• 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

Israel has one of the strongest militaries in the world, one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world, and is in a very defensible position

Explain to us, from a tactical and strategic standpoint, how Israel is in a, "defensible position". IMO, they're couldn't be in a worse position, for defense.

while having a close ally that is the strongest military in the world.

If that allie chooses to deploy forces to support them. I don't see that as being realistic, with our current government.


I think taking your hypothetical seriously is the equivilent of taking the hypothetical of what the ramifications would be if the Park View Patriots of the AA Division for Virginia High School Football blows out the New England Patriots by 40 points while shattering Tom Brady's femur.

That statement proves that you lack the historical knowledge to understand just how realistic my hypothetical is.
 
Indefinitely? Elections scheduled for Sept. 2011 in Egypt

Yes, indefinitely, since the Egyptian elections are as legitimate as the ones in Venezuela recently.

Or do you think that Chavez is a legitimately elected Leader?

I asked what if you are wrong. Who fills the vacuum of leadership in Egypt?

What do you mean if I'm wrong? If I'm wrong that the people over throw the government? Then Mubarak keeps tenuous grasp of the country.

Right, just like we have dealt with Iran. Are the people better off in Iran than they were prior to radical Islam taking over? It is a lot easier protesting for your freedom than it is actually getting your freedom. Think that Iranians are free?

I don't think the Iranian are massively better off then before, I don't think they're amazingly worse off than before either. I also think generally though giving aid to people attempting to fight for democracy and are on the verge of it is better than just initiating and causing it yourself. We could've been France to Iran's Green Revolution, instead Obama sat on his ass.

Not to mention we didn't install a real democracy in Iran when you're talking about, we just traded one essential dictator for another.

very revolution in the region started out with the demand for freedom and democracy and look who stepped in. I suggest better research on racial Islam and their goal

Please, point me out specific revolutions that demanded Democracy. Since you're far more versed in your research, I'm sure you can point me at specifics.

I care about the security of this country and stopping radical Islam. What exactly do you care about?

Gotcha. So you weren't going on and on years back about "spreading democracy" and "spreading freedom" with regards to Iraq then? As long as your consistant.

I care about the security of this country as well. I think the long term security of it is far more beneificial by democratic governments in the Middle East taking hold rather than dictatorships. If that means a period of instability or some questionable regimes we don't get along with, so be it. The end result is likely far better than the bandaid approach of the narrow immediete gratification view we take currently.

I don't give a **** about "stopping radical islam". I care about stopping radical islam from harming our country. I'm not here for a Holy War.

You think the elections in Iraq were legitimate?

Recently? Far more than most elections in that region of the world. Previously? Absolutely not.....but then you prove my point at the very start of this post.
 
Explain to us, from a tactical and strategic standpoint, how Israel is in a, "defensible position". IMO, they're couldn't be in a worse position, for defense.

Israel's defenses and military are well entrenched in a relatively smal amount of land with a number of decades of history in defending said location and a track record of successfully doing so time and time again.

If that allie chooses to deploy forces to support them. I don't see that as being realistic, with our current government.

I think you're acting an utter fool here if you think your hypothetical could happen, IE the slaughter of "hundreds of thousands" of Israeli's which would likely mean that a large number of civilians are getting killed let alone the tactical problems you're suggesting, while our government did literally nothing to come to their aid. You're letting your hyper partisan tendancies blind you from looking at a situation honestly and legitimately, but then again I'm being redundant as that is the standard for how hyper partisans view most political issues.

That statement proves that you lack the historical knowledge to understand just how realistic my hypothetical is.

Really. Perhaps you can point me to all the historical situations where countries have killed hundreds of thousands of Israeli's, took over their entire country, and held the world hostage. I'm apparently missing that "historical knowledge".

No, sorry, history is in my favor on this one.
 
Yes, indefinitely, since the Egyptian elections are as legitimate as the ones in Venezuela recently.

Or do you think that Chavez is a legitimately elected Leader?



What do you mean if I'm wrong? If I'm wrong that the people over throw the government? Then Mubarak keeps tenuous grasp of the country.



I don't think the Iranian are massively better off then before, I don't think they're amazingly worse off than before either. I also think generally though giving aid to people attempting to fight for democracy and are on the verge of it is better than just initiating and causing it yourself. We could've been France to Iran's Green Revolution, instead Obama sat on his ass.

Not to mention we didn't install a real democracy in Iran when you're talking about, we just traded one essential dictator for another.



Please, point me out specific revolutions that demanded Democracy. Since you're far more versed in your research, I'm sure you can point me at specifics.



Gotcha. So you weren't going on and on years back about "spreading democracy" and "spreading freedom" with regards to Iraq then? As long as your consistant.

I care about the security of this country as well. I think the long term security of it is far more beneificial by democratic governments in the Middle East taking hold rather than dictatorships. If that means a period of instability or some questionable regimes we don't get along with, so be it. The end result is likely far better than the bandaid approach of the narrow immediete gratification view we take currently.

I don't give a **** about "stopping radical islam". I care about stopping radical islam from harming our country. I'm not here for a Holy War.



Recently? Far more than most elections in that region of the world. Previously? Absolutely not.....but then you prove my point at the very start of this post.

I think the US has supported the export of democratic principles since its founding. I think we ought to continue to do so. Our level of friendship with Egypt should be based on their actions to reform so that their people have an effective voice.
 
The representatives selected by the people of Egypt.

Why do you find democracy so threatening?

A problem with this thinking is that currently there are defined representatives of the people. Egypt is a nation of 80 million. The demonstrations have been held by perhaps hundreds of thousands of people. Sort of like the tea party if they went into the streets and asked for a change in government would Obama resign?

No doubt change has been long overdue in Egypt, but it would be better for an orderly transition so that the the most violent people get to take over like they did in Iran.

You may notice that the governments in the most trouble ( egypt and Jordan) are aligned with the U.S. while probably the worst actor against its people, Syria has no such problems.
 
On the flipside for you then Catz....were you one of those that was decrying the horrors and wrongness of the Iraqi War and how irresponsible it was for us to be trying to "spread democracy" and "bring freedom" to people?

Its amazing how many people on both sides seem to be flip flopping. "OMG, we can't 'spread democracy', we should be worrying about ourselves not what others are doing" suddenly becomes "We can't support a dictator just because it helps ourselves, we should be helping people fight for democracy because that's what matters!". Meanwhile the other side is going "We must spread democracy, such governance protects us and its a basic human right to be free!" and now flipping "We need to keep supporting the dictator that helps us because their freedom may allow them to put into power people we don't like!"

I hate people sometimes.

Let's look at this, though, Zyphlin.

Some people have said "You can't spread democracy because it must come from the people themselves. It can't be something that gets 'installed' by force. Installing a democracy is a contradiction in terms".

That's a position which is consistent with wanting to see Egypt become a deomcarcy due to what is currently happening. One can desire a spead of democracy while simultaneously acknowledging that it must spread from within, not be installed from without.

So comparing the two stances isn't entirely accurate.
 
I think the US has supported the export of democratic principles since its founding. I think we ought to continue to do so. Our level of friendship with Egypt should be based on their actions to reform so that their people have an effective voice.

Agreed.

We should be avoiding getting strongly in bed with Dictators. This doesn't mean we refuse to deal with them. We should deal with every legitimized government in a way that best helps our countries interests. But in cases where the people of a country are pushing for freedom and democracy the United States should be an ally to those people. And if we're not sitting there propping up and supporting the people oppressing them and squashing their freedom, then we're more likely to be able to help guide and support those who seek freedom into creating a governmental structure that will actually support such.

If the people end up, after that, choosing to put people into power we don't like...we have to deal with that. We have to deal with that every 2, 4, or 8 years often in our own country. Supporting democracy doesn't always mean supporting the government that said democracy places in power; but we should be supporting the attempts for such.

We should not be surprised when the people rise up and in part hold resentment towards us for helping to force upon them the type of oppressive government we found so unconvievably wrong for ourselves.
 
Let's look at this, though, Zyphlin.

Some people have said "You can't spread democracy because it must come from the people themselves. It can't be something that gets 'installed' by force. Installing a democracy is a contradiction in terms".

That's a position which is consistent with wanting to see Egypt become a deomcarcy due to what is currently happening. One can desire a spead of democracy while simultaneously acknowledging that it must spread from within, not be installed from without.

So comparing the two stances isn't entirely accurate.

That one is. On the flip side, others said they wanted to install a democracy not because people deserved freedom but because it best helped our security interests. That ALSO is consistant across both sides here.

However, there were some that were adamant about us simply staying out of other peoples business, that its not the U.S.'s job to push for Democracy or freedom, and we need to keep our noses out of middle eastern affairs. There were also those that argued that giving them democracy and freedom, regardless of its positive effect on the U.S.'s security, was a legitimate reason to act in Iraq.

Those type of arguments are more the ones I'm speaking to. There CAN be legitimately consistant arguments for supporting establishing democracy in Iraq but not here, and vise versa. But not everyone necessarily used those arguments.
 
Israel's defenses and military are well entrenched in a relatively smal amount of land with a number of decades of history in defending said location and a track record of successfully doing so time and time again.

IOW, you haven't even looked at a map of the region to see how Israel could be totally cut off from the rest of the world and left to fend for themselves. You probably didn't take into consideration the short period of time that it would take agressor forces to move from Israel's eastern border, to the Med, which wouldn't shrink Israel's time window with which they have to react to any such movements. Close the Red Sea, the Suez Canal and set up a naval blockade on Israel's coast and what that adds up to, is Israel is in deep poo-poo.

We're not talking about American M-60's going head to head with Soviet T-54's, this time. Don't forget, Egypt now possesses American M-1 MBT's. With the help of the United States, the IDF had the Arabs outgunned in '67 and '73. The Arabs have caught up, by now. They've had 40 years to plan. Between that and the fact that Israel damn near lost in '73, I think you're optimism is misplaced.



I think you're acting an utter fool here if you think your hypothetical could happen, IE the slaughter of "hundreds of thousands" of Israeli's which would likely mean that a large number of civilians are getting killed let alone the tactical problems you're suggesting, while our government did literally nothing to come to their aid. You're letting your hyper partisan tendancies blind you from looking at a situation honestly and legitimately, but then again I'm being redundant as that is the standard for how hyper partisans view most political issues.

So, since you obviously can't provide an informed argument as to why I'm wrong, you're just going to call me a fool?



Really. Perhaps you can point me to all the historical situations where countries have killed hundreds of thousands of Israeli's, took over their entire country, and held the world hostage. I'm apparently missing that "historical knowledge".

No one had ever invaded most of Europe, taken over their countries and murdered millions of people, either...before it happened. You seem to think that just because an event has never happened, that it's impossible for it to happen in the future.

No, sorry, history is in my favor on this one.

Actually, it isn't, but you can believe that, if it makes you feel better.
 
what is going on in egypt is a narrative of history when people get a belly full they do something about it. it will happen here you wait and see.
 
I have no problem with democracy at all. What are you afraid of, elections are scheduled in Egypt in September so why overthrow the govt. now?

Because those haven't historically been real elections, and the people of Egypt have a right to have their own chosen representatives. Democracy doesn't have to happen on a schedule.
 
A problem with this thinking is that currently there are defined representatives of the people. Egypt is a nation of 80 million. The demonstrations have been held by perhaps hundreds of thousands of people. Sort of like the tea party if they went into the streets and asked for a change in government would Obama resign?

No doubt change has been long overdue in Egypt, but it would be better for an orderly transition so that the the most violent people get to take over like they did in Iran.

You may notice that the governments in the most trouble ( egypt and Jordan) are aligned with the U.S. while probably the worst actor against its people, Syria has no such problems.

Those people aren't selected by the people of Egypt. So, they don't represent the people of Egypt. They work for a thug and a dictator.
 
Because those haven't historically been real elections, and the people of Egypt have a right to have their own chosen representatives. Democracy doesn't have to happen on a schedule.

You be sure and let us know when the Muslim Brotherhood holds, "real", elections.
 
Let's look at this, though, Zyphlin.

Some people have said "You can't spread democracy because it must come from the people themselves. It can't be something that gets 'installed' by force. Installing a democracy is a contradiction in terms".

That's a position which is consistent with wanting to see Egypt become a deomcarcy due to what is currently happening. One can desire a spead of democracy while simultaneously acknowledging that it must spread from within, not be installed from without.

So comparing the two stances isn't entirely accurate.

It's especially not applicable when pointed at me, because I'm no peacenik. I did not believe that U.S. intervention was warranted in Iran, and I worried that being too heavy handed would actually hurt the green revolution more than it helped. We didn't do enough, but it's a fine line.
 
You be sure and let us know when the Muslim Brotherhood holds, "real", elections.

Are we now pretending that you have ESP and can predict the future reliably? I'd suggest that your posts on this board say otherwise.
 
That one is. On the flip side, others said they wanted to install a democracy not because people deserved freedom but because it best helped our security interests. That ALSO is consistant across both sides here.

I would argue that installing a US-friendly government in Iraq is somewhat different from installing a democracy, but if someone is in favor of installing such a US-friendly government, it would be consistent across both sides, definitely.

However, there were some that were adamant about us simply staying out of other peoples business, that its not the U.S.'s job to push for Democracy or freedom, and we need to keep our noses out of middle eastern affairs.

Actually, that would be consistent with wanting to stay out of the Egypt situation, too. If someone who said this has now said that we should meddle with Egypt and help the people there with their revolution, that would be an inconsistent viewpoint. But if they say "So be it. We should stay out of it and let things happen as they happen" they are being consistent.

There were also those that argued that giving them democracy and freedom, regardless of its positive effect on the U.S.'s security, was a legitimate reason to act in Iraq.

I can't say for sure, but the nature of that argument leads me to believe that anyone who felt that way with Iraq would feel the same way with Egypt. If they didn't, I'd be very curious as to there reasoning fo rthe difference.

Those type of arguments are more the ones I'm speaking to. There CAN be legitimately consistant arguments for supporting establishing democracy in Iraq but not here, and vise versa. But not everyone necessarily used those arguments.

I don't think it's possible to support establishing a democracy in Iraq but not here in a consistent manner. I can see some consistency, though, in supporting a revolution ni Iraq but nort here. The catching point is that one would not really be supporting democracy in Iraq so much as they supported establishing a US-friendly government there.

In otehr words, it's possible to be consistent while having supported OIF and supportin gth ecurrent Egyptian regime, but it cannot be done consistently while using a "spread democracy" argument.
 
Israel has one of the strongest militaries in the world, one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world, and is in a very defensible position all while having a close ally that is the strongest military in the world. I think taking your hypothetical seriously is the equivilent of taking the hypothetical of what the ramifications would be if the Park View Patriots of the AA Division for Virginia High School Football blows out the New England Patriots by 40 points while shattering Tom Brady's femur.
In a straight up/one-on-one battle with Egypt's current military, I agree.

But the longer term and larger term, wider, geo=strategic situation for Israel is not good, abd defsnsibel only in a retalaitory/MAD sense.

While Egypt won't become part of the 'Shia crescent', this could 'close the circle'on Israel. With Iran to the West, Syria and Iran-backed Hezbollah to the North, and now a possibly Egypt and Egypt-supported Hamas to the West.

Even without Egypt Israel was/is vulnerble to a large and sumultaneous [even] non-nuclear missile attack. Raining thousand of high-explosive or other damaging payloads on it with Minutes. Staring with only a few minutes warning in the case of Syria, and over with 20-30 with missles from Iran. Add in a motivated Egypt and Arabs could destroy most of tiny Israel that counts quickly.
Coventional warafre you speak of would only be a remnant in this case.

I see the above scenario possible and within 2-3 years. There really is no defense except 'MAD'.

More later -posting with with weal travelling mobile onnection.
 
Because those haven't historically been real elections, and the people of Egypt have a right to have their own chosen representatives. Democracy doesn't have to happen on a schedule.

Didn't we have a real election in other countries of the region under Islamic control? How far are you willing to go to promote democracy? Does that include supporting the people of Iran who protested the fraudulent elections? What step will you support if the Egypt elections after the overthrow of the govt. are proven to be fraudulent like Iran's?
 
Are we now pretending that you have ESP and can predict the future reliably? I'd suggest that your posts on this board say otherwise.

Nope, just asking that you let us know when the Muslim Brotherhood holds real elections.
 
While Egypt won't become part of the 'Shia crescent', this could 'close the circle'on Israel. With Iran to the West???, Syria and Iran-backed Hezbollah to the North, and now a possibly Egypt and Egypt-supported Hamas to the West???.

Even without Egypt Israel was/is vulnerble to a large and sumultaneous [even] non-nuclear missile attack. Raining thousand of high-explosive or other damaging payloads on it with Minutes. Staring with only a few minutes warning in the case of Syria, and over with 20-30 with missles from Iran. Add in a motivated Egypt and Arabs could destroy most of tiny Israel that counts quickly.
Coventional warafre you speak of would only be a remnant in this case.

I see the above scenario possible and within 2-3 years. There really is no defense except 'MAD'.

I fear your grasp of geo-political possibilities is as shaky as your geography. I don't believe that Israel's neighbours are going to gang-up and rain missiles on it, nor do I believe Israel will resort to unilateral nuclear force. What you call MAD cannot be M because no one else in the region has 'em.
 
I fear your grasp of geo-political possibilities is as shaky as your geography. I don't believe that Israel's neighbours are going to gang-up and rain missiles on it, nor do I believe Israel will resort to unilateral nuclear force. What you call MAD cannot be M because no one else in the region has 'em.

It's naive to automatically assume that it won't happen. Afterall, it's happened before.
 
I think that we should let Egypt do their own thing. Part of the problem has been the US support of Mubarak. It would be very bad if Egypt elected an anti-Israeli Islamist, but we should deal with that if it happens. We must remember that Egypt isn't like every other Middle Eastern nation. They are almost half Christian and they seem to take a general stance against terrorism.
 
Didn't we have a real election in other countries of the region under Islamic control? How far are you willing to go to promote democracy? Does that include supporting the people of Iran who protested the fraudulent elections? What step will you support if the Egypt elections after the overthrow of the govt. are proven to be fraudulent like Iran's?

I will do nothing, because that isn't my country, and it's not my job to determine their government. The only option I'd suggest is elmininating our foreign aid to Egypt.
 
Back
Top Bottom