• 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!

Egypt's Mubarak resigns as leader

apdst said:
I already knew you couldn't support your lies. Hats off to you for admitting it.
Click to expand...

You know what's really sad, Apdst? That you think that you've "won" here. All you've really done is demonstrate that you don't understand political satire and that your reading comprehension is abysmally low. But, thanks for playing.
 
I found, that likely, as an "actual" neoconservative, one could likewise be tempted to say the following, "we were never enthusiasts." or "Neoconservatism is an awkward and not very accurate name for an attitude that holds social reality to be complex and change difficult. If there is any article of faith common to almost every adherent, it is the Law of Consequences. Things never work out quite as you hope; in particular, government programs often do not achieve their objectives or do achieve them but with high or unexpected costs."
 
Catz Part Deux said:
You know what's really sad, Apdst? That you think that you've "won" here. All you've really done is demonstrate that you don't understand political satire and that your reading comprehension is abysmally low. But, thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

Obviously not, because you don't seem to be able to comprehend what I've posted. Still waiting on that link to my post. I'm sure that won't be coming anytime soon.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
True dat. If this were occurring in 2006, the hardline conservatives would be jumping up and down and celebrating it as a victory for neo-conservativism. ;)

Of course, as an ACTUAL neo-conservative, I am. ^.^
Click to expand...

Oops. I missed one. Likewise, in 2006, liberals would have been tempted to use Egypt's revolution as the example that the Bush administration has no idea that the MB is taking over, and so forth. You know, the damned fools, this Bush administration. That point is that to some extent, partisans are so blinded by the party opposition front that they cannot see legitimate concerns from ravings of a lunatic. Liberals might be tempted to dismiss entirely the dangers involved in Egypt, while conservatives could be tempted to see foreign policy positions as completely binary for Israel's options. Likewise, you couldn't quite say liberals believe X, and conservatives believe Y, because people like Bzig, Wolfowitz, Kristol, and so many others have reactions different to the "party line" as well as the stereotypes for their ideologies.

I'm mostly cautiously optimistic.
 
Fiddytree said:
I'm mostly cautiously optimistic.
Click to expand...

I'm extremely optimistic today, tomorrow I will revert to my normal level of cynicism and paranoia.

Money quote: "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean people aren't out to get you."
 
id say that any possible threats that might come from an egyptian democracy are something we would just have to deal with, democracy isnt reserved to being pro-america, and it shouldnt be. just because we might not benefit from a liberated egypt isnt any excuse to not put our full support for a democratic revolution, which is apperently what is happening.
 
Badfish420 said:
id say that any possible threats that might come from an egyptian democracy are something we would just have to deal with, democracy isnt reserved to being pro-america, and it shouldnt be. just because we might not benefit from a liberated egypt isnt any excuse to not put our full support for a democratic revolution, which is apperently what is happening.
Click to expand...

Perhaps not, but it is reserved for non-aggressive nations that aren't bent on waging ideolistic wars against it's neighbors.
 
apdst said:
Perhaps not, but it is reserved for non-aggressive nations that aren't bent on waging ideolistic wars against it's neighbors.
Click to expand...

like the democratic election outcome we witnessed in gaza
got ya
 
justabubba said:
like the democratic election outcome we witnessed in gaza
got ya
Click to expand...

Exactly. The pals are hell bent on destroying Israel and killing Jews.

You make a good point.
 
apdst said:
Perhaps not, but it is reserved for non-aggressive nations that aren't bent on waging ideolistic wars against it's neighbors.
Click to expand...

thats not true. you could argue that the US is an aggresive nation.
 
apdst said:
Exactly. The pals are hell bent on destroying Israel and killing Jews.

You make a good point.
Click to expand...

i know
it totally devastated your own
 
justabubba said:
i know
it totally devastated your own
Click to expand...

Not really, just because a country has held elections 1) doesn't make it free, 2) doesn't make it a democracy and 3) doesn't give it the right to attacks it's neighbors.
 
Last edited:
Catz Part Deux said:
I'm extremely optimistic today, tomorrow I will revert to my normal level of cynicism and paranoia.

Money quote: "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean people aren't out to get you."
Click to expand...

To that point, democracy requires the peaceful transition of power again and again and again. This part of the world has never demonstrated that.

America went from Reagan to Bush to Clinton to Bush to Obama without rioting in the streets over party control. Is Egypt capable of that? Is any country capable of that in the third world?

Too many times, any real threat as a challenger turns up dead before the election in that part of the world.
 
Erod said:
To that point, democracy requires the peaceful transition of power again and again and again. This part of the world has never demonstrated that.

America went from Reagan to Bush to Clinton to Bush to Obama without rioting in the streets over party control. Is Egypt capable of that? Is any country capable of that in the third world?

Too many times, any real threat as a challenger turns up dead before the election in that part of the world.
Click to expand...

Or, the incumbant wins with 98% of the vote.
 
3 random definitions of democracy that i found from a quick google search

. the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives
. a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them
. majority rule: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group

none of these say anything about aggressiveness of a nation or what people decide to do with there democratic power.
a democracy can be violent, it can be religious, it can be unstable, it can be random, it can be unfavorable.
as long as the people elect there officals (legitimately) it is a democracy.
 
Badfish420 said:
3 random definitions of democracy that i found from a quick google search

. the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives
. a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them
. majority rule: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group

none of these say anything about aggressiveness of a nation or what people decide to do with there democratic power.
a democracy can be violent, it can be religious, it can be unstable, it can be random, it can be unfavorable.
as long as the people elect there officals (legitimately) it is a democracy.
Click to expand...

In that case, the people of any democratic nation that attacks it's neighbors can be considered enemy combatants. Yes?
 
apdst said:
In that case, the people of any democratic nation that attacks it's neighbors can be considered enemy combatants. Yes?
Click to expand...

um i dont know the policies of military or the terminology to comment on that but i'm guessing thats pretty irrelevant. what i do know is democracy is a government of the people by the people.
 
apdst said:
Exactly. The pals are hell bent on destroying Israel and killing Jews.

You make a good point.
Click to expand...

Great generalization. It's almost as laughable as the idea that you are looking for an honest discussion.

Erod said:
To that point, democracy requires the peaceful transition of power again and again and again. This part of the world has never demonstrated that.
Click to expand...
Yes, like the peaceful transition that happened in 1776 in colonial America. :roll:

Erod said:
America went from Reagan to Bush to Clinton to Bush to Obama without rioting in the streets over party control. Is Egypt capable of that? Is any country capable of that in the third world?
Click to expand...
Nice false analogy. There was no rioting for any of those presidents because they all served their term and relinquished control. They did not impose martial law, suspend consitutional rights, and stay in power for decades.
 
apdst said:
In that case, the people of any democratic nation that attacks it's neighbors can be considered enemy combatants. Yes?
Click to expand...

No, because there's a definition of who is considered an enemy combatant. The type of ideology you stated is too similar to bin Laden's reasoning for targeting American civilians.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Some of the conservatives on this thread, if they'd been in Boston, Massachusetts in 1776, when the Declaration of Independence was read and distributed widely..."This can't possibly work. There will be anarchy and chaos! People will die! THIS IS GOING TO BE VERY, VERY BAD. QUOTE] etc...
Click to expand...

Funny. You sound just like Rumsfeld.

From the DOD News Briefing following the fall of Baghdad, April 11, 2003:
I picked up a newspaper today and I couldn't believe it. I read eight headlines that talked about chaos, violence, unrest. And it just was Henny Penny -- "The sky is falling." I've never seen anything like it! And here is a country that's being liberated, here are people who are going from being repressed and held under the thumb of a vicious dictator, and they're free.
Click to expand...
Donald Rumsfeld - Wikiquote
 
Badfish420 said:
um i dont know the policies of military or the terminology to comment on that but i'm guessing thats pretty irrelevant. what i do know is democracy is a government of the people by the people.
Click to expand...

It's very relevant. If it's the, "will of the people", to launch a terrorist attack and kill American civilians, then that would make the people enemy combatants...IMO.
 
Degreez said:
Great generalization. It's almost as laughable as the idea that you are looking for an honest discussion.
Click to expand...

How was I generalizing?


Yes, like the peaceful transition that happened in 1776 in colonial America. :roll:
Click to expand...

What about the peaceful transitions that have happened thousands of time since?
 
Degreez said:
No, because there's a definition of who is considered an enemy combatant. The type of ideology you stated is too similar to bin Laden's reasoning for targeting American civilians.
Click to expand...

It's why I used it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom