• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Riots erupt in Egypt as protesters demand end to Mubarak regime

Yes.



I'm not.


Your mistake continues to be orientalism. Take into consideration where Iran's mood was in 1979. They hated us because we were absolutely physically present and much of the revolution was centered around getting rid of us. And just what do you think the distinct mood is around the Israeli environment? None of this reflects on Egypt's mood.

Look, I hope you are right, just don't think you are. Would be happy to admit that I am wrong but doubt it. There weren't that many Islamic fundamentalists in Iran but everyone was united to get rid of the Shah. then the most organized and best funded took over. Think that the majority in Iran are happy today with the way that turned out?
 
This is a good point.
Our generals are their suppliers and trainers.


Every two years Egypt used to host "Operation: Bright Star." This assembled many of the Western nations with Arab nations for military exercises. I attended in 2001 (once month after 9/11). We have relationships with these nation's leaders that most civilians don't know about. And no CNN or FOX will give this wisdom to the viewers who seem more concerned with safely predicting negative outcomes.
 
Look, I hope you are right, just don't think you are. Would be happy to admit that I am wrong but doubt it. There weren't that many Islamic fundamentalists in Iran but everyone was united to get rid of the Shah. then the most organized and best funded took over. Think that the majority in Iran are happy today with the way that turned out?

Iran was it's own distinct issue. And the majority of the voices leading the revolution in the public's eye were absolutely religious. This is not the case in Egypt.

But the bigger mistake would be for our analysts to forget history's lessons. Just like they predicted failure everytime an IED went off in Iraq, so too will they safely predict failure everytime Egyptians have to learn their lessons. Even in the West, none of us got it right perfectly. We should remember how many decades it took to create democracies in Europe when we think about tagging "failure" to Arab nations who are just starting out. With our help, they could achieve it faster than they did.

Don't worry about the short term hiccups. It's not like Napoleon's going to rise. It's the long term success they are working towards. And that's culture.
 
Stop trying to justify the illegality of Iraq by using other countries rising up as a shield.

Tunisia was more of a spark than Iraq. Contrary to many Americans belief, not everything revolves around the US :roll:

OT: I hope the Egyptian people continue and I hope my friends are safe. Lynch your President! :peace

FYI, the invasion was NOT illegal and was in conformity with UNSC resolutions...

Though I agree with your point that it likely was a small part at best to what happened in Tunisia, but I would not argue that it had NO part in it. Surely Tunisians DID see images of Iraqis voting and that, combined with the government's inability to provide for its people in tough times, likely together provided the impetus for the current events in Tunis and throughout Tunisia.
 
I've spent a lot of time in Egypt. Urban and rural. I believe I know the people a bit better than you do.

You know, there are always some on these boards who think they know more about a country and a culture than people who have spent significant time in that country and/or speak its language... this won't insulate you from the haters...
 
I am sure you mean well but you are allowing your own personal opinions to trump reality and history.

This is EXACTLY like Iran in more ways than not. The ultimate plan by the radical Islamists was to overthrow and get rid of Mubarek. Fortunately, they had a bad economy to act as their ally and to help them create a revolt based upon economics and stirred the flames with hatred for the person that brought this upon them.

Islamists used the people same way as liberals use minorities. Same way as Stalin used his useful idiots.

This, in almost all aspects, is Iran all over again. The biggest losers in all this will be Israel and the US.

The Muslim Brotherhood will ATTEMPT to do this, and they MAY be successful, but it isn't that simple in Egypt. Tashah is merely pointing out the fact that Egyptians are not lock-step Islamists. Egypt IS more moderate in general than many of the societies on the Peninsula. It has a strong educated class and a significant Christian minority.
 
The Muslim Brotherhood will ATTEMPT to do this, and they MAY be successful, but it isn't that simple in Egypt. Tashah is merely pointing out the fact that Egyptians are not lock-step Islamists. Egypt IS more moderate in general than many of the societies on the Peninsula. It has a strong educated class and a significant Christian minority.

Name for me one revolution in that part of the world where the end result wasn't a hard line Islamic regime? Again, Iran started out this way and look at the end result. Looks to me like you are backtracking a little in your prediction,
The Muslim Brotherhood will ATTEMPT to do this, and they MAY be successful
If that is the case we are in big trouble as is Israel.
 
The Egyptian opposition does not have a respected leader like Khomenei was for Iran. But Egypt has no significant pro-democracy intelligentsia like Poland or Czechoslovalia. The only organized opposition in Egypt is the Muslim Brotherhood. Imo it is too late to develop a democratic following in Egypt. The Coptic Christians of Egypt would be well advised to leave the country.
 
..... The Coptic Christians of Egypt would be well advised to leave the country.
Arabs conquered Egypt in 640 AD. The [native] Copts have been shafted ever since.
Leaving was always a good idea.
 
Last edited:
FYI, the invasion was NOT illegal and was in conformity with UNSC resolutions...

Though I agree with your point that it likely was a small part at best to what happened in Tunisia, but I would not argue that it had NO part in it. Surely Tunisians DID see images of Iraqis voting and that, combined with the government's inability to provide for its people in tough times, likely together provided the impetus for the current events in Tunis and throughout Tunisia.


The neo-conservative cabal that diabolically pulled the strings in the Bush administration made many claims about their illegal invasion of Iraq.

(That was a fun sentence to write, by the way. Really takes you back, doesn't it?)

One of the claims was: a free and democratic Iraq might inspire other democratic movements in the region. The only other free country in the neighborhood is Israel, went the thinking, so maybe Arab and Muslim countries need a democracy to call their own.

Sowing democracy in an anti-democratic region struck some as naive, and maybe even stupid. It would be destabilizing. Autocratic regimes that were reliably sane might fall, and be replaced by crazier Iran-revolutionary kind of loonies.

It boiled down to this basic argument: Destabilizing the region is too risky -- the upside is murky and the downside is disastrous. Democracy is a good thing, but it'll have to come gradually, through slow and steady diplomacy with corrupt, autocratic regimes. And the counter-argument: Destabilizing the region is necessary -- corrupt, autocratic regimes in the region have created the culture of paranoia and they've exported their nutjobs to the United States, to take flying lessons on student visas. It's time for bold action.

The neo-con dreamers won that argument. Iraq is now a shaky, sometimes violent democracy. (But then, so is Baltimore.)

As the great Jennifer Rubin wrote in WaPo:

Even President Obama and his secretary of state recognized the remarkable achievement [of Iraq's democratic government]. Each released statements praising the Iraqis' accomplishment.

It's hard to miss the irony: The candidate who wanted to accelerate U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, which likely would have doomed the country to chaos and genocide, is now sounding indistinguishable from his predecessor.


Two more data points. 1. The corrupt, autocratic regime in Tunisia has held one-party power since 1956. Until a couple of weeks ago. And 2. The corrupt, autocratic regime in Egypt has been in power since 1981. But that's looking shaky, as of this morning.


If events in Tunisia have inspired events in Egypt, what inspired the events in Tunisia?

Hard to say, of course. But perhaps a small nod and a tip of the hat is due to the diabolical neo-cons, and the naive president they conned into trying this absurd gamble on democracy.


Iraq, Tunisia, Egypt: These Things Have Nothing to Do With Each Other - Ricochet.com

Of course, we'll just mention all the political upheaval across the regtion between Iraq and Tunisia that forced regimes like in Saudi Arabia to allow low level elections and more freedom totheir women.

...And actually, Rumsfeld and Cheney were no NeoCons, but the author is being more honest about the reality than some who need Iraq to be pointless to the end.
 
Last edited:
Considering the overwhelming drive of the people and somewhat "backing" of the military...they don't have a choice. And this is what the fear mongering analysts seem to dismiss in their haste to celebrate their petrified state over instability.

One the one hand, I agree that the military has the POTENTIAL to play a constructive role to preserve democracy as it does in Turkey. However, there are so many unknowns now and for ANYONE to say that they KNOW is what is going to happen is simply not realistic (other than the fact that Mubaracks days -- perhaps hours -- are numbered). What role will the military play? Will El baredei be able to set up a working interim government with real elections? Will the Muslim Brotherhood fill in a void of El Baradei is unable to do that? What are the actual proclivities of military leaders? Will there be a schism in the military? Can you HONESTLY answer those questions? I doubt very many can do anything more than speculate.
 
I do not have Obama's best interests at heart. I do not have the American Left's best interests at heart. I have been radicalized by the Left.
This is the recipe for a destructive/non-objective answer.

Political nihilism is the path that I am on. Michael Moore, Harry Reid and a host of other leftists have established the precedent that foreign policy crises can be used for domestic political purposes. Once established, the precedent remains in effect. They introduced a deadly toxin into the bloodstream of the body politic. As a result America is paralyzed. That's fine with me. Over the precipice we go together.
I'm still pissed about 9/11 and too much else to post now.
But you gotta deal with the current situation without Strangling someone.

The skill set required to achieve electoral victory in America is entirely different from the skill set needed to govern successfully. It should be obvious that Obama has no more experience in foreign policy than the local plumber. His advisors are all from a very narrow slice of the Democratic Party. He needs better advisors imo.
I voted for Obama.
His FP has been disappointing. Naive at best.

Obama must recognize that America is broke, is no longer capable of maintaining the web of institutional and other relationships that constitute the American Empire, and that the political and other divisions in the country prevent effective action.

Long Term Objective: Abandon his reliance on the Liberal Internationalist School of Foreign Policy. Withdraw from the eastern hemisphere completely except for normal trade. Slash the American military to the bone. Renew the American economy and people.
The Liberal view is to withdraw, it's the conservative/neo-conservative position to have forward positions.
Obama's critics in this respect are to his left.
Tho Libertarians and Paleos would be OK withdrawals, mainstream Republicans wouldn't.

Mid Term Objective: America must accommodate the nascent Iranian Empire because American internal political paralysis prevents America from coping effectively with Iranian strategy and tactics. If they stay out of the western hemisphere we will withdraw from and stay out of the eastern hemisphere.
Yeah, we're stuck with Iran. But maybe didn't have to be if we weren't over-extended elsewhere.
You would leave A-stan obviously.

Short Term Objective: Quietly get all Americans out of Egypt. Say very little. Liquidate American investments in Egypt and the Greater Middle East. Let events in Egypt take their own course. American foreign policy has embittered the Egyptian people. Because of that this will not turn out well for America. Imo there will either be a military coup in Egypt or there will be a revolution which will be coopted by the Muslim Brotherhood. GTFO ASAP.
I'm sure provisions are being made are already in place for all non-esential Americans to leave - if not gone already. Carrier off the coast no doubt too.

I think you're over-reacting in that respect. I don't think it's 1979 Iran/Hostages.
You're "political Nihilism" is evident here.

But there's also the problem of just who's on the street now- apparently many are just thugs and unhappy residents of Cairo's desperately poor slums/looters. Some Jails have been emptied.
Though surely a minority- we're still talking Big numbers in absolute terms.
These are people who would 'revolt' against anything/anyone because of their conditions. Which aren't going to change unless Egypt's Birth rate does.

and finally..
I don't think you can lay this at Obama's feet -at least not yet.
This is surely a No-win situation he didn't create.
 
Last edited:
This is the biggest problem. People hate America, mostly, because they're uninformed.

The United States never supported the Taliban during the Afghan-Soviet War. UBL never worked for the CIA.

If you want to complain about what the United States did wrong in Afghanistan, you would be more accurate to say that we didn't maintain our support for the Northern Alliance. Had we done that, the NA could have wiped out the Taliban.

Sorry, the misinformed one is you. The US DID aid terrorists, even if you don't think they did it back then, Washington's decision in May 2001 to financially reward Afghanistan's infamous Taliban government for its edict ordering a halt to the cultivation of opium poppies is just another example...

Sure, they just rewarded the "Afghan government" a large stipend, which is strange....considering the government there didn't enforce the policy but the Taliban did, and it was obvious by then the Taliban received much help via redirected foreign aid.

The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. There are many sources to prove you wrong and it is unfortunate you have instead chosen to revise what really happened.
 
Last edited:
One the one hand, I agree that the military has the POTENTIAL to play a constructive role to preserve democracy as it does in Turkey. However, there are so many unknowns now and for ANYONE to say that they KNOW is what is going to happen is simply not realistic (other than the fact that Mubaracks days -- perhaps hours -- are numbered). What role will the military play? Will El baredei be able to set up a working interim government with real elections? Will the Muslim Brotherhood fill in a void of El Baradei is unable to do that? What are the actual proclivities of military leaders? Will there be a schism in the military? Can you HONESTLY answer those questions? I doubt very many can do anything more than speculate.

But there is a probable scenario and it is based on the mood of the majority of these people and their modernist thinking military. The details will cause speed bumps but the general probability should be clear. Like the Iranians (who are nationalistic) and the Turks (who are nationalistic), they have a recorded history that goes back before Islam. Egyptians were "colonized" just like the Iranians and the Turks by Arab Sunni agendas. The current Islamist movement inside Egypt only has so much power and so much room to navigate before they clash up against the overwhelming majority who have been very clear with their demands.

People are too quick to use Iran to serve up their negative commentary. But Iran's movement was full of religious zealousy and were willing to accept anything other than what the Shah was doing. Egypt seems to have a clear direction other than Sharia that it wants to travel.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, the misinformed one is you. The US DID fund the Taliban, even if you don't think they did it back then, Washington's decision in May 2001 to financially reward Afghanistan's infamous Taliban government for its edict ordering a halt to the cultivation of opium poppies is just another example...

Sure, they just rewarded the "Afghan government" a large stipend, which is strange....considering the government there didn't enforce the policy but the Taliban did, and it was obvious by then the Taliban received much help via redirected foreign aid.

After the war against the Soviets, the U.S. largely simply looked away until 9/11. This is what non-meddling does (for which we are obviously also criticized for apparently).

We also deal with European governments. Are we to be held accountable for what their cultures do? How much Chinese oppression shall America be blamed for? Only in the Middle East will you find people around the world so eager to paint an American flag across their oppressions. But remove one dictator and facilitate democracy and we are still "wrong."

My point is that noneof these governments inthe ME are any different from governments around the world that gets a phone call from Washington. The same is true for themany business deals every single nation out there has with each other. In the end, local culture is to blame. It's just become fashionable to use us as the popular scapegoat.

Mark my words - if the Egyptian people succeed, any instability and speed bump along their path will be used to criticize merica for not doing something to support Mubarak. And if Mubarak succeeds, America will be criticized for "supporting" Mubarak and be even more hated by Egyptians who still need a scapegoat to avoid the mirror. And how many in the world will support their claims and legitimize extremist rhetoric?
 
Last edited:
Yea, you stand for the weapons and ammo being used to kill the protesters at the moment... Made in the USA is stamped on all of them (literally), and the people know this.

The people do not see any American's protesting in the US for the Egyptian people.. (hell we dont even see it over here), they see what Mubarak allows them to see and what the radical islamists allow them to know.

We can hope that a moderate secular government and nation comes out of this.. but I am not betting the bank on it that is for sure. At least it wont be the cluster**** of Iraq over again.

What world do you live in? Where do you get these deranged ideas?

See these guys? They're Egyptian soldiers. See the weapons they're carrying? Those are Soviet style AK-47's, probably built at the the same Soviet licensed factory in Egypt that made AK's for the Muja's.

800px-DF-SD-03-04442.jpg


The reason so many people around the world hate America, is because there are alot of people around the world that are totally misinformed.
 
The reason so many people around the world hate America, is because there are alot of people around the world that are totally misinformed.

Don't kid yourself, the tear gas where US made and that was confirmed on the BBC just last night.

Not too sure they where sold to Egypt knowing that it would be redirected to police forces for use against protesters though - in all fairness, that is.
 
Sorry, the misinformed one is you. The US DID aid terrorists, even if you don't think they did it back then, Washington's decision in May 2001 to financially reward Afghanistan's infamous Taliban government for its edict ordering a halt to the cultivation of opium poppies is just another example...
This is true and that deal was cut back in the 90's, not in 2001. It's far cry from, "creating the Taliban".

Sure, they just rewarded the "Afghan government" a large stipend, which is strange....considering the government there didn't enforce the policy but the Taliban did, and it was obvious by then the Taliban received much help via redirected foreign aid.

The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. There are many sources to prove you wrong and it is unfortunate you have instead chosen to revise what really happened.

LOL...there was no mujahadeen, prior to the Soviet invasion. You foreigners sure do get your hands on bad information. It comes as no surprise.

The United States gave money, weapons and training to Sha Massoud's forces, which later became The Northern Alliance, our allies in the fight against the Taliban in 2002.

Ya'll really need to stop spreading the lies.
 
Don't kid yourself, the tear gas where US made and that was confirmed on the BBC just last night.

Not too sure they where sold to Egypt knowing that it would be redirected to police forces for use against protesters though - in all fairness, that is.

So what if the tear gas was made in the US? What difference does it make, unless you're looking for any half ass excuse to beat up on the United States and place all the blame on us?

You realize how you sound?
 
After the war against the Soviets, the U.S. largely simply looked away until 9/11. This is what non-meddling does (for which we are obviously also criticized for apparently).

We are talking during.

I favor US intervention in some instances, but through diplomatic pressure. That means NOT funding terrorism and NOT supporting autocratic regimes.

My point is that noneof these governments inthe ME are any different from governments around the world that gets a phone call from Washington. The same is true for themany business deals every single nation out there has with each other. In the end, local culture is to blame. It's just become fashionable to use us as the popular scapegoat.

I dont think that is entirely true. Nobody here (apart from PeteEU but he doesn't count) is saying the US is responsible. I just think the US should pit its values against its interests more.
 
Last edited:
So what if the tear gas was made in the US? What difference does it make, unless you're looking for any half ass excuse to beat up on the United States and place all the blame on us?

You realize how you sound?

Actually it was just a statement. I mean nothing by it.

I doubt the US gave it to Egypt on the understanding that it would be used to crush dissent....cant really prove that though, but again, doubt it.
 
Re: "Beginning of the end" for Egypt's Mubarak, as son and wife flee

Oh sure. All these protestors and global leftists will eventually tie the Tunisias, Egypts and Irans together, but they will senselessy and narrowly cling to the notion that only Iraq's efforts (the biggest positive social disturbance in the recent history) sits outside the regional influence. Eventually, they will even start tying the social andpolitical changes in Saudi, Lebanon, and Syria - but never Iraq where adrenaline was shot into the civilization. It's actually pathetic.

Unless it all goes bad, then it'll be because of Iraq and by default, the fault of The United States.
 
This is true and that deal was cut back in the 90's, not in 2001. It's far cry from, "creating the Taliban".

I never said they created the Taliban and my source says 2001, but whatever.

LOL...there was no mujahadeen, prior to the Soviet invasion. You foreigners sure do get your hands on bad information. It comes as no surprise.

The best-known mujahideen were the various loosely aligned Afghan opposition groups, which initially rebelled against the incumbent pro-Soviet Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (DRA) government during the late 1970s. At the DRA's request, the Soviet Union intervened. The mujahideen then fought against Soviet and DRA troops during the Soviet war in Afghanistan. After the Soviet Union pulled out of the conflict in the late 1980s the mujahideen fought each other in the subsequent Afghan Civil War.[3]

Ya'll really need to stop spreading the lies.

You just said the Mujahideen never existed before the Soviets intervened and now your saying im spreading lies. Do you realize how your beginning to look? Clearly us foreigners are far more up to date with our facts then some.
 
Back
Top Bottom