Democracy believes that the wants of the individual outweigh the needs of the whole. Democracy produces mediocrity and banality. Democracy is vunerable to corruption. Democracy is slow to react. Democratic leaders are at the mercy of various oligarchs. Democracies become dominated by greedy oligarchs. Democracies eventually collapse into tyrannies because they counterbalance excessive freedom with excessive authority...

Plato knew all about this in regards to democracy thousands of years ago, and history since then has shown that he was correct in his thinking. Of course, people oftentimes fail to learn from history and thus fail to realize that history can and will repeat itself.

I love that because one of the purist forms of democracy we have today is the labor union. You summed them up pretty well. I don't recall any democratic principle that puts the individual ahead of the masses although the laws and codes adopted by a democracy may.

[ArrowsFA1]

Capitalism is the only truly free society.
As summarised by Gordon Gekko (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094291/):

"The richest one percent of this country owns half our country's wealth. One third of that comes from hard work, two thirds comes from inheritance, interest on interest accumulating to widows and idiot sons and what I do, stock and real estate speculation. It's bull****. You got ninety percent of the American public out there with little or no net worth. I create nothing. I own. We make the rules, pal. The news, war, peace, famine, upheaval, the price per paper clip. We pick that rabbit out of the hat while everybody sits out there wondering how the hell we did it. Now you're not naive enough to think we're living in a democracy, are you buddy? It's the free market."

[Mark in Oshawa]

Mark what you're saying about the Muslim brotherhood and Al-Qaeda is nonsense. Its like saying that voting for the Republicans will bring in an army of Timothy McVeighs into the senate. Forget the crap that your news stations are telling you, it has no link with reality.

I have little doubt that the Muslim brotherhood will have a stronger hand in a post-Mubarak Egypt but they will not introduce a theocracy. Firstly Iran stands there as a warning to the entire Muslim world as to what happens when the mullahs take over and there will be a backlash in Egypt against that. There is a reason Iranians rebel against their theocracy and Arabs don't want to share the same fate. Secondly it looks like the army will be one of the few institutions in Egypt that will survive these troubles and they are overwhelmingly secular in outlook. They won't stand around and let a theocracy emerge whereas in Iran the armed forces did not involve themselves in politics once they abandoned the Shah and were neutered swiftly by the fanatics.

Finally Egypt already has democratically elected institutions in place like Tunisia but unlike Iran under the Shah. These institutions are most likely to carry on with army support while being reformed considerably to allow more political freedom rather than starting afresh from nothing.

Whats interesting about Egypt is that it has always been the most advanced Arab state, providing political and cultural leadership to the Arab Nationalist movement so what happens there is likely to influence other northern Arab countries like Jordan and Syria a lot.

The US is stuck in a quandary. Whatever takes over from Mubarak is unlikely to be as pro-US/Israeli but it will be much more democratic in nature. So what is the US going to do? Support anti-democratic but pro-US forces or stand by its principles and support pro-democracy groups that may not be as pro-US as groups they replace?

Nonsense? I don't think it is nonsense not to trust the Muslim brotherhood or Al Quaida. If Mubarek falls, it wont be a gentle democrat taking the place of him. This nation is in flux, and out of chaos only strong and bold movements will take power. The people on the street are not organized. I agree with you that the Army will have a say, and I am now yes reading they are more or less staying out of this and not backing the government, but in the end, it all depends on how well organized the Army stays and whether they have any factions that would back a religious movement to take the nation.

I hope you are right Dylan, but the reality is no one knows how it will all turn out. Those kids in the street are pawns to an extent, and another theocratic regime would be just as bad as Mubarek's regime. The irony is, Mubarek is tame by Arab world standards...I am really curious to see how things go in Syria if the people there start stepping up to go at the Assads...

[Mark in Oshawa]

Mubarek's latest gambit to change the cabinet was refused by the opposition according to the radio right now. The fact he is making concessions says he knows he is in trouble....which proves he isn't stupid if nothing else. As for the fact he hasn't been able to use the Army to stop the protests says he isn't the vicious thug some would wish him to be. He is however, a marked man....

Egypt is at the tipping point, and after Tunisia, I have to wonder if Syria, Jordan or god forbid the Saudi's are not sweating bullets at this point....

[anthonyvop]

I love that because one of the purist forms of democracy we have today is the labor union. .

Are you serious?

Closed Shops
Physical attacks on those who refuse to join
Historical connections with Organized Crime
Use of worker's dues for political campaigns even if the worker is against it.

[anthonyvop]

As summarised by Gordon Gekko (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094291/):

You are quoting a movie character created by Oliver Stone for your argument? Thanks for confirming my beliefs!

[anthonyvop]

The United Kingdom has had its current system of government since 1689. Also, the longest continuously sitting legislature in the world belongs to the state of New South Wales which dates from 1855.

The US Congress as we know it was first convened in 1789.

[anthonyvop]

You're half-right with the United Kingdom. Yes, it has similarities with the U.S. but there are several factors that prevent it from being a democracy like the U.S. purports to being. Three things that prevent it from being like the U.S. are 1. The Royal Familiy 2. The House of Lords 3. It has a parliamentary system. With a parliamentary system, the executive and legislative branches of U.K's government are always controlled by the same party, whereas the U.S. executive and legislative branches can be controlled by different parties.

So while Britain may call itself a democracy, it is not as democratic as the U.S. is in the sense of elections... You also have to realize that the United Kingdom is much smaller in both land and population than the U.S., so it is easier to attempt a democracy in that nation than it is in a larger nation. Which brings me back to Egypt... Egypt is larger than the United Kingdom in population (about 20 million more people than U.K.) and in area of land. Its GDP per capita is far lower than the United Kingdom as well, despite reforming its previously centralized economy. These are several factors that leave me to believe that a democracy could make things worse for a country like Egypt.

The biggest difference is that freedom of speech is the Guaranteed right in the U.S. but not in the U.K. A system of government cannot be considered truly based on democratic principle unless Freedom of Speech is Guaranteed.

[Daniel]

The biggest difference is that freedom of speech is the Guaranteed right in the U.S. but not in the U.K. A system of government cannot be considered truly based on democratic principle unless Freedom of Speech is Guaranteed.

So whilst we have free speach yours is better because it's guaranteed in the constitution? :confused:

[ArrowsFA1]

You are quoting a movie character created by Oliver Stone for your argument? Thanks for confirming my beliefs!
What are they? Gekko is a fictional representation of unfettered capitalism and you have said capitalism is the only truly free society. Doesn't Gekko represent your beliefs?

[Malbec]

Nonsense? I don't think it is nonsense not to trust the Muslim brotherhood or Al Quaida.

Thats not what I said. I said its nonsense to believe that the Muslim brotherhood is linked with Al Qaeda.

I don't think Syria will have any problems. You need structures like political groups and unions to orchestrate massive revolts, Egypt has them, Syria doesn't. Also Syria has an even more fearsome secret police and the military exists purely to exercise political power. It ain't going to happen I'm afraid.

[Hondo]

Are you serious?

Closed Shops
Physical attacks on those who refuse to join
Historical connections with Organized Crime
Use of worker's dues for political campaigns even if the worker is against it.


Democracy in the way the officers are elected and in conducting union business, not it's foreign policy. Each member has one vote, majority rules. Yes, unions are democractic.

[Retro Formula 1]

Whatever happens in these countries has to happen without the West interfering.

Hopefully, whatever happens will be the best for their people and their Neighbours.

[glauistean]

As long as Obama, instead of keeping his mouth shut and saying what happens in Egypt is up to the Egyptians, keeps on with his prattle about god given human, or universal human, rights and other such non-existent bs, he will look like a fool who rather than being the President of the U.S. should instead play one on TV.

You have thrown out the lure baiting democrats or is it liberals three times now to join in your bashing. No one has taken it Riebe.

Don't use my post as an indicator as I am only pointing out the obvious, not trying to participate in your diatribe.

[Mark]

The protectors all want Mubarak out. But they are split on what they want instead. Some an Islamic republic. That would not be a good thing for the stability of the region.

[OWFan19]

Whatever happens in these countries has to happen without the West interfering.

Hopefully, whatever happens will be the best for their people and their Neighbours.
Ironic that we went to Iraq to spread freedom and democracy. Yet when it comes to Egpyt, it scares the **** out of us that it will come. All in the name of Oil. It's great we can freely use the canal to transport 20% of our oil, imagine if the Muslim Brotherhood controls it. If they are democratically elected.

[Mark]

The military has just said they 'Will not use force' to end the protests. I guess that leaves the way clear...

[Roamy]

I don't get it. Does Mubarak really think he will survive this?? He should be applying for asylum somewhere at this moment.

[Hondo]

The only time you had any kind of "stability" in the Middle East was when France, Britain, Germany, USA, and Russia pulling the puppet strings after WW2. We all made our tweaks and adjustments as we saw fit and things, for the industrial nations, went smoothly. Then everybody got on their moral high horses about how wrong it was to interfere. As some of the wikileaks have born out, much of that interference was privately and quietly requested by the host governments.

I say let the people put in whatever government they want, or even none at all if they want to do the tribe thing again. The west only wants the people to choose their government if they choose something the west can live with. I'm tired of the double talk and the whining, from everybody. So let them choose...Islamic Republic, Communisim, republic, commonwealth, warlords, a king, ... I just don't care. And, if after they settle in with their new choice, they have no stability, have to robe their dogs to please Allah, and are worried about their neighbors invading them, I won't care about that either. Thats life in the independence business.

[ICWS]

Someone earlier in this thread mentioned the long term solution is fewer people in the world. That is a truth many refuse to acknowledge.

I think people refuse to acknowledge that because it conjures up thoughts of eugenics and Nazi Germany, even though the concept of eugenics exisited many years before the Third Reich came into power; Plato himself expounded beliefs similar to eugenics, as he believed human reproduction should be monitored by the state.

Refusing to acknowledge overpopulation is essentially refusing to acknowledge an unpopular truth. Overpopulation is not necessarily the result of an imbalance between people and the natural resources available to consume, but rather the result of certain segments of the world population breeding at a high rate.

Eugenics was heavily supported/used in the the late 19th-century and early 20th century, thanks to Francis Galton and his half-cousin Charles Darwin. The United States, Great Britain, Canada, China, Japan, Australia, and Sweden are examples of nations that supported the concept of eugenics and even adopted some form of a eugenics program during this time and even after World War 2.

Countries suffering from a difficult economic situation and severe overpopulation like Egypt may consider going beyond its current family planning education/putting women in the workforce program and implement some kind of eugenics program to curb this problem.

[schmenke]

Some of you may have heard of this fellow and his presentations.
Somewhat simplistic, but worth the ~5 minutes:

http://www.gapminder.org/videos/population-growth-explained-with-ikea-boxes/

[Hondo]

I think one of the reasons China has pulled itself up to the top now is due to the population control programs they adopted many, many years ago. You're correct about eugenics being nothing new. Even ancient tribes and more modern tribes like the American indians used to kill malformed newborns and leave the old and disabled to fend for themselves because the tribe couldn't afford to support the useless at the expense of feeding less to the productive.

Then again, they pitched virgins into volcanos too. Where you gonna get a virgin nowadays?

[Hondo]

Even in India, and although illegal, don't some country folks still try to kill newborn females because ultimately they are an expense whereas the male child will be an asset?

[Roamy]

What do the TIREs think about Islam taking control of Egypt such a like Iran after the Shah?
I think it will be quite bad for the region.

[OWFan19]

What do the TIREs think about Islam taking control of Egypt such a like Iran after the Shah?
I think it will be quite bad for the region.
I think it will be different than Iran, which is mostly ****e, Egpyt is very Sunni. So the fundmentals are much different, I think it would be more like Saudi Arabi. Now if its like Yemen, then we have a totally different problem.

[Roamy]

I think it will be different than Iran, which is mostly ****e, Egpyt is very Sunni. So the fundmentals are much different, I think it would be more like Saudi Arabi. Now if its like Yemen, then we have a totally different problem.

But the Sunni guy in Iraq Sadr is very anti US.

[anthonyvop]

So whilst we have free speach yours is better because it's guaranteed in the constitution? :confused:

The UK does not have freedom of speech. I refer you to the Public Order Act 1986, the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 and the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 Just ask

[anthonyvop]

Democracy in the way the officers are elected and in conducting union business, not it's foreign policy. Each member has one vote, majority rules. Yes, unions are democractic.

Right....Sure.....and you really believe that?

[anthonyvop]

What are they? Gekko is a fictional representation of unfettered capitalism and you have said capitalism is the only truly free society. Doesn't Gekko represent your beliefs?

No..Gekko is a representation of what an Anti-American, hypocritical, socialist believes what Capitalism is...Not what Capitalism truly is.

[Mark]

The second the army said they wouldn't intervene it was over for Mubarak, especially going to be after the march today. He'll be gone by the end of the week.

[ArrowsFA1]

No..Gekko is a representation of what an Anti-American, hypocritical, socialist believes what Capitalism is...Not what Capitalism truly is.
As I thought. Thanks :)

[BDunnell]

The UK does not have freedom of speech. I refer you to the Public Order Act 1986, the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 and the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 Just ask

When were you last in the UK? Or would you refuse to travel there, given that our restrictive laws would render you mute, unable to preach the word of true freedom?

[Rollo]

The UK does not have freedom of speech. I refer you to the Public Order Act 1986, the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 and the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 Just ask

I refer you to the Bill of Rights Act 1689 and the Scottish Claim of Right which gave people in the UK the right to free speech some 87 years before your country even existed.

[Mark]

That's a difficult thing for Americans to understand, with their written constitution that the UK is different, as it didn't have a sudden birth born of revolution, but practice has been established over hundreds of years, some written down in documents, some recognised custom which were never written down but have just as much force. It's a system which has evolved and changed to what the people wanted, and not laid out in black and white from the start.

It's also true that the UK, at least in Europe, was one of the leaders in representation of the public and limited monarchy. Whereas in other European states, such as France, the monarch had absolute power and could do anything they wanted. Whereas in England (and later England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland etc) the King also had absolute power, but with the crucial difference that he didn't have any money or tax raising powers, that lay with parliament. Even though parliament wasn't exactly representative of the people for a long time, but such an approach let us have evolution, rather than revolution, such as in France. Ok there's the small matter of the civil wars to think of too :p

[BDunnell]

That's a difficult thing for Americans to understand, with their written constitution that the UK is different, as it didn't have a sudden birth born of revolution, but practice has been established over hundreds of years, some written down in documents, some recognised custom which were never written down but have just as much force. It's a system which has evolved and changed to what the people wanted, and not laid out in black and white from the start.


Coupled with the fact that some — not all — on the American right have a belief in their country's superiority to a degree that some might find disturbing, as we see, it leads to the view that any other nation's system must be innately inferior, even when the individuals holding that view have almost zero knowledge of the other nations they are so keen to criticise.

[Retro Formula 1]

I find it funny that you can have religious book burnings and suppression of freedom of thought (and one might say speech), you feel justified in detaining suspected terrorists and torturing them, you can invade and country causing 100's of 1,000's of innocent deaths and yet you tolerate racists, homophobic protesters and will defend the right to arm these idiots with guns quoting some out of date legislation that could really do with updating.

[Daniel]

I refer you to the Bill of Rights Act 1689 and the Scottish Claim of Right which gave people in the UK the right to free speech some 87 years before your country even existed.

Yeah but if it's not called a constitution it doesn't matter.

[Retro Formula 1]

As soon as you start trying to limit someone's freedom because "they don't deserve it" - they're a gun nut; a racist; member of the Klan; a dirty commie; a left wing nut case - you have opened the door to someone else limiting your freedom. That's why we tolerate the wackos on both sides so long as they don't break the laws.

What about suspected Terrorists at Guantanamo. Not much tolerance there but there is illegal detention and torture. Don't they deserve freedom or at least Justice?

What about the Espionage and Sedition Acts in America. What about Goldstein, Schenck, Debs and countless others? As for the Smith Act, what hypocrisy after looking at Americas foreign policy.

In fact, lets look at domestic policy. What about the Indian Act and the treatment of Native Americans or does the Constitution only apply to Colonists?

[Bob Riebe]

What about suspected Terrorists at Guantanamo. Not much tolerance there but there is illegal detention and torture. Don't they deserve freedom or at least Justice?

What about the Espionage and Sedition Acts in America. What about Goldstein, Schenck, Debs and countless others? As for the Smith Act, what hypocrisy after looking at Americas foreign policy.

In fact, lets look at domestic policy. What about the Indian Act and the treatment of Native Americans or does the Constitution only apply to Colonists?

Only liberals would even think anyone in Guantanamo has any rights; Pres. Obama found out the hard way trying to give them what they do not have is not only wrong but made him look foolish.

What about the Espionage and Sedition Acts in America. What about Goldstein, Schenck, Debs and countless others?-- You mentioned them so what about them?

The Indians got screwed royally, but courts, especially for the Indians, has worked very well at least in Minn.

[BDunnell]

Only liberals would even think anyone in Guantanamo has any rights; Pres. Obama found out the hard way trying to give them what they do not have is not only wrong but made him look foolish.

As we know, merely 'being in Guantanamo' does not guarantee the guilt of an individual. And even prison inmates, no matter how evil, have certain rights.

[Bob Riebe]

As we know, merely 'being in Guantanamo' does not guarantee the guilt of an individual. And even prison inmates, no matter how evil, have certain rights.
Food, water, shelter which they have.

[Retro Formula 1]

Goldstein was locked up for 10 years for daring to release a pro Sien Fein film. Freedom of Speech my ass.

Schenck when convicted was told that he had no right to the First Amendment and free speech. Apparently he represented a "Clear and Present Danger" to the US because he questioned forced conscription and claimed it violated the Thirteenth Amendment.

Debs was locked up for10 years for peacefully opposing drafting in WWI. He was a man of words and not violence and advocated changing the system by peaceful means.

These are just a few examples. Do you want more 'O resident of the "land of the free" (as long as it fits with the Government ;) )

[Retro Formula 1]

As we know, merely 'being in Guantanamo' does not guarantee the guilt of an individual. And even prison inmates, no matter how evil, have certain rights.

I have no doubt that a lot of the people in Camp X-Ray should be locked up for a long time but which ones? Until they are tried and found innocent or guilty, then they are being illegally detained and their basic human rights violated.

That fuels Terrorists, it doesn't deter them.

[BDunnell]

Food, water, shelter which they have.

Exactly — which contradicts your previous statement that 'Only liberals would even think anyone in Guantanamo has any rights'. They do have some.

[Bob Riebe]

Exactly — which contradicts your previous statement that 'Only liberals would even think anyone in Guantanamo has any rights'. They do have some.
No under U.S. law military prisoners do not have the legal rights U.S. citizens have; U.S. military justice has a system in place that says how they should be treated depending on circumstances.
This has been granted them, while Pres. Obama tried to give them civilian's rights they do not have.

[BDunnell]

US history has a number of perversions of justice. So does everybody else's history. Some can be attributed to the thinking of the day. Liberals like to point out those things and say look how cruel and evil those people were. They were not especially cruel and evil in the context of their time. Residents of that large island in the eastern Atlantic might want to remember their own "white man's burden" school of thought during colonial times.

No, 'liberals' don't — not all of them. 'Some liberals', maybe. I class my political views as liberal, though I realise that the definition means different things to different people. I, for one, do not think that looking back so far in order to criticise other nations or my own, the UK, is relevant, worthwhile or necessary. But it does trouble me when miscarriages of justice are perpetrated in the modern day, because I believe we should now know better.

[Mark]

Back go topic. Mubarak is definitely finished now after today. No leader can hang on after losing support in such a dramatic fashion.

[Roamy]

mubarak wants to hang till september - they will never allow that

also the fu_______ opec companies raise the price of oil - they should be deballed NOW!!

[schmenke]

mubarak wants to hang till september - they will never allow that

also the fu_______ opec companies raise the price of oil - they should be deballed NOW!!

If a shiek in any of the Arab countries farts, and it smells odd, they raise the price of oil :dozey: .

[ICWS]

I think the people of Egypt need to embrace the concept of nationalism again in order to focus on doing what's best for that country rather than embracing what the United States, Europe, and anybody else wants/tells them to do. Nationalism will free themselves from expolitation by the West. Putting a democratic government there just to please the U.S. will continue to put them at the mercy of the U.S. and other Western oligarchs. While I understand why the Egyptian people want to rid themselves of Mubarak, they have to remember that the U.S. funded Mubarak's rule for many years. So to please the U.S. by installing a democracy will, in theory, continue this problem of being at the mercy of the U.S. and the West.

Even though he didn't fully accomplish what he set out to do when he was alive, Malcolm X nevertheless knew that the key to free his people from the hypocrisy of democracy in the U.S. was to get his people to embrace the idea of nationalism...

"...I’m one of the 22 million black victims of the Democrats, one of the 22 million black victims of the Republicans, and one of the 22 million black victims of Americanism. And when I speak, I don’t speak as a Democrat, or a Republican, nor an American. I speak as a victim of America’s so-called democracy. You and I have never seen democracy; all we’ve seen is hypocrisy. When we open our eyes today and look around America, we see America not through the eyes of someone who have -- who has enjoyed the fruits of Americanism, we see America through the eyes of someone who has been the victim of Americanism. We don’t see any American dream; we’ve experienced only the American nightmare. We haven’t benefited from America’s democracy; we’ve only suffered from America’s hypocrisy. And the generation that’s coming up now can see it and are not afraid to say it." - Malcom X

Egyptians should take a look back in history to the rule of Gamal Abdel Nasser and remember the kind of pride that was established during his leadership. Under him, the British influence that existed for many years before became curtailed, Egypt experienced a culture boom, and Nasser reformed the Egyptian economy. As Time put it, Nasser "imparted a sense of personal worth and national pride that Egyptians had not known for 400 years".

While Nasser had plenty flaws and shortcomings as president (as well as violating human rights), he nevertheless made Egypt out to being its own nation rather than simply a pawn of the British Empire.

Today, Egypt has returned to its state of being a pawn for the United States and the West. If they truly want to free themselves from exploitation and hyprocrisy, I think they need to take up nationalism again.

[Hondo]

That's a difficult thing for Americans to understand, with their written constitution that the UK is different, as it didn't have a sudden birth born of revolution, but practice has been established over hundreds of years, some written down in documents, some recognised custom which were never written down but have just as much force. It's a system which has evolved and changed to what the people wanted, and not laid out in black and white from the start.

It's also true that the UK, at least in Europe, was one of the leaders in representation of the public and limited monarchy. Whereas in other European states, such as France, the monarch had absolute power and could do anything they wanted. Whereas in England (and later England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland etc) the King also had absolute power, but with the crucial difference that he didn't have any money or tax raising powers, that lay with parliament. Even though parliament wasn't exactly representative of the people for a long time, but such an approach let us have evolution, rather than revolution, such as in France. Ok there's the small matter of the civil wars to think of too :p

I wouldn't call the civil wars a small matter. Revolution and the threat of revolution is why you have the government you have "evolved" today. The royals didn't just wake up one morning and say "Let's play a round of bowls and then share the power with the people".

[Retro Formula 1]

The US government is run by people. They are like any other group of people. Some are fools; some misguided; some hard working; some with agendas; and some just looking to get through another day. The US system does self correct. It can do that because our system allows us to "refresh" the leadership from time to time. It's also the reason our founding fathers created a three way divison of government - executive, legislative and judicial. They'd learned from others. And, by the way, by definition the Constitution only applies to citizens.

US history has a number of perversions of justice. So does everybody else's history. Some can be attributed to the thinking of the day. Liberals like to point out those things and say look how cruel and evil those people were. They were not especially cruel and evil in the context of their time. Residents of that large island in the eastern Atlantic might want to remember their own "white man's burden" school of thought during colonial times.

Sorry mate, not having a go at you but fed up with some people that think American sh*t doesn't stink and that their country is some brand of rightousness which everyone else should be made to follow for their own good.

All Countries have Skeletons in the cupboard and the UK more than some during the Empire days. The thing is to learn and not carry on committing the same mistakes, time and time again. The UK and US are both guilty :(

[anthonyvop]

When were you last in the UK? Or would you refuse to travel there, given that our restrictive laws would render you mute, unable to preach the word of true freedom?

Last year.


I refer you to the Bill of Rights Act 1689 and the Scottish Claim of Right which gave people in the UK the right to free speech some 87 years before your country even existed.

As Samina Malik, Simon Sheppard, Micheal Savage and Geert Wilders

[anthonyvop]

As we know, merely 'being in Guantanamo' does not guarantee the guilt of an individual. And even prison inmates, no matter how evil, have certain rights.


Not true.
When one violates the rights of another they have given up any claim of rights for themselves. Their treatment are totally at the whim of their captors/punishers.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Not true.
When one violates the rights of another they have given up any claim of rights for themselves. Their treatment are totally at the whim of their captors/punishers.

I suppose you believe that no criminals should be allowed to vote in elections?

[anthonyvop]

I suppose you believe that no criminals should be allowed to vote in elections?

Of course. A Criminal has violated someone's rights so they have abdicated theirs.

[Rollo]

Of course. A Criminal has violated someone's rights so they have abdicated theirs.

Including the right to a fair and speedy trial to determine IF they are in fact a criminal in the first place?

[Hondo]

Including the right to a fair and speedy trial to determine IF they are in fact a criminal in the first place?

There's nothing in the Bill of Rights about a fair trial, merely a speedy trial by a jury of your peers.

[Hondo]

None of their peers showed up for jury duty.

[Eki]

Not true.
When one violates the rights of another they have given up any claim of rights for themselves. Their treatment are totally at the whim of their captors/punishers.
There are international treaties such as the Geneva Convention.

According to your logic, the Jews had given up their claim of rights and it was OK that they were at the whim of the Nazis.

If you assume that everyone in Guantanamo Bay is guilty before proven guilty, and there's no need for a fair trial, you could as well assume that every Jew in the concentration camps was guilty for something.

[Roamy]

I can not believe how dumb these guys are in the middle east. Saddam was offered billions to take he and his family out to syria. Muburak apparently is not getting it either. How much more crap has to be destroyed before he takes a powder. He is toast and I can't believe he doesn't get it. I suspect perhaps he wants to loot the country some more before he leaves. Well good for the Egypts making a call and sticking to it.

[Mark]

I can not believe how dumb these guys are in the middle east. Saddam was offered billions to take he and his family out to syria. Muburak apparently is not getting it either. How much more crap has to be destroyed before he takes a powder. He is toast and I can't believe he doesn't get it. I suspect perhaps he wants to loot the country some more before he leaves. Well good for the Egypts making a call and sticking to it.

We agree for once :p . It's easy for us to see that it's obvious that he's completely finished now. But when you've been in power for 30 years and surrounded yourself with people who are only there to agree with you, then it's also easy to see that he thinks so much of himself that he really believes that saying he will go in September (and then presumably rigging the elections) will save him.

[BDunnell]

Not true.
When one violates the rights of another they have given up any claim of rights for themselves. Their treatment are totally at the whim of their captors/punishers.

No, to say that it is 'not true' is inaccurate. It clearly is true that prisoners have some rights — the rights to food, water, legal representation and so on. What you are saying is that you don't think they should have any rights. A very different thing to the truth.

[BDunnell]

What about the British guy who was held for 7 years without any evidence and released with an apology?

Those who believe in the concept of 'justice' meted out at Guantanamo, and who, at the same time, possess a pathological paranoia regarding terrorism don't tend to worry themselves about such minor things.

[BDunnell]

There are international treaties such as the Geneva Convention.

According to your logic, the Jews had given up their claim of rights and it was OK that they were at the whim of the Nazis.

Exactly. But I think you should have used inverted commas round 'logic'.

[BDunnell]

Last year.

Really? I find this very hard to believe.

[Dave B]

Guantanamo deserves its own thread. Holding people captive for years at a time, without even telling them what they've been accused of, is little short of a war crime and totally undermines the USA's authority to tell the rest of the world how to act.

A civilised society gives suspected criminals - even those suspected of the worst acts of terrorism - a fair trial.

[Rollo]

Guantanamo deserves its own thread. Holding people captive for years at a time, without even telling them what they've been accused of, is little short of a war crime and totally undermines the USA's authority to tell the rest of the world how to act.

A civilised society gives suspected criminals - even those suspected of the worst acts of terrorism - a fair trial.

Guantanamo defiles Articles 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the United States has never ratified and as such doesn't believe that it should follow it.

[Dave B]

Guantanamo defiles Articles 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the United States has never ratified and as such doesn't believe that it should follow it.

And yet when Saddam Hussain believed he could deny his citizens basic human rights, that was somehow seen as different? Strange world, strange world.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Of course. A Criminal has violated someone's rights so they have abdicated theirs.

When it comes to serious crimes then, yes. But in all cases?

Do you not think it gives the government potential power over deciding who can and can't vote? I thought you were against 'big government'?

One example. In the UK the Coalition government could have the power to limit the activities of the unions. So if union members break these laws they might find themselves in prison. As a result a lot of union members (who tend to vote Labour) will lose their right to vote. How is that democratic?

[schmenke]

Guantanamo defiles Articles 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the United States has never ratified....

:confused:

I thought the U.S. finally ratified this several years ago (sometime in the '90s?).

[Tazio]

OK, this is the only page of this thread that I have read, so I apologize if I post something that has already been discussed. Of all the countries on this planet Egypt has had more designated leaders than any other by a long shot, (I'm guessing) even more than Italy :p
Plus I am a huge proponent of respecting revolutions of ideas, and deeds, if they spring from within the State that is involved. (Unlike what happened in Iraq, and Afghanistan) In the context of "The History of Egypt" this is very early on in the proceedings. I think that as a civilized society what can be done now is to try through international agencies to help these people achieve this coup without unnecessary bloodshed, or political persuasion. We should urge (like I think I heard the great satan Obama ;) ) say last night, (unless I dreamed it) :confused: the Egyptian military stand down, or more to the point only try to preserve peace, in what I think all decent people understand this to be, a bloodless coup.

[Hondo]

:confused:

I thought the U.S. finally ratified this several years ago (sometime in the '90s?).

I found and read that after rollo posted it. I really get tired of glib tripe like that. Has a "right to this...has a right to that...blah blah blah".

How about each individual has a "right to an opportunity to..." or even better each individual has a "responsibility to provide for themselves and their families and make a positive contribution to their community...".

I believe if there were a few more "you have the responsibility..." lines in those kinds of declarations, the rights would take care of themselves.

[Hondo]

The Egyption military doesn't give a rats what Obama says or wants. The Egyption military is smart enough to read the writing on the wall and know that Egypt will fall under the control of one Islamic revolutionary group or an other. If they fire on Egyptian citizens now, supporting a lost cause, they know they will be facing the tribunals later and be shot or hung themselves. It's going to happen to some of them any way just because that's what revolutionaries do to eliminate possible coup threats. They are just prudently covering their butts.

[Tazio]

The Egyption military doesn't give a rats what Obama says or wants. The Egyption military is smart enough to read the writing on the wall and know that Egypt will fall under the control of one Islamic revolutionary group or an other. If they fire on Egyptian citizens now, supporting a lost cause, they know they will be facing the tribunals later and be shot or hung themselves. It's going to happen to some of them any way just because that's what revolutionaries do to eliminate possible coup threats. They are just prudently covering their butts.Do you mean that we will see something happen like what happened when the Shaw of Iran was deposed?
Egypt is already 85% Muslim. Does that in some way devalue their lives? I don't think you are representing what I said properly. I referred to what I think the President of the U.S. said, which means in the aftermath we will be seen as just one more country that short of trying to minimize human suffering, we let the will of the people of a sovereign State exist in a manner consistent with what their citizens are fighting for. He has the sense to not to invite an extrememist Muslim faction to "BRING IT ON"! What is unnatural about a country that is Muslim to have a Muslim Leader? Why should we fear this movement? There are enough people willing to make the ultimate sacrafice to eliminate a regime that really doesn't represent the country's constituency, regardless of wheather Mubarak is Muslim or not.

[BDunnell]

What is unnatural about a country that is Muslim to have a Muslim Leader? Why should we fear this?

I couldn't agree more. The nature of that leadership may be a different matter, though, but the same could be said of any regime.

[Eki]

How about each individual has a "right to an opportunity to..." or even better each individual has a "responsibility to provide for themselves and their families and make a positive contribution to their community...".

How do you do that if you're in slavery, under oppression or in captivity?

Can you give us an example of how those kept prisoners in Guantanamo Bay could make a positive contribution to their community?

What should we do with those who cannot provide for themselves and their families, such as the sick, handicapped and the elderly? Kill them? And why should people provide for their family? Why don't their family provide for themselves?

[Hondo]

How do you do that if you're in slavery, under oppression or in captivity?

Can you give us an example of how those kept prisoners in Guantanamo Bay could make a positive contribution to their community?

What should we do with those who cannot provide for themselves and their families, such as the sick, handicapped and the elderly? Kill them? And why should people provide for their family? Why don't their family provide for themselves?

Slavery and oppression - REVOLT.

Captivity - I would venture to guess that the majority in captivity, not all, are in there for willfully breaking a law or two. They can stay there.

The prisoners in Guantanamo can make a positive contribution to their community by keeping their cells clean and obeying the rules. Occupational advice for them upon their release...1. Don't hang around with terrorists or visit their training camps. 2. If you still want to be a terrorist, terrorize someone that doesn't have a Guantanamo Bay, better yet, make Allah proud and don't let them take you alive. 3. Hide when you hear helicopters.

For the most part, the family used to take care of the elderly, sick, and handicapped and could do so again. They just don't want to have to do so.

[Eki]

Slavery and oppression - REVOLT.
And fail and die while trying, if you don't have enough followers and force.



Captivity - I would venture to guess that the majority in captivity, not all, are in there for willfully breaking a law or two. They can stay there.
Like the Chinese Liu Xiaobo, who won the Nobel Peace Price this year. He broke the Chinese laws and is in prison now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Xiaobo

And the North Koreans who were shot while trying to leave North Korea broke the North Korean laws, so I guess they deserved to die in your opinion.



The prisoners in Guantanamo can make a positive contribution to their community by keeping their cells clean and obeying the rules. Occupational advice for them upon their release...1. Don't hang around with terrorists or visit their training camps. 2. If you still want to be a terrorist, terrorize someone that doesn't have a Guantanamo Bay, better yet, make Allah proud and don't let them take you alive. 3. Hide when you hear helicopters.
What about those who just happened to live there and were kidnapped by criminals and sold to the Americans as "terrorists"?


For the most part, the family used to take care of the elderly, sick, and handicapped and could do so again. They just don't want to have to do so.
Used to? It was then, now is now. In some cultures the sick and elderly jumped down from a cliff or were killed, so that they wouldn't be a burden to their community. Is that desirable?

[Roamy]

Do you mean that we will see something happen like what happened when the Shaw of Iran was deposed?
Egypt is already 85% Muslim. Does that in some way devalue their lives? I don't think you are representing what I said properly. I referred to what I think the President of the U.S. said, which means in the aftermath we will be seen as just one more country that short of trying to minimize human suffering, we let the will of the people of a sovereign State exist in a manner consistent with what their citizens are fighting for. He has the sense to not to invite an extrememist Muslim faction to "BRING IT ON"! What is unnatural about a country that is Muslim to have a Muslim Leader? Why should we fear this movement? There are enough people willing to make the ultimate sacrafice to eliminate a regime that really doesn't represent the country's constituency, regardless of wheather Mubarak is Muslim or not.

Alcatraz - The problem in a nutshell is that the Muslims want to take control of the world - if you look at the motto
Motto of the Muslim Brotherhood

- Allah is our objective.
- The Prophet is our leader.
- Qur'an is our law.
- Jihad is our way.
- Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.

This does not fit with our way of life. Therefore I have no problem with the muslims taking control of egypt as long as they take the ones from here with them.
All the countries are taken over by the "friendly" muslims and they are converted by the Muslim Brotherhood. And guess what - all the friendly Muslims hop right in line with the brotherhood. Most of the neutral and christian people of the world are idiots - I won't be around to see the fight here but I may be for the big explosion coming to the middle east.

[Hondo]

Eki, that's right, you die trying if you don't have enough dedication on your side. Numbers can make up for arms. The Irainian and Egyptian armies are certainly better armed than those that oppose them but opposed they are. At least the little goatherd now living in Gitmo had the guts to put his well-being on the line to support his cause as opposed to laying up in an apartment on the dole in the frozen north typing " Wow, this isn't fair..." while eating supper.

[Bob Riebe]

And yet when Saddam Hussain believed he could deny his citizens basic human rights, that was somehow seen as different? Strange world, strange world.
There are no basic human rights.

If it is not given by a legal body with legal authority over said same person or populace, human rights are pixie dust bs.
One can say it is a non-legal term to describe what some think is proper or just, and by that definition they are getting what is proper and just.

They are given basic human needs food, shelter, clothing. They get all they need or deserve.

[Bob Riebe]

As Obama is speaking as some sort of over-master leader saying the Egyption leader should leave now, where was the Obama the Feckless when this happened in Iran?I do not remember him flapping his lips telling Ahmadinejad to step down.

[ICWS]

As Obama is speaking as some sort of over-master leader saying the Egyption leader should leave now, where was the Obama the Feckless when this happened in Iran?I do not remember him flapping his lips telling Ahmadinejad to step down.

Because the U.S. didn't fund Ahmadinejad's leadership of Iran like they funded Mubarak's leadership of Egypt, so Iran's president is not at the mercy of the U.S. like Egypt's president is. Plus, it's hard to tell a man like Mahmoud Ahmandinejad to step down, especially when he has the balls to defend his method of leadership in spite of the United States, United Kingdom, and Israel.

[Bob Riebe]

Because the U.S. didn't fund Ahmadinejad's leadership of Iran like they funded Mubarak's leadership of Egypt, so Iran's president is not at the mercy of the U.S. like Egypt's president is. Plus, it's hard to tell a man like Mahmoud Ahmandinejad to step down, especially when he has the balls to defend his method of leadership in spite of the United States, United Kingdom, and Israel.It exposes Obama as a coward and feckless fool, which while true, does the U.S. no good.
Without a prompt he speaks worse than Bush, maybe someone should kidnap his speech writers so he keeps his mouth shut.

[ICWS]

It exposes Obama as a coward and feckless fool, which while true, does the U.S. no good.
Without a prompt he speaks worse than Bush, maybe someone should kidnap his speech writers so he keeps his mouth shut.

That would be interesting to see, I have to admit... If he gives speeches without his speech writers and a teleprompter telling him what to say, perhaps Obama would write crib notes on his hands and perform his speeches while reading whatever he wrote on his hands :p :.

[schmenke]

Alcatraz - The problem in a nutshell is that the Muslims want to take control of the world - if you look at the motto
Motto of the Muslim Brotherhood

- Allah is our objective.
- The Prophet is our leader.
- Qur'an is our law.
- Jihad is our way.
- Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope..

Please don't confuse the Muslim Brotherhood with Islam.

[Bob Riebe]

That would be interesting to see, I have to admit... If he gives speeches without his speech writers and a teleprompter telling him what to say, perhaps Obama would write crib notes on his hands and perform his speeches while reading whatever he wrote on his hands :p :.
It would be more honest than the farce he puts on now,.

[Roamy]

Because the U.S. didn't fund Ahmadinejad's leadership of Iran like they funded Mubarak's leadership of Egypt, so Iran's president is not at the mercy of the U.S. like Egypt's president is. Plus, it's hard to tell a man like Mahmoud Ahmandinejad to step down, especially when he has the balls to defend his method of leadership in spite of the United States, United Kingdom, and Israel.

We need to quit buying friends. Let this chips fall where they may - deport all muslims and get ready for the Jihad - Rock and Roll YEE HAW !!!!

[ICWS]

Please don't confuse the Muslim Brotherhood with Islam.

Even though you're correct in that the Muslim Brotherhood isn't the most accurate representation of the beautiful religion that is Islam, is has a long history and it is an influential Sunni movement.

The MB seems to have good intentions in store for Arab countries like Egypt. The Brotherhood aims to "instill the Qur'an and Sunnah as the reference point for ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community, and state". It has also tried to renounce violence, but it still advocates jihad (defensive war) against foreign occupants in the Middle East and is against the "Zionist project". It seems the MB is critical of the West but is not aiming to go to war with them unless they have to defend themselves.

The problem with all these Muslim organizations is that, in a technical sense, they're comitting a sin under their own religion by creating different schools of thought, traditions, and faith. It is said in the Qur'an that Muslims should not be divided into divisions but rather be united under a faith in Allah.

[Jag_Warrior]

A reporter just said that an Egyptian man said to him, "in 7,000 years of civilization, the Egyptian people have never been able to choose our leader. I believe the time has come."

That is pretty shocking once you think about it, yes?

[ICWS]

Yes, I agree that is really something to think about Jag_Warrior. And yes, that Egyptian man is correct. Egypt is long overdue for a leader that will do what's best for Egypt, regardless of what the United States and Europe want or think. It's been clear that the West wants a puppet-politician to represent a democratic leadership in Egypt, putting that country at the mercy of the U.S. and Europe.

Ideally, Egypt would be decentralized and have several localized and organic societies/communities that are lead by leaders who fit Plato's model of philosopher kings (Book VI of The Republic). These kind of leaders combine a philosophical platform with cultural and spiritual awareness, and have the skill of creating consensus among their people in order to lead them. Philosopher kings don't need to ask their people what they want them to do like democratic leaders do. Philosopher kings instead have the ability to know what they need to do for their people.

I don't think having one person leading a large bureaucratic/democratic government in a country like Egypt is the way to go. I've already told my criticisms of democracy earlier in this thread, so I won't repeat all of them. One of the major problems with democracies is that they eventually become controlled by rich/powerful financial elites. These elites then fund for mindless-cog politicians to run for office and use them to sell sh*t to their country's citizens. And while democratic countries offer a good standard of living, they are for the most part actually collapsed 3rd world economies controlled by those greedy cosmopolitan rich oligarchs who rule over ignorant and cultureless people.

Remember, this is the conservative-libertarian in me that is giving these opinions on this issue.

[ICWS]

Even though I hate Jon Stewart and his clones for the most part, I will use this clip from his show that points out a big problem with the potential of democracy being imposed on Egypt by the U.S. and Europe:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-2-2011/arabian-fights

...Fast forward to 1:06 in the video.

[race aficionado]

I don't wish to get into the opinion and analysis of this current situation in Egypt because frankly I don't know enough about the subject to be a responsible commentator.

What I will say is that I am so happy that many of Egypt's people are going out to the streets to protest against what they think is wrong.

I am a sucker for "people power".
Maybe we can learn a thing or two . . . . .

Peace dammit!
. . . even though if it takes some public outcry and street demonstrations to help it happen.

:s mokin:

[Jag_Warrior]

I don't wish to get into the opinion and analysis of this current situation in Egypt because frankly I don't know enough about the subject to be a responsible commentator.

What I will say is that I am so happy that many of Egypt's people are going out to the streets to protest against what they think is wrong.

I am a sucker for "people power".
Maybe we can learn a thing or two . . . . .

Peace dammit!
. . . even though if it takes some public outcry and street demonstrations to help it happen.

:s mokin:

I can't say much about this topic either, since I lack any real knowledge about it (outside of watching the news). The only period in Egypt's history that I know more than a little about was back when they were led by this chick named Cleopatra... and all the boys around Rome claimed that she was "one hell of a fun date". Since then, not so much.

I do hope that the transfer of power is a peaceful one though.

[Tazio]

Originally Posted by race aficionado, and Freakin' Jag' :p
I don't wish to get into the opinion and analysis of this current situation in Egypt because frankly I don't know enough about the subject to be a responsible commentator.

What I will say is that I am so happy that many of Egypt's people are going out to the streets to protest against what they think is wrong.

I am a sucker for "people power".
Maybe we can learn a thing or two . . . . .

Peace dammit!. . . even though if it takes some public outcry and street demonstrations to help it happen.


I can't say much about this topic either, since I lack any real knowledge about it (outside of watching the news). The only period in Egypt's history that I know more than a little about was back when they were led by this chick named Cleopatra... and all the boys around Rome claimed that she was "one hell of a fun date". Since then, not so much.

I do hope that the transfer of power is a peaceful one though.

Ditto, both you freakin' guys
It may be the first coup in our lifetimes that wasn't started by the CIA :confused: :s mokin:

[Valve Bounce]

I can't say much about this topic either, since I lack any real knowledge about it (outside of watching the news). The only period in Egypt's history that I know more than a little about was back when they were led by this chick named Cleopatra... and all the boys around Rome claimed that she was "one hell of a fun date". Since then, not so much.

I do hope that the transfer of power is a peaceful one though.

There is a huge painting in Melbourne's Art Gallery called Cleopatra's last banquet, where she dissolved a black pearl into a wine glass on behalf of none other than our Mark. (Anthony). This painting is the museum's pride, and there is a black and white check pattern on the ground. The interesting part of this check pattern is no matter where you stand in the room, the lines of the check pattern will point to you. :http://www.ngv.vic.gov.au/Spanish_Ed/artwork_files/pdfs/artsheet_tiepolo_LR_FINAL.pdf
Now just by moving your head from one side of your monitor to the other, you will see the lines following you.

[Malbec]

the potential of democracy being imposed on Egypt by the U.S. and Europe:

Except that the US and Europe are clearly not imposing anything on Egypt, they are both sending mixed messages and are hedging their bets as to the outcome. Both were clearly taken by surprise by events, not orchestrating them.

Watch the demonstrations in Egypt, there are no references to the US or Europe either as inspirations for democracy or as hate figures for propping up Mubarak. There is no flag burning, no pretend statues of liberty like there were at Tiananmen square. How long has it been since there was a demonstration in the Middle East without a stars and stripes going up in flames?

Not everything revolves around the West, this is about Egyptians vs Mubarak.

The longer this goes on however, the more pessimistic I get. Mubarak isn't playing for a dignified way out, he's playing to win. I think we'll end up seeing a repeat of Tiananmen square if this carries on.

[Tazio]

Except that the US and Europe are clearly not imposing anything on Egypt, they are both sending mixed messages and are hedging their bets as to the outcome. Both were clearly taken by surprise by events, not orchestrating them.

Watch the demonstrations in Egypt, there are no references to the US or Europe either as inspirations for democracy or as hate figures for propping up Mubarak. There is no flag burning, no pretend statues of liberty like there were at Tiananmen square. How long has it been since there was a demonstration in the Middle East without a stars and stripes going up in flames?

Not everything revolves around the West, this is about Egyptians vs Mubarak.

The longer this goes on however, the more pessimistic I get. Mubarak isn't playing for a dignified way out, he's playing to win. I think we'll end up seeing a repeat of Tiananmen square if this carries on.I must concur. I was feeling pretty good about this thing for the exact reasons you just stated, and was particularly happy that I did not hear one leader of a major western power even infer any influence on this event. I don't know if it is the media “kooks”, that are "scrub" trying to read body language or if indeed the current administration is starting to send messages subliminally 9or otherwise to the Egyptian leadership, but the tone of the news seems to have switched to suggesting that the words of the president of the USA mean something more than what it is he is actually saying. BTW I am not making a value judgment on the leader of my country other than I think he has to this point spoken in a way consistent with how a third party with a sincere interest should from a leader of a large entity of constituents that may or may not have a vested interest in the outcome.
In closing I will not respond to any partisan political comments that try or imply that any of this was brought on by the USA, although I think there may be some connection between who is the leader of the USA, and what his likely reaction was perceived by the Egyptians that took such Ideas into consideration (if at all) when this movement began to grow legs.
Later Goons!
Like much later.

[markabilly]

Who knows what will happen. At the time the Shah was tossed out, I thought it would be a very good thing for many reasons, then once he left the country, well we know how that turned out...

Personally, I am tired of seeing our young men going off to war to save some country from itself.
I ain't interested in dying or seeing any other American die to save Egyptians from Egyptians, and so on and so on.

But proves one thing, and I said it before, and say it again:
Only the dead know the end of war, and the only thing that has changed in the almost 2,500 years since Plato said it, we have just gotten more efficient at it.

[ICWS]

Except that the US and Europe are clearly not imposing anything on Egypt, they are both sending mixed messages and are hedging their bets as to the outcome. Both were clearly taken by surprise by events, not orchestrating them.

Watch the demonstrations in Egypt, there are no references to the US or Europe either as inspirations for democracy or as hate figures for propping up Mubarak. There is no flag burning, no pretend statues of liberty like there were at Tiananmen square. How long has it been since there was a demonstration in the Middle East without a stars and stripes going up in flames?

Not everything revolves around the West, this is about Egyptians vs Mubarak.

The longer this goes on however, the more pessimistic I get. Mubarak isn't playing for a dignified way out, he's playing to win. I think we'll end up seeing a repeat of Tiananmen square if this carries on.

Then how come the U.S. treated Mubarak as an ally and funded his presidency? And when these protests started, how come the U.S. funded pro-democracy organizations in Egypt? Here's a link about that if you don't believe me: http://www.newstimeafrica.com/archives/15699.

The West is involved in this matter regardless of whether you believe it or not. The U.S. have been pressuring Mubarak to resign as soon as possible so that democracy can come about for Egypt. And European Union leaders have been toughening up their stance on wanting Mubarak to end his presidency as soon as possible as well: http://www.voanews.com/english/news/European-Leaders-Urge-Egypts-Mubarak-to-Relinquish-Power-115287174.html.

[Malbec]

Then how come the U.S. treated Mubarak as an ally and funded his presidency? And when these protests started, how come the U.S. funded pro-democracy organizations in Egypt? Here's a link about that if you don't believe me: http://www.newstimeafrica.com/archives/15699.

You're referring to the period prior to the demonstrations and what you've said is exactly what I've said. Obama has carried on with the same policy as all US administrations post-Camp David. He has given Mubarak his unstinting support provided Egypt respects the peace agreement with Israel which they have done. On the other hand the US has given some funding to pro-democracy groups in Egypt in line with America's pro-democracy agenda, but not enough to really change things in Egypt, ie paying lip-service to the cause.

The US is however not imposing democracy in Egypt unless I missed Obama's seminal speech after the Tunisian revolt where he called upon Egypt's masses to rise up and depose Mubarak. It is reacting to events, firstly calling Mubarak's regime 'stable', then expressing horror at the violence and indicating that Mubarak should transfer power in an orderly fashion. Now the US is calling for Mubarak to retire in September just as he himself said he would which is totally opposite to what the pro-democracy groups in Tahrir square are fighting for. They will accept nothing other than an immediate resignation.


The West is involved in this matter regardless of whether you believe it or not. The U.S. have been pressuring Mubarak to resign as soon as possible so that democracy can come about for Egypt. And European Union leaders have been toughening up their stance on wanting Mubarak to end his presidency as soon as possible as well: http://www.voanews.com/english/news/European-Leaders-Urge-Egypts-Mubarak-to-Relinquish-Power-115287174.html.

No, the US hasn't been pressuring Mubarak to resign as soon as possible for the entire protests. That pressure came halfway through the week just gone after the scale of the demonstrations became clear. Initially the US was behind him. As I said, the US and EU are REACTING to events, not orchestrating them.

Whether you believe it or not the Egyptians don't care what the US and EU are calling for. Mubarak's response to US pressure was to publicly say that a 200 year old civilisation has no right to tell a 7000 year old civilisation what to do. The protesters seem to agree with him and are roundly ignoring US and EU comments even though it supports their cause.

As I said before the protests are notable by the utter lack of American or European symbols even though they (in particular the US) culturally stands for democracy and US symbols have been used widely by pro-democracy movements across the world. The protestors aren't even bothering to burn stars and stripes at disgust at the US' 30 year support for Mubarak. The US and EU are peripheral players, not the instigators.

You claim that the US and EU are 'imposing' democracy onto Egypt. That indicates that you believe there is no indigenous pressure within Egypt for democracy and that the demonstrations have been orchestrated somehow by the US and the EU. This is patently false.

Egyptians want democracy for themselves without support from outside powers. That is exactly why this pro-democracy movement is going to be so influential across the Arab world.

[ICWS]

Dylan H,

The United States of America is in the business of imposing democracy around the world. The country's history in regards to foreign relations since Woodrow Wilson was president has shown that to be true. The purpose of doing that is to take strong leaders out of power and to replace them with leaders of a system of government that's unable to emerge to challenge the United States, which allows the U.S. to furthur maintain its status as a world leader. Yes, it is with good intentions to want Mubarak leave his position, but the fact that American government officials and American media have shown fear and display criticism of the potential of the Muslim Brotherhood gaining some power in Egypt is a sign of how of the United States prefers to have some influence in how that country is governed. The U.S. and Europe constantly tell their own citizens that these types of organizations are not good for nations like Egypt in order to justify why they are forcing their own hand into influencing how Egypt and other nations should govern themselves, as if Egyptians and other nations' citizens don't know what is best for their own country themselves.

Media/Government Officials in the U.S. have described the Muslim Brotherhood as radical, violent, extremist, etc. when the only definite proof of this description is that former members of the M.B. left to create Al-Qaeda and Hamas, and ironically people from both of those organizations have been outspoken critics of the Muslim Brotherhood for being " too soft" against the West. That and how the M.B. is against the "Zionist Project" in Israel. All other claims of being violent, extremist, or radical are due to either the M.B. trying to stand-up and defend themselves from certain enemies or false/unproven accusations of assassinating leaders in certain countries. The Muslim Brotherhood have reformed themselves for the most part to be outspokenly non-violent in most circumstances unless they have to defend themselves from foreign enemies trying to occupy Arab countries. Egypt has a population of 80 or so million Muslims (90% of the population). It is indeed a Muslim-country, similar to how the United States is a Christian country. Therefore, I think the Muslim Brotherhood could present a good representation of the Egyptian people if they gained some power, if the Egyptian people agree with that assertion and approve of them. Of course, that is up for Egyptians to decide.

Now, I will agree with you that there are Egyptians who genuinely want a democracy in their country. They have been very vocal about wanting to be able to elect their own leader(s) for the first time in 7,000 years. But I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that the U.S. and the European Union, for economic reasons, will attempt to have their hand in this if and when Egypt is capable of installing a democracy. Once again, that is based off learning from the history of the West and their method of engaging in foreign relations with non-Western nations.

[Hondo]

There will be no democracy in Egypt, unless you consider Iran a democracy.

[Malbec]

Dylan H,

The United States of America is in the business of imposing democracy around the world. The country's history in regards to foreign relations since Woodrow Wilson was president has shown that to be true. The purpose of doing that is to take strong leaders out of power and to replace them with leaders of a system of government that's unable to emerge to challenge the United States, which allows the U.S. to furthur maintain its status as a world leader.

I think you're mistaking American rhetoric about democracy with American foreign policy. American foreign policy is only about protecting its interests and democracy on home soil and in that of key allies like the UK in WW2.

America has had a long history of nurturing non-democratic states that are friendly to the US rather than allowing a democracy that isn't. A brief look at US policy in SE Asia and Latin America throughout the Cold War and also in the Middle East right up to the present day should tell you that.

America supports/ed Mubarak, King Hussein, the House of Saud, the Shah of Iran (having helped depose his democratically elected predecessor Mossadegh) and Saddam Hussein as well as the myriad Gulf states. None of those were or are remotely democratic. The US has provided the necessary support for those states to establish secret police services to prevent any trace of democracy from establishing itself in those countries. It has not done much if anything to support democracies in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. Israel of course is the exception in the Middle East in that it is both democratic and a US ally.


Yes, it is with good intentions to want Mubarak leave his position, but the fact that American government officials and American media have shown fear and display criticism of the potential of the Muslim Brotherhood gaining some power in Egypt is a sign of how of the United States prefers to have some influence in how that country is governed. The U.S. and Europe constantly tell their own citizens that these types of organizations are not good for nations like Egypt in order to justify why they are forcing their own hand into influencing how Egypt and other nations should govern themselves, as if Egyptians and other nations' citizens don't know what is best for their own country themselves.

Media/Government Officials in the U.S. have described the Muslim Brotherhood as radical, violent, extremist, etc. when the only definite proof of this description is that former members of the M.B. left to create Al-Qaeda and Hamas, and ironically people from both of those organizations have been outspoken critics of the Muslim Brotherhood for being " too soft" against the West. That and how the M.B. is against the "Zionist Project" in Israel. All other claims of being violent, extremist, or radical are due to either the M.B. trying to stand-up and defend themselves from certain enemies or false/unproven accusations of assassinating leaders in certain countries. The Muslim Brotherhood have reformed themselves for the most part to be outspokenly non-violent in most circumstances unless they have to defend themselves from foreign enemies trying to occupy Arab countries. Egypt has a population of 80 or so million Muslims (90% of the population). It is indeed a Muslim-country, similar to how the United States is a Christian country. Therefore, I think the Muslim Brotherhood could present a good representation of the Egyptian people if they gained some power, if the Egyptian people agree with that assertion and approve of them. Of course, that is up for Egyptians to decide.

Thats right, the American media portrays the Muslim Brotherhood in that way. Problem with your theory is that the American media aren't producing this stuff for an Egyptian audience but for an American one. Egyptians don't need educating about what the MB are really like, they live with them and can make up their own minds.

The thing is that what the American people and government think about this revolt is utterly irrelevant. It will not influence what happens on the ground one bit. I know this is a shock to your Western ego but the Egyptians don't care about American opinion or policy in this regard. Short of invading Egypt America won't influence the outcome there. The only factors that count are how much blood Mubarak is willing to shed and how much resolve the Egyptians have for a fight.

You haven't shown how the US is exercising real concrete influence to introduce democracy in Egypt over the past weeks rather than trying to influence what Americans think about the place. The two are very very different matters.


But I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that the U.S. and the European Union, for economic reasons, will attempt to have their hand in this if and when Egypt is capable of installing a democracy. Once again, that is based off learning from the history of the West and their method of engaging in foreign relations with non-Western nations.

Thats a far more reasonable comment than your initial one about the US and EU imposing democracy on Egypt and I agree, of course the US and EU will try to lobby for any democratically elected government there to be working in their interests. That is not because the US and EU are democratic though, its because any and every nation state works towards influencing other countries to be friendly to their interests. This has been and always will be the case.

[ICWS]

I think you're mistaking American rhetoric about democracy with American foreign policy. American foreign policy is only about protecting its interests and democracy on home soil and in that of key allies like the UK in WW2.

America has had a long history of nurturing non-democratic states that are friendly to the US rather than allowing a democracy that isn't. A brief look at US policy in SE Asia and Latin America throughout the Cold War and also in the Middle East right up to the present day should tell you that.

America supports/ed Mubarak, King Hussein, the House of Saud, the Shah of Iran (having helped depose his democratically elected predecessor Mossadegh) and Saddam Hussein as well as the myriad Gulf states. None of those were or are remotely democratic. The US has provided the necessary support for those states to establish secret police services to prevent any trace of democracy from establishing itself in those countries. It has not done much if anything to support democracies in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. Israel of course is the exception in the Middle East in that it is both democratic and a US ally.

Lastly, Dylan H, this has nothing to do with having, as you kindly put it, a "Western Ego". The issue of American occupancy and influence of non-Western nations is just the way it is and has been for decades. If you don't believe me, than I'll ask you why does the United States have over one thousand military bases around the world?



Thats right, the American media portrays the Muslim Brotherhood in that way. Problem with your theory is that the American media aren't producing this stuff for an Egyptian audience but for an American one. Egyptians don't need educating about what the MB are really like, they live with them and can make up their own minds.

The thing is that what the American people and government think about this revolt is utterly irrelevant. It will not influence what happens on the ground one bit. I know this is a shock to your Western ego but the Egyptians don't care about American opinion or policy in this regard. Short of invading Egypt America won't influence the outcome there. The only factors that count are how much blood Mubarak is willing to shed and how much resolve the Egyptians have for a fight.

You haven't shown how the US is exercising real concrete influence to introduce democracy in Egypt over the past weeks rather than trying to influence what Americans think about the place. The two are very very different matters.



Thats a far more reasonable comment than your initial one about the US and EU imposing democracy on Egypt and I agree, of course the US and EU will try to lobby for any democratically elected government there to be working in their interests. That is not because the US and EU are democratic though, its because any and every nation state works towards influencing other countries to be friendly to their interests. This has been and always will be the case.

My evidence for the U.S. trying to introduce democracy in Egypt is this, once again: http://www.newstimeafrica.com/archives/15699. The article talks about the U.S. giving millions of dollars to pro-democracy organizations in Egypt. And that is according to diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks.

And yes, the U.S. has supported non-democratic leaders in the past, but they supported them either for economc reasons and/or in order to prevent them from becoming allies with the Soviet Union and thus become Communists. In Saddam Hussein's case, he received support from the U.S. during the Iraq-Iran war due to this reason, as the Cold War was still continuing. Same thing with the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, where the U.S. supported the Taliban and the Afghan Arabs, a group that included Osama Bin Laden. Once the Cold War was coming to an end, and the U.S. began to realize these people they previously supported would not fall in line by being a pawn of the U.S. and Europe, the U.S. no longer felt the obligation to support them and instead looked for ways to overthrow/eliminate them, leading to the Persian Gulf War, War on Terror, and the Iraq War.

The U.S. has proven that it doesn't need military force to convince a nation to become democratic. All they need to do is through enough money and support behind someone who is a Western sympathizer and get them to convice their people that they would make a great democratic leader. However, if a civil war somehow breaks out in Egypt, I would be the least suprised if the U.S. sends military personnel to that nation in order to ensure a democratic leader of their preference comes into power.

[ICWS]

Lastly, Dylan H, this has nothing to do with me or anyone else having, as you kindly put it, a "Western ego". The issue of American occupancy and influence of non-western nations is just the way it is and has been for many decades now. If you don't believe me, then I ask you why does the United States have thousands of military bases all over the globe? How come the U.S. military budget is over $500 billion more than the next highest military budget? How come when the U.S. goes into an economic recession, the rest of the world faces economic recession as well? Why does the U.S. have to fund leaders like Mubarak in order to help them gain and maintain power in their home nations for a prolonged amount of years? When the protests in Egypt happen, why does the American President have to give a speech, be interviewed, and be in contact and give advice to Mubarak on what to do next? Why does the U.S. fund pro-democratic organizations within Egypt in light of the protests happening? Why does the U.S. want people to fear the Muslim Brotherhood?

Face it, America isn't deliberately trying to spread peace and freedom around the world, it is trying to maintain and expand the American Empire.

[Eki]

And yes, the U.S. has supported non-democratic leaders in the past, but they supported them either for economc reasons and/or in order to prevent them from becoming allies with the Soviet Union and thus become Communists.
But why? In WW2 they saw no problem supporting Stalin, and aided the Eastern Europe to become Communists. Why were they so worried about communism after WW2?

[Malbec]

Lastly, Dylan H, this has nothing to do with me or anyone else having, as you kindly put it, a "Western ego". The issue of American occupancy and influence of non-western nations is just the way it is and has been for many decades now. If you don't believe me, then I ask you why does the United States have thousands of military bases all over the globe? How come the U.S. military budget is over $500 billion more than the next highest military budget? How come when the U.S. goes into an economic recession, the rest of the world faces economic recession as well? Why does the U.S. have to fund leaders like Mubarak in order to help them gain and maintain power in their home nations for a prolonged amount of years? When the protests in Egypt happen, why does the American President have to give a speech, be interviewed, and be in contact and give advice to Mubarak on what to do next? Why does the U.S. fund pro-democratic organizations within Egypt in light of the protests happening? Why does the U.S. want people to fear the Muslim Brotherhood?

Face it, America isn't deliberately trying to spread peace and freedom around the world, it is trying to maintain and expand the American Empire.

Ummm I think you've completely misunderstood my points. I completely agree with you that the US tries to influence world events to fall its way. Of course it does, its a great power. Every single great power has done so and will do the same in the future. Do you really think the US should sit idly by as its interests, resource supply, markets and political allies around the world are pushed around and threatened or do you think the US has a right to secure them? And what makes you think any other power or political system would be different? Why should a great power somehow stop bothering to protect its interests whereas it seems its ok for lesser powers to do so?

The point that I raised was that your comments about democracy being imposed by the US are patently false.

You have a link to show that the US supplied money to pro-democracy groups in Egypt over the past years. You realise that the amount of money given was peanuts right? How much did the US give to pro-democracy groups in Iraq after the initial Gulf War and running up to the invasion in 2003? One hell of a lot more. Thats how much the US spends if it really wants to establish a pro-democracy movement in a country. How do the several millions of dollars given to pro-democracy groups in Egypt compare to the $1.5 billion a year going to Mubarak?

If the US was so pro-democracy in Egypt over previous years why did it supply $1.5 billion a year to Mubarak's government for weapons? Why is that aid supply not up for discussion now even though the US is supposedly asking for Mubarak's withdrawal? Don't you think that if the US wanted to play hardball it would stop funding Mubarak?

[ICWS]

But why? In WW2 they saw no problem supporting Stalin, and aided the Eastern Europe to become Communists. Why were they so worried about communism after WW2?

The U.S. supported Stalin because they had the common goal of defeating the Axis Powers in World War 2. Despite this, The United States and Soviet Union had disagreements about political philosophy and how to configure of the post-war world in Europe. The two manifestations of this division were the Warsaw Pact (USSR) and NATO (U.S.). And since the United States and Soviet Union emerged from World War 2 as the biggest superpowers, it was inevitable for both nations to throw their weight and influence abroad to get more nations on their side in case of World War 3 occuring. Their influence was based upon political idealogy, economics, and military strength.

[Roamy]

WWW3 will be whoever against the muslims. so in the interim this is all just chewing gum for the media and the idiots who believe in the immigration system.

[ICWS]

Ummm I think you've completely misunderstood my points. I completely agree with you that the US tries to influence world events to fall its way. Of course it does, its a great power. Every single great power has done so and will do the same in the future. Do you really think the US should sit idly by as its interests, resource supply, markets and political allies around the world are pushed around and threatened or do you think the US has a right to secure them? And what makes you think any other power or political system would be different? Why should a great power somehow stop bothering to protect its interests whereas it seems its ok for lesser powers to do so?

The point that I raised was that your comments about democracy being imposed by the US are patently false.

You have a link to show that the US supplied money to pro-democracy groups in Egypt over the past years. You realise that the amount of money given was peanuts right? How much did the US give to pro-democracy groups in Iraq after the initial Gulf War and running up to the invasion in 2003? One hell of a lot more. Thats how much the US spends if it really wants to establish a pro-democracy movement in a country. How do the several millions of dollars given to pro-democracy groups in Egypt compare to the $1.5 billion a year going to Mubarak?

If the US was so pro-democracy in Egypt over previous years why did it supply $1.5 billion a year to Mubarak's government for weapons? Why is that aid supply not up for discussion now even though the US is supposedly asking for Mubarak's withdrawal? Don't you think that if the US wanted to play hardball it would stop funding Mubarak?

Good point. I would argue that since Mubarak was an ally of the U.S., it would've been in the U.S. interests to not go overboard with supporting the pro-democracy movements in Egypt as much as they did in Iraq in order not to show that the U.S. was explicitly taking one side over the other. Since the U.S. uses Egypt as a source of crude oil and petroleum products, it would've be wise for the U.S. to get on the good side of Egypt's president in order not piss him off and cause him to stop sending those exports to the U.S.

Now, since it seems to be universally accepted that the people of Egypt want Mubarak out, the U.S. has been backing off of their support of him. In fact, the U.S. and Egyptian officials are planning a way for Mubarak to leave his position soon: http://politics.inquirer.net/politics/view/20110207-318888/US-Egypt-officials-plan-Mubarak-exit. I think the U.S. will look to having an influence on the potentially new system of government in Egypt when Mubarak does leave. And of course, The U.S. will promote democracy. I would expect from now to September, those pro-democratic organizations will start to receive more funding from the U.S. in order to push for that system of government.

[Eki]

The U.S. supported Stalin because they had the common goal of defeating the Axis Powers in World War 2. Despite this, The United States and Soviet Union had disagreements about political philosophy and how to configure of the post-war world in Europe. The two manifestations of this division were the Warsaw Pact (USSR) and NATO (U.S.). And since the United States and Soviet Union emerged from World War 2 as the biggest superpowers, it was inevitable for both nations to throw their weight and influence abroad to get more nations on their side in case of World War 3 occuring. Their influence was based upon political idealogy, economics, and military strength.
The way I see it, the shrewdest thing the US could have done was to watch the Germans and the Soviets wear each other out and then reap the rewards.

[Daniel]

The Germans would have steamrolled the Russians and then steamrolled Britain.......

[Eki]

The Germans would have steamrolled the Russians and then steamrolled Britain.......
I don't think so. At least if the US had supported Britain and maybe Finland on the side. I don't think the Soviets would have stopped fighting the Germans and the Finns even without aid from the US. Finland refused to hand over the Finnish Jews to Germany, the US could have refused to aid the Soviet Union.

[Daniel]

I don't think so. At least if the US had supported Britain and maybe Finland on the side. I don't think the Soviets would have stopped fighting the Germans and the Finns even without aid from the US. Finland refused to hand over the Finnish Jews to Germany, the US could have refused to aid the Soviet Union.

That makes little if no sense.

[Eki]

That makes little if no sense.
Why?

The Soviets didn't bother to help Britain and the US during the Invasion of Normandy. Instead of pushing the Germans, they decided to take it all out against Finland and let the Brits, Americans and the Germans wear each other out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tali-Ihantala


The Soviet attack on the Finnish front commenced on the Karelian Isthmus on June 9, 1944, (coordinated with the Allied Invasion of Normandy). Three armies were pitted there against the Finns, among them several experienced Guard formations.[5]

If the Soviets weren't loyal to the Americans, why should have the Americans been loyal to the Soviets? Or are you suggesting that Finland was a threat to the US or Britain?

[ICWS]

We are forgetting that the U.S. didn't want to and wouldn't have fought Germany in World War 2 if Germany hadn't declared war on the U.S.. Before the Pearl Harbor attacks, the U.S. was trying to maintain a neutral position during the war until it started supplying war material to Britain, France, Soviet Union, and China in March of 1941 (Lend-Lease Pact). This occured after Germany defeated all active enemies in Europe other than Britain, and Britain was low on money to buy war material from the U.S. on a cash and carry basis. Although the U.S. didn't charge the nations it was supplying with this pact, the U.S. nevertheless charge nations for aid after the war. A lot of Americans at the time were against the signing of the pact, as it appeared to be violating the U.S. stance on non-interventionism after WWI, and it would cause the U.S. to be apart of something that was seen as mostly a European/Asian conflict. However, most Americans began to agree with the idea helping Britain but not actually engaging in combat themselves. After the Pearl Harbor attacks, the United States mostly wanted to defeat Japan, and by Japan declaring war on the U.S., Germany was obligated to declare war on the U.S. as well due to Germany's alliance with the Japanese Empire. This is what forced the United States to fight against Germany.

Before all of that, in 1939, Germany and the Soviet Union had a non-aggression pact and both invaded their apportioned sections of Poland. Prior to the signing of the Axis Pact, the Soviet Union had knowledge about the potential existence of this pact and and considered including themselves in Axis as the fourth power. However, it turned out that Germany had no intentions of including the Soviets in the Axis Pact, as Germany were committed to is plans of invade the Soviet Union regardless of any action the Soviets took. The Germans broke their non-aggression pact in June 1941 by invading the Soviet Union.

The point of of all this information is that the U.S. and U.S.S.R. participation in the war seemed to not be a result from wanting to help each other along with Britain, France, and China, but rather a result of wanting revenge on Japan and Germany for breaking negotiations/pacts and attacking them.

[ICWS]

The U.S. seemed content with its position in the Lend-Lease pact in which they would physical stay out of the war and just supply its allies with war material, which in turn put a lot of unemployed Americans in the home front to work to build this equipment and send it off to Britain, France, China, and the Soviet Union. It was the Pearl Harbor attacks and the declarations of war from Japan and Germany that gave way for the U.S. to militarily join the war.

[Hondo]

The Germans would have steamrolled the Russians and then steamrolled Britain.......


No, without the USA coming into the war, Britain would have made an alliance with England (like Hitler wanted), then they would have stormed into Russia. Israel would have been created earlier and European Jews would have been deported there. Hitler merely wanted all the Jews out of Europe, not necessarily killed.

[Daniel]

No, without the USA coming into the war, Britain would have made an alliance with England (like Hitler wanted), then they would have stormed into Russia. Israel would have been created earlier and European Jews would have been deported there. Hitler merely wanted all the Jews out of Europe, not necessarily killed.

WTF? Did I misunderstand all those World at War videos I saw when I was younger? :confused:

[Rollo]

The Germans would have steamrolled the Russians and then steamrolled Britain.......

The Germans wouldn't have steamrolled Britain. Britain held her own against the Germany with zero help from the United States. Lend-lease was signed into law on 11 March 1941, but the Battle of Britain ended in October of 1940.
Britain defended herself with help from No.1 Squadron of the Royal Canadian Air Force and that's pretty well much it.
America helped with the subsequent invasion, but even then, more British and Commonwealth forces did more work in Europe than the US did.

The Soviets fought some of the deepest and bloodiest conflicts that the world has ever seen. To suggest that the Germans would have steamrolled them is a little misguided.

[ICWS]

The Germans would have steamrolled the Russians and then steamrolled Britain.......

People today always underestimate the strength of the Nazi German Army. I do agree that Germany could've gone right through those nations if they had a better strategy and not fought a war on multiple fronts. Remember, Nazi Germans had the attitude that the nation as a whole was far greater and more important than themselves as individuals and that they would more than willingly fight and die for it, that Hitler was a manifestation of God, that Germany was the greatest nation the world had ever known, and that it was their God-given duty to conquer all other races/ethnicities of people deemed inferior to them.

But since the Germans used bad strategy against The Allies, they were doomed to lose the war as soon as the Allies were able to recover, group up, and stand their ground against them. It also hurt that Italy and Japan provided poor assitance on their parts in helping Germany in the war.

If Germany had somehow won the Battle of Britain, they would've been able to invade the United Kingdom (Operation Sea Lion). But since Britain had a better Air Force and Navy, Germany obviously failed in this regard. That was the first crucial turning point in the war, and results of the Battle of Stalingrad and the Battle of Normandy are what ultimately began to end Germany's chances of winning the war.

[Rollo]

It was because of poor strategies and poor assistance from Italy and Japan that Germany was doomed to lose that war as soon as the Allies grouped up and stood their ground against them.

You can't fight a war out of Europe. It's impossible to hold. Even if you do manage to invade Great Britain you still have to take Iceland, Scandinavia and The Ukraine for the continent bonus.

It would have been better for them in WW1 to take New Guinea, Eastern Australia then Western Australia and then Indonesia and then move into Siam and stop someone else for getting the continent bonus for Asia. Then just build up and build up and wait for other people to start turning cards in.

[gloomyDAY]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12377179

Still pretty tentative.

[Daniel]

The Germans wouldn't have steamrolled Britain. Britain held her own against the Germany with zero help from the United States. Lend-lease was signed into law on 11 March 1941, but the Battle of Britain ended in October of 1940.
Britain defended herself with help from No.1 Squadron of the Royal Canadian Air Force and that's pretty well much it.
America helped with the subsequent invasion, but even then, more British and Commonwealth forces did more work in Europe than the US did.

The Soviets fought some of the deepest and bloodiest conflicts that the world has ever seen. To suggest that the Germans would have steamrolled them is a little misguided.

Perhaps when you're playing Axis and Allies you're not all that concerned with supply lines and raw materials...... but back in the real world from 1939-1945 it was a team effort.....

[ICWS]

Rollo,

The Germans did invade and occupied Scandinavia (Norway and Denmark in April of 1940) and stayed there until the end of World War 2. Germany also occupied Ukraine from 1941 to 1944. Iceland was the only nation that you mentioned in your post that did not have German occupation. It was invaded and occupied by Britain in May of 1940.

I don't think I understand the point of your post...

[Daniel]

Rollo,

The Germans did invade and occupied Scandinavia (Norway and Denmark in April of 1940) and stayed there until the end of World War 2. Germany also occupied Ukraine from 1941 to 1944. Iceland was the only nation that you mentioned in your post that did not have German occupation. It was invaded and occupied by Britain in May of 1940.

I don't think I understand the point of your post...


Rollo is talking about the board game Axis & Allies in which you get a bonus for occupying all the territories of one continent.

[markabilly]

Actually the "Americans" coming into WW2 did not save GB from making peace, speaking german, and snuggling up with the nazis, maybe even doing a fancy goosestep duet.....

But it was one American before the war got started good, when King Edward, a nazi and hitler loving king, who would have made the senior Mosley blush......her name being Wallis Simpson.

He decided to jump ship, give up the crown to chase the ....well anyway, even after he gave up his crown, married ms Simpson, and exiled himself off to France and wherever he went later, he was whispering in the nazi ear and whining on.... :rolleyes:

Now imagine, if he were still King during the war. He would have done his best to sell out, and indeed, crazy Hess would have landed at Buckingham Palace to a royal hero welcome...That would have been a most interesting mess... :crazy: ..

Of course, given today's comments by the current british PM about "failed" multiculturalism being only good for hatching out little terrorists, seems there may be some lingering feelings in merry ole england.... :dozey:

[ICWS]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12377179

Still pretty tentative.

Thanks for that link, gloomyDAY.

Yes, we'll get back on the original topic of this thread soon.

[Hondo]

The final outcome:

The Egyptian army is being put in a damned if you do and damned if you don"t situation. If they fire on the crowds, the new Islamic Revolutionary government will shoot them when it is over and they are in power. If they don't fire, they will be tied to the corruption of the previous government and shot when the new Islamic Revolutionary government is in power. Time to pack your bags and go, boys.

Regardless of what these protesting ipoders and twitters think or want, the next Egyptian government will be radical Islamic form of something or another, probably similar to Iran's. Any form of "co-anything" government will last for as long as it takes radical Islam to catch it's breath and regroup. Islam will win because it is ruthless. It's followers do not flinch at killing their own with suicide weapons. They are not bothered by who, what or where they kill. They are not bothered by bad press or world condemnation. They are patient. They are ruthless. They will win.

[ICWS]

Hondo,

If that all happens, do you predict that the U.S., Israel, and their European Allies will take up arms and invade Egypt to get rid of this Islamic Revolutionary government?

[Bob Riebe]

Dylan H,

The United States of America is in the business of imposing democracy around the world. The country's history in regards to foreign relations since Woodrow Wilson was president has shown that to be true. The purpose of doing that is to take strong leaders out of power and to replace them with leaders of a system of government that's unable to emerge to challenge the United States, which allows the U.S. to furthur maintain its status as a world leader. Yes, it is with good intentions to want Mubarak leave his position, but the fact that American government officials and American media have shown fear and display criticism of the potential of the Muslim Brotherhood gaining some power in Egypt is a sign of how of the United States prefers to have some influence in how that country is governed. The U.S. and Europe constantly tell their own citizens that these types of organizations are not good for nations like Egypt in order to justify why they are forcing their own hand into influencing how Egypt and other nations should govern themselves, as if Egyptians and other nations' citizens don't know what is best for their own country themselves.

Media/Government Officials in the U.S. have described the Muslim Brotherhood as radical, violent, extremist, etc. when the only definite proof of this description is that former members of the M.B. left to create Al-Qaeda and Hamas, and ironically people from both of those organizations have been outspoken critics of the Muslim Brotherhood for being " too soft" against the West. That and how the M.B. is against the "Zionist Project" in Israel. All other claims of being violent, extremist, or radical are due to either the M.B. trying to stand-up and defend themselves from certain enemies or false/unproven accusations of assassinating leaders in certain countries. The Muslim Brotherhood have reformed themselves for the most part to be outspokenly non-violent in most circumstances unless they have to defend themselves from foreign enemies trying to occupy Arab countries. Egypt has a population of 80 or so million Muslims (90% of the population). It is indeed a Muslim-country, similar to how the United States is a Christian country. Therefore, I think the Muslim Brotherhood could present a good representation of the Egyptian people if they gained some power, if the Egyptian people agree with that assertion and approve of them. Of course, that is up for Egyptians to decide.

Now, I will agree with you that there are Egyptians who genuinely want a democracy in their country. They have been very vocal about wanting to be able to elect their own leader(s) for the first time in 7,000 years. But I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that the U.S. and the European Union, for economic reasons, will attempt to have their hand in this if and when Egypt is capable of installing a democracy. Once again, that is based off learning from the history of the West and their method of engaging in foreign relations with non-Western nations.

This is just your opinion based on your prejudices.

Your conservative-libertarian qualifier does not fly very well, of course in your opinion you may think you are.

[BDunnell]

This is just your opinion based on your prejudices.

With respect, the same can be said of anything I have ever seen you contribute on political or social matters.

[Bob Riebe]

With respect, the same can be said of anything I have ever seen you contribute on political or social matters.
As is yours, at best, as your opinions rarely amount to anything but criticizing or on occasion saying the same as "ditto" of others peoples opinions.

My response quoted that which I was speaking of; of which exact quotes are you speaking of?

[BDunnell]

As is yours, at best, as your opinions rarely amount to anything but criticizing or on occasion saying the same as "ditto" of others peoples opinions.

My response quoted that which I was speaking of; of which exact quotes are you speaking of?

I don't deny that all our opinions would tend to be in some way coloured by our existing views. You seemed to suggest that you were somehow different, and an unbiased, resolutely factual observer. I beg to differ.

[Bob Riebe]

I don't deny that all our opinions would tend to be in some way coloured by our existing views. You seemed to suggest that you were somehow different, and an unbiased, resolutely factual observer. I beg to differ.
That is your opinion.

[ICWS]

Bob Riebe,

I've pointed out how I'm a conservative-libertarian in order to summarize my opinions on this issue. As a conservative, I support minimal and gradual change in society, and emphasis stability and continuity. As a libertarian, I believe in a minimization of the state and maximizing individual liberty and freedom. For the sake of this thread, the libertarian in me promotes non-intervention in other countries' internal, as long as those politics don't infringe on my country's or another countries' internal politics. That is why I'm against the prospect of the U.S., Europe, and Israel involving themselves with the situation in Egypt. And I know that the U.S., Europe, and Israel would like to influence the system of government and who is in put in charge of heading the government in Egypt, for political and economic reasons. The conservative in me recognizes that Islam has historically had a major cultural influence in Egypt, and that leaders who openly acknowledge themselves as Muslim and would like to use their faith as part of their political platform to unite the people of Egypt are ok to do so in order to preserve this element of Egyptian culture, hold fast to traditional ways of thinking, and to a greater degree, promote nationalism.

It's clear to me that the U.S., Europe, and Israel do not want politicians in Egypt, who use Islam as part of their political platform, to come to power in that nation. This is due to Israel and those Western powers' history of taking advantage and manipulating Muslim Arabs for years, both politically and economically. So in turn, Israel and those Western powers try to make people afraid of Islam by using the Muslim Arabs' attempts of defense and retaliation against the West and Israel as evidence as to why they think that Muslims are a radical and violent group of people and a major threat against our very way of living. By instilling this fear into its citizens, this gives justification for the U.S., Europe, and Israel to either influence the internal politics of Arab nations or go to war against Arab nations to install a government of politicians who are Western sympathizers.

By intervening into other nations internal politics and influencing certain aspects of nations' traditions and culture, I feel that the U.S. has been committing a serious crime, according to conservative-libertarian ways of thinking.

[Bob Riebe]

Bob Riebe,

I've pointed out how I'm a conservative-libertarian in order to summarize my opinions on this issue. As a conservative, I support minimal and gradual change in society, and emphasis stability and continuity. As a libertarian, I believe in a minimization of the state and maximizing individual liberty and freedom. For the sake of this thread, the libertarian in me promotes non-intervention in other countries' internal, as long as those politics don't infringe on my country's or another countries' internal politics. That is why I'm against the prospect of the U.S., Europe, and Israel involving themselves with the situation in Egypt. And I know that the U.S., Europe, and Israel would like to influence the system of government and who is in put in charge of heading the government in Egypt, for political and economic reasons.

The Libertarian foreign policy, at least from what I have read, reminds me of an old political cartoon about Jimmy Carter where a map of the world has a bunch of lines drawn on it with the last one on the U.S.-Canadian border and Carter saying: "If the Russians cross that line...."

The conservative in me recognizes that Islam has historically had a major cultural influence in Egypt, and that leaders who openly acknowledge themselves as Muslim and would like to use their faith as part of their political platform to unite the people of Egypt are ok to do so in order to preserve this element of Egyptian culture, hold fast to traditional ways of thinking, and to a greater degree, promote nationalism

Have you been listening to N.P.R., or other broadcasts. Reporters have interviewed Egyptians who came out and said they do not want the Muslim Brotherhood to take over, they do not want to become another Iran.
Your rationalization of Muslims, as if it is single entity, want to to use their religion to "unite" the country is not supported by any actions done by Muslim groups, especially as not all in the country are Muslims.
Muslims have used their religion to take over countries and eliminate any who do not bow to them.
I am surprised it took this long but Muslims in Iraq now seem to think that going after the Christians will serve them better as the Christians have been hit hard lately.
Not very uniting.

It's clear to me that the U.S., Europe, and Israel do not want politicians in Egypt, who use Islam as part of their political platform, to come to power in that nation.

Nor do others from what is written and also being said over the airwaves.
NPR yesterday had a goodly amount about fears of what happens if Muslims, in this case Shia, control Lebenon.

This is due to Israel and those Western powers' history of taking advantage and manipulating Muslim Arabs for years, both politically and economically. So in turn, Israel and those Western powers try to make people afraid of Islam by using the Muslim Arabs' attempts of defense and retaliation against the West and Israel as evidence as to why they think that Muslims are a radical and violent group of people and a major threat against our very way of living. By instilling this fear into its citizens, this gives justification for the U.S., Europe, and Israel to either influence the internal politics of Arab nations or go to war against Arab nations to install a government of politicians who are Western sympathizers.

This is your biased opinion and nothing more, having nothing to do with being libertarian much less conservative.

By intervening into other nations internal politics and influencing certain aspects of nations' traditions and culture, I feel that the U.S. has been committing a serious crime, according to conservative-libertarian ways of thinking.

There really is nothing conservative, by U.S. standards, about any of your statements, Libertarian-- maybe-- but they are not even conservative enough to be called a Rino.
Your view points are yours, as are any liberal, conservative, green, or X, Y, or Z party believer.
Whether or not you are of any such political stance means nothing really, what one believes, is what one believes. but to use a political category to justify or supposedly is a farce. To say "I am a,,," for justification is at best redundant, as the one's words speaks for themselves.

[ICWS]

There really is nothing conservative, by U.S. standards, about any of your statements, Libertarian-- maybe-- but they are not even conservative enough to be called a Rino.
Your view points are yours, as are any liberal, conservative, green, or X, Y, or Z party believer.
Whether or not you are of any such political stance means nothing really, what one believes, is what one believes. but to use a political category to justify or supposedly is a farce. To say "I am a,,," for justification is at best redundant, as the one's words speaks for themselves.

Fair enough, but you just pointed out that by U.S. standards, I wouldn't be considered a conservative. The conservatives and progressives today by U.S. standards are different from each other, when in actuality they both adhere to the political idealogy of classical liberalism. Classical liberalism promotes freedom of religion, speech, and press assembly. These are things that conservatives and progressives agree on. They also both agree on limited government, but in certain areas. The difference between conservatives and progressives in the classical liberal sense is that conservatives want limited government in regards to economic issues, whereas progressives want limited government in regards to social issues.

See, I feel that my conservative stances are in-line with paleoconservatism. Paleoconservatives advocate traditions, a de-centralized government, civil society, and anti-imperialism/federalism. I agree with those positions, especially anti-imperialism/federalism. Conservatives in the classical liberal sense don't stress a decentralized government and anti-interventionist principle as much as paleoconservatives do, and they are not as keen on closing America's borders as much as paleoconservatives as well, which is why paleoconservatives and neoconservatives don't get along that well today.

In regards to the Muslim Brotherhood, it is just my opinion that they could help Egypt in a conservative-sense with reiterating the cultural element that unites 90% of the people in that country. By stressing Muslim values like charity, prayer, fasting, brotherhood, modesty, being kind to others, honoring elders, understanding the importance of marriage, etc., the Muslim Brotherhood can help re-develop spiritually-healthy individuals and a spiritually-healthy society in Egypt. Of course, as you pointed out, since Egyptians apparently don't want the Muslim Brotherhood to come into power, Egypt will have to look towards other alternatives to how the country will be run. But I think Egyptians should strongly be aware of the prospect of Western intervention and imposition of a democracy, as that could present a make-or-break situation for their nation in regards to its economic situation and internal politics.

I just want to make one more point. Even though I call myself a conservative-libertarian, I just use that label for myself to generalize my political beliefs. Yes, I'm not a hardcore conservative, nor a hardcore libertarian. I have some liberal/progressive beliefs as well, but not as many in comparison to my conservative/libertarian beliefs. So I've developed the habit of calling myself a conservative-libertarian for the sake of convenience when telling people what I consider myself politically.

[janvanvurpa]

The Germans would have steamrolled the Russians and then steamrolled Britain.......

Daniel, the German invasion ran out of steam by December 1941 at the gates of Moscow..Just 6 months after invasion began.
Yeah they conquored more territory in 42---all the way to the Volga-----maybe you heard of the place? it was called Volgograd later and now, but it was Stalingrad then....and it was all downhill FAST from there.
Lend-Lease didn't amount to even 10% of Soviet production numbers excpt in trucks if I recall correctly..

And Eki, I think you have a fresh look at the figures and you see the small numbers of US troops in actual contact---like shooting at the enemy and it pretty much looks like US was just letting the Germans and the Soviets bleed eachother dry, and it sure does look like USA just came in and picked up the spoils.

[Roamy]

Here we go back to the same old history class. Can't you guys have a thread that keeps in step with the title???

[Eki]

And who are you to tell us what we can and cannot discuss and where, you forum-Nazi? If there had been more like you in the Gestapo during WW2, we'd all be speaking German here.

[gloomyDAY]

http://lolsnaps.com/upload_pic/2500.jpg

[Roamy]

And who are you to tell us what we can and cannot discuss and where, you forum-Nazi? If there had been more like you in the Gestapo during WW2, we'd all be speaking German here.

you should be speaking german cause obviously you can't read the title of the thread forum-moron

[markabilly]

Bob Riebe,

.

It's clear to me that the U.S., Europe, and Israel do not want politicians in Egypt, who use Islam as part of their political platform, to come to power in that nation. .

It is real clear that the PM of GB and the PM of Germany do not want moslems in their two respective countries, using Islam at all.......




"Only the dead know the end of war"-Plato

[ICWS]

Markabilly,

It seems to me, from an American perspective, that Great Britain, Germany, and other European countries, having been facing a problem with multiculturalism for a while now, with the immigration of Muslims into those countries being the main contributor to the problem. European countries are Christian countries. And some of these countries have been the new homes of Muslims immigrating from the Middle East. The problem arises when these Muslim immigrants come in to a European nation and demand for their religion to be as equal of a part of that nation's culture as much as Christianity is. This presents a conflict in the sense of Western/Christian principles versus Middle Eastern/Islamic principles, and has caused Europeans to think negatively of Arabs and Muslims.

Once again, I'm saying all that from my American perspective. For the Europeans on this forum, please correct me if I'm thinking and saying incorrect things here on this post.

[Roamy]

Markabilly,

It seems to me, from an American perspective, that Great Britain, Germany, and other European countries, having been facing a problem with multiculturalism for a while now, with the immigration of Muslims into those countries being the main contributor to the problem. European countries are Christian countries. And some of these countries have been the new homes of Muslims immigrating from the Middle East. The problem arises when these Muslim immigrants come in to a European nation and demand for their religion to be as equal of a part of that nation's culture as much as Christianity is. This presents a conflict in the sense of Western/Christian principles versus Middle Eastern/Islamic principles, and has caused Europeans to think negatively of Arabs and Muslims.

Once again, I'm saying all that from my American perspective. For the Europeans on this forum, please correct me if I'm thinking and saying incorrect things here on this post.

I think the Euros have many non believers but have let the muslims overrun them because of their liberal attitude, which I think will come back and bite them in the ass!!

[Eki]

I think the Euros have many non believers but have let the muslims overrun them because of their liberal attitude, which I think will come back and bite them in the ass!!
We haven't let the Muslims overrun us even as much as you have let the Jews overrun you.

[markabilly]

We haven't let the Muslims overrun us even as much as you have let the Jews overrun you.

Jawohl Judenhasser, we need to squash them also with some "active muscular liberalism"

Okay, you and Merkel, join hands and give us a rousing round of Deutschland, Deutschland über alles......

[markabilly]

Markabilly,

It seems to me, from an American perspective, that Great Britain, Germany, and other European countries, having been facing a problem with multiculturalism for a while now, with the immigration of Muslims into those countries being the main contributor to the problem. European countries are Christian countries. And some of these countries have been the new homes of Muslims immigrating from the Middle East. The problem arises when these Muslim immigrants come in to a European nation and demand for their religion to be as equal of a part of that nation's culture as much as Christianity is. This presents a conflict in the sense of Western/Christian principles versus Middle Eastern/Islamic principles, and has caused Europeans to think negatively of Arabs and Muslims.

Once again, I'm saying all that from my American perspective. For the Europeans on this forum, please correct me if I'm thinking and saying incorrect things here on this post.

The problem with Islam, is that there are the so called hypocrites (modern, good muslims) and true believers (fundamentalists)
the latter are such as the old Catholics, who when they had things their way a short time ago, they are more than happy, indeed it is their duty, to kill herectics (or those that deviate from the true faith) The Church burned them at the stake and all sorts of other stuff.....while the 'true beleivers" of today, use stoning, beheading and car bombs....

Always thought the two amendments most important to the USA, the second and the amendment seperating church from state.

With Christainity, Christ was the outsider and hence the New Testament has that point of view, while the prophet gained power and control in his life time and there was no separation between religion and government in Islam. Indeed, prophet Muhammad when he captured medinia, executed some 600 jewish men and boys, enslaved the rest and seized all their possession....Christ is the forgiving "figure of turn the other cheek" and is executed by the state, rather than being an executor....

The power of the catholic Church began to wane, when the priniting press got started good, and people could actually have wide spread access to the New Testament, that painted a different point of view of life and religion that went hand in with the changes in politic power of the church

[Eki]

you should be speaking german cause obviously you can't read the title of the thread forum-moron
History repeats itself and it doesn't care about thread titles.

[Dave B]

The problem with Islam, is that there are the so called hypocrites (modern, good muslims) and true believers (fundamentalists)
It's the same with every religion. Always was, always will be. Fortunately for us all the peaceful Islamists who just want to get on with their day far far outnumber the fundamentalists who would cause harm by several orders of magnitude - a fact which people would do well to remember. If one were to draw a Venn diagram of Muslims and terrorists, the overlap would be extremely tiny, barely visible to the human eye.

[Dave B]

I think the Euros have many non believers but have let the muslims overrun them because of their liberal attitude, which I think will come back and bite them in the ass!!

I'm yet to discover all these Mulsims who have apparently overrun me, I've had a good look round but they must be hiding.

[Mark]

It's the same with every religion. Always was, always will be. Fortunately for us all the peaceful Islamists who just want to get on with their day far far outnumber the fundamentalists who would cause harm by several orders of magnitude - a fact which people would do well to remember. If one were to draw a Venn diagram of Muslims and terrorists, the overlap would be extremely tiny, barely visible to the human eye.

What if the venn diagram had a diameter of 10 miles?

[Dave B]

What if the venn diagram had a diameter of 10 miles?

Grab some paint, I know an empty field we can use :D

[Retro Formula 1]

I do find all this talk of "Good Muslims" and "Bad Muslims" rather distasteful. It rather reminds me of the 1970's when people would openly talk about "good blacks" being OK because they were the ones we knew and then you had the bad ones who would rob and rape as soon as look at you.

I suspect that the way people talk about Muslims now will be as unacceptable in 10 years as the terms wog and nigger are today.

Sure, there are a small amount of fundementalists who make a lot of noise but when thee sorts of ignorance prevail, it's not surprising young impressionable men are attracted to right perceived wrongs, is it?

Islamophobia? Nah, just good old ignorance and mistrust of things we don't understand. Human nature I suppose.

[markabilly]

It's the same with every religion. Always was, always will be. Fortunately for us all the peaceful Islamists who just want to get on with their day far far outnumber the fundamentalists who would cause harm by several orders of magnitude - a fact which people would do well to remember. If one were to draw a Venn diagram of Muslims and terrorists, the overlap would be extremely tiny, barely visible to the human eye.

Might want to tell that to the Prime Minister....he seems to think the diameter is far larger than ten miles, more like about 25,000 miles and he is standing right in the middle of the overlap (right would be something of a pun)


However, there is still an element of islam that has to do with the use of governmental power, that is very absent from the New Testament (although as taught by history---not reflected in the way christainity has conducted itself) that does lead to the rise of Islamic states as an expected outgrowth of the teachings of its religion which is very intolerant of other religions and cultures.

With this "revolution" in these countries, it presents the opportunity to impose an Islamic state, should the right parties gain power, a situation little different than what happenned in Iran......

[Dave B]

Might want to tell that to the Prime Minister....he seems to think the diameter is far larger than ten miles, more like about 25,000 miles and he is standing right in the middle of the overlap (right would be something of a pun)
Our PM is a populist moron who made those remarks on the day of a march by the far-right English Defence League, trying to make political capitol out of the situation.

[Roamy]

We haven't let the Muslims overrun us even as much as you have let the Jews overrun you.

I have said over and over - we need to just immigrate the entire of Israel and get it over with. But now I have added for every jew we allow to immigrate then one muslim is deported. lets see math people 10 mil in 10 mil out - give Israel to the Pales and lets turn to the next nuke target :)

[Dave B]

Fascinating events in Egypt right now if you're near a tv or radio. Will he stay or will he go... has he already gone?

[markabilly]

gone after the speech

he can not stay if the army is not going to strongly support him

[markabilly]

the alternative is to declare marital law and to have his army chief and staff implement measures to start shooting people.....

[Bob Riebe]

It's the same with every religion. Always was, always will be. Fortunately for us all the peaceful Islamists who just want to get on with their day far far outnumber the fundamentalists who would cause harm by several orders of magnitude - a fact which people would do well to remember. If one were to draw a Venn diagram of Muslims and terrorists, the overlap would be extremely tiny, barely visible to the human eye.

Yes they quietly sit and say, and do nothing about the Muslims who murder and maim, unlike what is happening now in Egypt, where the supposed huddled masses are up in arms.

So one would guess the Muslim community as a whole does not give a damn or supports the murdering sect.

The Muslim response by the supposed harmless Muslims in the U.S. has been either resounding silence or small groups to give support to the Muslims who murder and maim.
If they far outnumber, especially their religious leaders, they are rather pathetic, and deserve any ridicule that comes their way for their silence.

There have been several outspoken, against the supposed radical Muslims, on the U.S. air-waves, thank God for NPR, but fear of annoying the Muslim population has seemed to keep their voices the equivalent of peeing in the ocean.
(If what they say about the Muslim community were the center of a standard liberal press effort to get what they think is important out, the attitude about the Muslim community as a whole by the supposed "peaceful Islamists" would change, or they would be exposed for the supporting group they may be.)

[Bob Riebe]

I do find all this talk of "Good Muslims" and "Bad Muslims" rather distasteful. It rather reminds me of the 1970's when people would openly talk about "good blacks" being OK because they were the ones we knew and then you had the bad ones who would rob and rape as soon as look at you.

I suspect that the way people talk about Muslims now will be as unacceptable in 10 years as the terms wog and nigger are today.

Sure, there are a small amount of fundementalists who make a lot of noise but when thee sorts of ignorance prevail, it's not surprising young impressionable men are attracted to right perceived wrongs, is it?

Islamophobia? Nah, just good old ignorance and mistrust of things we don't understand. Human nature I suppose.
The good, bad and ugly division exists and has existed when ever societies clash or to be real within any society. To pop-out ethnic or racial specifics as special points is a cop-out.

It has nothing to do with ignorance--to say so it putting ones head in the sand or simple ignorance.
It has everything to do with people strapping bombs on other people or making bombs out of items that call kill dozens to hundreds.
Bob
PS-- My one nephew has several false teeth after he got a brick in the face for acting too white, so do not use the "black" society as an example if you have not had to deal with it.
I have learned it you want to hear about good and black, Negroes, the term they OFTEN use to separate, along with nigger, go speak with a member of the society you are speaking of.

[BDunnell]

Yes they quietly sit and say, and do nothing about the Muslims who murder and maim, unlike what is happening now in Egypt, where the supposed huddled masses are up in arms.

So one would guess the Muslim community as a whole does not give a damn or supports the murdering sect.

I can't say that I, as a moderate white male, have particularly 'done anything' about the many deeply unpleasant white males who murder and maim. Does this mean that the white male community as a whole doesn't give a damn about or supports that element of their brethren?

[BDunnell]

My one nephew has several false teeth after he got a brick in the face for acting too white, so do not use the "black" society as an example if you have not had to deal with it.

The rest of us will use whichever terms we want even without your permission, thank you very much.

[Bob Riebe]

The rest of us will use whichever terms we want even without your permission, thank you very much.

Show me where I said you could not, but if my post seems threatening to you, toughen up bunky there are baaad people out there.

[BDunnell]

Show me where I said you could not, but if my post seems threatening to you, toughen up bunky there are baaad people out there.

Yes, including redneck Americans with firearms.

[Daniel]

Does anyone else feel that the BBC is counting the chickens that it's insinuating are just about to hatch before there are even eggs?

Every night I switch the news on and if it was the first time you'd seen it, you'd think from the tone of the reports that Hosni Mubarak will be out in the next hour but of course he's still there sometime later.

I just wish they'd report what is happening and stop trying to make it seem all positive and slightly cuddly.

[Bob Riebe]

I can't say that I, as a moderate white male, have particularly 'done anything' about the many deeply unpleasant white males who murder and maim. Does this mean that the white male community as a whole doesn't give a damn about or supports that element of their brethren?
This thread is not about race, or even ethnicity but your post, by you using the term "white" does more to show that you seem to be what is popularly called a racist these days. One who separates by skin colour rather than ethnicity, much less actual race which is the only correct way to define a racist.

I have seen protests that were anti- X,Y or what ever in the U.S., and other countries, of which the majority were what I guess YOU would call "white" people. Now as majority of Muslims causing the problem are Caucasian, you using the term "white" seems to show much about how your opinions are based.
At the same time I have seen no major protest by Muslims, against Muslims, condemning the murderous actions by the supposed few Islamists.

[Eki]

This thread is not about race, or even ethnicity but your post, by you using the term "white" does more to show that you seem to be what is popularly called a racist these days. One who separates by skin colour rather than ethnicity, much less actual race which is the only correct way to define a racist.

I have seen protests that were anti- X,Y or what ever in the U.S., and other countries, of which the majority were what I guess YOU would call "white" people. Now as majority of Muslims causing the problem are Caucasian, you using the term "white" seems to show much about how your opinions are based.
At the same time I have seen no major protest by Muslims, against Muslims, condemning the murderous actions by the supposed few Islamists.
And I haven't seen any major protests by Christians, against Christians, condemning the murderous actions by the supposed few Christian killers or condemning the narrow-minded views of some Christians. Most people just live their lives quietly without making loud protests. Usually it's the radicals that protest the loudliest, not the moderate ones who just want to get along with everybody.

[BDunnell]

This thread is not about race, or even ethnicity but your post, by you using the term "white" does more to show that you seem to be what is popularly called a racist these days. One who separates by skin colour rather than ethnicity, much less actual race which is the only correct way to define a racist.

Ah, so the merest mention of one's skin colour renders one a racist, does it? If you ask me, Bob, it's time for you to employ some less obtuse rhetoric.

[Bob Riebe]

[quote="BDunnell"]Ah, so the merest mention of one's skin colour renders one a racist, does it?--You tell me white boy.

If you ask me, Bob, it's time for you to employ some less obtuse rhetoric.-- Ahhh-- this comes from one whose majority of posting efforts amount to attacking other posters. I guess that put me in my place now didn't it.

[Bob Riebe]

And I haven't seen any major protests by Christians, against Christians, condemning the murderous actions by the supposed few Christian killers or condemning the narrow-minded views of some Christians. Most people just live their lives quietly without making loud protests. Usually it's the radicals that protest the loudliest, not the moderate ones who just want to get along with everybody.

Name which one/s.

Oklahoma is the only one I can think of and McVeigh was executed.

[BDunnell]

Ah, so the merest mention of one's skin colour renders one a racist, does it?--You tell me white boy.

If you ask me, Bob, it's time for you to employ some less obtuse rhetoric.-- Ahhh-- this comes from one whose majority of posting efforts amount to attacking other posters. I guess that put me in my place now didn't it.

Splendid.

[Eki]

Name which one/s.

Oklahoma is the only one I can think of and McVeigh was executed.
And were there protests against him by moderate Christians? Or against the anti-abortion violence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

It's funny how some people think it's OK to kill or maim fully developed people, but not early stage fetuses.

How about the school shooters Matti Saari and Pekka-Eric Auvinen?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kauhajoki_school_shooting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jokela_school_shooting

I don't know if they were Christians, but there's a 82.5% probability that they were Lutheran Christians and 2.2% probability that they were other Christians. There weren't any mass protests against them or school shootings.

[Bob Riebe]

And were there protests against him by moderate Christians? Or against the anti-abortion violence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

It's funny how some people think it's OK to kill or maim fully developed people, but not early stage fetuses.

How about the school shooters Matti Saari and Pekka-Eric Auvinen?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kauhajoki_school_shooting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jokela_school_shooting

I don't know if they were Christians, but there's a 82.5% probability that they were Lutheran Christians and 2.2% probability that they were other Christians. There weren't any mass protests against them or school shootings.

The anti-abortion militants, killers, have been loudly condemned by a goodly chunk of U.S. society.

As for the Finnish shooter, an incident/s, how many Finnish Christians have repeatedly strapped bombs to themselves and murdered or maimed repeatedly, as an act of God.
---------------------------------------------------------

It was on the radio today that Egyptian Christians are getting skittish over the possibility of a Muslim religion based take over/
At the same time one of Obama's Administration's people with authority today said that the Muslim Brotherhood is a secular organization.
Even CNN found that to be rather ignorant at best which upon further questionint the spokesman's reply proved that point.
Now I only heard part of the interview, but what I heard, makes Obama's choice in people seem as poor as some say it is.

[markabilly]

well, looks like I was wrong in my prediction about the TV speech. He is staying but transferring some power to the vice prez, so I wonder how that will play out...

just ignore dunnel, he is trying to seperate hisself from the "paranoid morons" who are the leaders of Germany and GB, of which such he said did not exist among "we europeans"--unlike those "redneck Americans with guns.....

[BDunnell]

just ignore dunnel, he is trying to seperate hisself from the "paranoid morons" who are the leaders of Germany and GB, of which such he said did not exist among "we europeans"

Yes, silly old me.

[markabilly]

yep, those paranoid morons who were duly elected by their respective countries...

[BDunnell]

yep, those paranoid morons who were duly elected by their respective countries...

Doesn't mean to say that one should agree with them.

[ICWS]

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/02/10/10_reasons_americans_should_care_about_the_egyptia n_revolution?page=0,0:

1. Money
2. America's Reputation
3. Regional Stability
4. The War on Terror
5. Relations With Other Middle East Allies
6. The Danger of Distraction
7. Morality
8. Role of New Media
9. Learning the Right Lessons
10. Judging Obama

...Does anyone else find it to be a little sad that, according to this article, the role of new media (Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc.) is considered to be a more important reason to follow the situation in Egypt than learning the lesson of how to properly promote Democracy in the Arab world and paying attention to/judging what President Obama is doing in regards to this conflict?

[Roamy]

yea well I think the US, Euros, China and Russia should make a pact and go down there and clean out this sh!thole once and for all.

[Bob Riebe]

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/02/10/10_reasons_americans_should_care_about_the_egyptia n_revolution?page=0,0:

1. Money

3. Regional Stability -- A former Ambassador for Israel, said this is the main concern they have, not possible Muslim attacks.
4. The War on Terror
5. Relations With Other Middle East Allies
6. The Danger of Distraction



...Does anyone else find it to be a little sad that, according to this article, the role of new media (Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc.) is considered to be a more important reason to follow the situation in Egypt than learning the lesson of how to properly promote Democracy in the Arab world and paying attention to/judging what President Obama is doing in regards to this conflict?

These are worth concern, and I agree with your last concern.

[Bob Riebe]

yea well I think the US, Euros, China and Russia should make a pact and go down there and clean out this sh!thole once and for all.

I would not want the Chi-coms any where near the area for any reason.

[Roamy]

I would not want the Chi-coms any where near the area for any reason.

ok leave them out I will sign

[Eki]

As for the Finnish shooter, an incident/s, how many Finnish Christians have repeatedly strapped bombs to themselves and murdered or maimed repeatedly, as an act of God.

As many as American Muslims have. None. And there are almost 2 million Muslims in the US.

[Eki]

properly promote Democracy in the Arab world
Promoting Democracy in the Arab world sounds as dubious to me as promoting Islam in the Western world. For some reason I dislike any "missionaries" trying to shove their own ideas down the throats of foreigners who often are reluctant to swallow them.

[Mark]

On reading BBC articles about the situation every twist and turn is always accompanied by what the Americans are saying about the situation. I don't personally see what the President of the United States has to do with it at all? His views are no more relevant than the Prime Minister of Japan or whoever..

[ShiftingGears]

As many as American Muslims have. None. And there are almost 2 million Muslims in the US.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drQETQ2iprU

[Eki]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drQETQ2iprU
:laugh:

[Dave B]

He's resigned. Walked. Like....

[Bob Riebe]

As many as American Muslims have. None. And there are almost 2 million Muslims in the US. We have almost 3,000 dead by a Muslims in the U.S., not to mention the military shooter, the car trunk shooter. Your reply was inept, as is your rhetoric.

[Bob Riebe]

On reading BBC articles about the situation every twist and turn is always accompanied by what the Americans are saying about the situation. I don't personally see what the President of the United States has to do with it at all? His views are no more relevant than the Prime Minister of Japan or whoever..
I agree and I wish Obama would shut his mouth. He sounds like a fool more and more with each response.

[Eki]

We have almost 3,000 dead by a Muslims in the U.S.,
Those were foreigners who came to the US just to do what they did, they weren't American Muslims trying to live a quiet ordinary life.

[race aficionado]

Today's events are of historic proportions.

The will of the people -the vox populi of the egyptian citizens have given us a lesson that has so many levels of importance in it.

From the non violent victory (not as much violence as could have happened) - the intelligence and will of so many - to the use and importance of the social networks and consumer mobile technology.

I am in a joyous "peace dammit-people power" mode and am aware that there still is a lot of work to be done and time will tell what surprises may arise.

But for now, I am filled with joy and pride.

Yessssssss!!!!!!
:s mokin:

[Hondo]

I wonder how many Egyptians are trying to haul butt out of the country before the great Islamic tribunals begin.


meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

[Tazio]

Today's events are of historic proportions.

The will of the people -the vox populi of the egyptian citizens have given us a lesson that has so many levels of importance in it.

From the non violent victory (not as much violence as could have happened) - the intelligence and will of so many - to the use and importance of the social networks and consumer mobile technology.

I am in a joyous "peace dammit-people power" mode and am aware that there still is a lot of work to be done and time will tell what surprises may arise.

But for now, I am filled with joy and pride.

Yessssssss!!!!!!
:s mokin:

+1

[Daniel]

meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

OR perhaps they won't get fooled again

[Eki]

OR perhaps they won't get fooled again

http://csi-miami.maxupdates.tv/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Horatio-Caine-discovers-a-Traitor.jpg

[ICWS]

http://csi-miami.maxupdates.tv/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/horatio-caine-discovers-a-traitor.jpg

Looks like we... (puts on sunglasses) ...have found our man (walks away).

YEEEEEAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

[Bob Riebe]

Yep, another militarily controlled country, that worked so well for Pakistan.

[Bob Riebe]

On reading BBC articles about the situation every twist and turn is always accompanied by what the Americans are saying about the situation. I don't personally see what the President of the United States has to do with it at all? His views are no more relevant than the Prime Minister of Japan or whoever..
At the same time Pres. Obama is flatulating about Egypt this continues, whilst continuing to be off of Obama's radar screen.
I guess Mexico is too far away from Washington to be of concern to Obama.

CIUDAD JUAREZ, Mexico (AP) — Gunmen barged into a bar in the battered border city of Ciudad Juarez and opened fire late Thursday, killing seven women and one man, authorities said.

Three other people were wounded at the "Las Torres" bar and were in critical condition, said Arturo Sandoval, spokesman for Chihuahua state prosecutors.

Sandoval said investigators were still trying to determine who was behind the attack.

[ArrowsFA1]

On reading BBC articles about the situation every twist and turn is always accompanied by what the Americans are saying about the situation. I don't personally see what the President of the United States has to do with it at all? His views are no more relevant than the Prime Minister of Japan or whoever..

I agree and I wish Obama would shut his mouth. He sounds like a fool more and more with each response.
I think Mark may well have been referring to the role of US Presidents in the Middle East generally Bob, not the current President specifically.

The US have made a key role for themselves in the area. From recognising Israel in 1948, to supporting the 1953 military coup in Iran, to selling arms to Israel for the first time in 1966, to brokering a Egyptian/Israeli peace treaty in 1978...and on it goes.

[Rudy Tamasz]

From a fire to a flame, like we say in our country. With Mubarak gone, military junta rules the country.

I honestly think that democracy only works in countries where you have decently educated and economically independent middle class. Otherwise every revolution is used by either crooks or bigots for their own ends.

[Bob Riebe]

From a fire to a flame, like we say in our country. With Mubarak gone, military junta rules the country.

I honestly think that democracy only works in countries where you have decently educated and economically independent middle class. Otherwise every revolution is used by either crooks or bigots for their own ends.

They have dissolved the Constitution.

It may not turn out as Iran, so long as the military is anit-Islamic State, but only time will tell.

I do not think a middle class is necessarily the missing ingredient, but it only seems to work where the general populace is instrumental in setting up a constitution and making it permanent with no exceptions without the approval of said same populaton.