• 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

VanceMack said:
Might want to check into the hotbeds of fundamentalism in the ME and see what the primary factor is. Just sayin...
Click to expand...

Hmm, OK. Let's do that. The hotbeds of fundamentalism in the ME...that would be Gaza, Yemen, Somalia, and Iran. The first three are desperately poor failed states; the latter is an oil-rich Shiite country. None of them have much in common with the larger Sunni Arab states.
 
Kandahar said:
The Muslim Brotherhood is not a PAC of a few hundred people who organized for a specific political purpose. It's a nationwide organization that cannot be said to have a monolithic view of the world.
Click to expand...

Well, people are free to SAY they are not monolithic, anyway. If the term does not apply to these totalitarians, however, it does not apply to anybody.


Kandahar said:
Who is defending the Muslim Brotherhood? I'd hardly call stating that they are neither willing nor able to go to war with Israel to be "defending" them.
Click to expand...

Denial, trivialization, mischaracterization -- all are componants of defense. You are not supporting them, certainly, but neither are you willing to acknowledge what they are all about. For instance, your hackneyed statement that they are not monolithic when they are, in fact, among the MOST monolithic groups imaginable. They seek to establish a totalitarian theocratic state that stretches for thousands of miles and where people's lives are micromanaged down to the iota by a fierce and unbending Islamic law. It doesn't GET much more monolithic in viewpoint than that.

Kandahar said:
I didn't say they were moderate. I said they were pragmatic, and we'll need to work with the next government of Egypt regardless of who they elect.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are obviously pragmatic. They have been laying low for a reason.

That shouldn't lead you to believe they are something they are not, however, nor should it lead you to believe they have altered their objective -- an objective that could prove disasterous for the region as well as internationally. I don't know about you, but I sure don't want Islamists controlling such vital shipping lanes, anyway.
 
Kandahar said:
I'm not sure why any of these factors would lead support for theocracy as opposed to democracy. If their next government doesn't solve the economic problem, they could vote them out and replace them with someone who does.



Turkey's democracy is imperfect (as I expect Egypt's would be), but it is leaps and bounds better than any Arab state.
Click to expand...

The closest thing to democracy in the Middle East is........Iraq.

Imagine that.
 
Grant said:
They were actually banned in Egypt.
Click to expand...

Yes, but they were never suppressed successfully like more secular organizations. It seems that the mosque was the one civil institution that Mubarak couldn't completely eliminate. As a result, the Muslim Brotherhood became the outlet for many people who were opposed to Mubarak. I think it's rash to assume that anyone in the MB (or even a majority) wants to establish a totalitarian theocracy and fight a war with Israel.

Grant said:
By making the claim that they are unwilling or unable to go to war with Israel you are obviously defending them, and you have guessed incorrectly as well.
Click to expand...

I am not defending them; I wouldn't vote for them. I am simply advocating not shunning them when they haven't done anything to us, since we will need to have a good relationship with the next Egyptian government. Sometimes democracy means that people elect someone you don't like.

Grant said:
And what evidence do you have that they are "pragmatic"?
Click to expand...

They have eschewed violence in Egypt for decades now. They are supporting the democratic process. And they are not screaming inflammatory anti-Israel rhetoric right now. That doesn't mean that they're "moderate," but it does indicate that they're pragmatic enough to at least act in their own best interests.

Grant said:
You are guessing again, and simply expressing your hopes..
Click to expand...

I find it's best to not automatically assume the worst intentions for other nations and political entities, in the absence of solid reasons to assume the worst. That leads to poor relations with other nations, which doesn't benefit anyone.
 
Last edited:
Gardener said:
Denial, trivialization, mischaracterization -- all are componants of defense. You are not supporting them, certainly, but neither are you willing to acknowledge what they are all about. For instance, your hackneyed statement that they are not monolithic when they are, in fact, among the MOST monolithic groups imaginable. They seek to establish a totalitarian theocratic state that stretches for thousands of miles and where people's lives are micromanaged down to the iota by a fierce and unbending Islamic law. It doesn't GET much more monolithic in viewpoint than that.
Click to expand...

So then, the only reason that an Egyptian would join the Muslim Brotherhood is if they agreed with the desire to establish a totalitarian theocratic state that stretches for thousands of miles, wanted to fight a war with Israel, and wanted to suppress women's rights? :roll:

The Muslim Brotherhood has been the default anti-Mubarak group in Egypt for 30 years. They appealed to a lot of people for precisely that reason and nothing else. The idea that they are a monolithic hive mind, and every member is dedicated to that agenda is absurd.

Gardener said:
Yes, they are obviously pragmatic. They have been laying low for a reason.
Click to expand...

And what makes you think that they'll cease to act in their own best interests if they gained power?

Gardener said:
I don't know about you, but I sure don't want Islamists controlling such vital shipping lanes, anyway.
Click to expand...

You'd rather have a pro-American totalitarian controlling them.
 
Last edited:
Erod said:
Well, we got rid of the last one in Iraq, and you guys bitched about that, too.
Click to expand...

Saddam Hussein was neither an Islamist nor a pro-American totalitarian when we deposed him. What in God's name are you talking about? Just dropping random comments that have nothing to do with the chain of the conversation? :confused:
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Yes, but they were never suppressed successfully like more secular organizations. It seems that the mosque was the one civil institution that Mubarak couldn't completely eliminate. As a result, the Muslim Brotherhood became the outlet for many people who were opposed to Mubarak. I think it's rash to assume that anyone in the MB (or even a majority) wants to establish a totalitarian theocracy and fight a war with Israel.
Click to expand...

I gave you the link to their website. Why not check out what they themselves say about Israel? It's pointless to be an optimistic guesser.



I am not defending them; I wouldn't vote for them. I am simply advocating not shunning them when they haven't done anything to us, since we will need to have a good relationship with the next Egyptian government. Sometimes democracy means that people elect someone you don't like.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone has discussed "shunning" them. All I'm suggesting is that we be made aware of their presence, their philosophy, and to watch them closely. Maybe they are harmless, perhaps not. But let's also not live in denial.

Why do we need to have a good relationship with the next Egyptian government? Isn't it at least as important that they have a good relationship with the West? It's not them who are handing out billions of dollars in aid each year.

They have eschewed violence in Egypt for decades now. They are supporting the democratic process. And they are not screaming inflammatory anti-Israel rhetoric right now. That doesn't mean that they're "moderate," but it does indicate that they're pragmatic enough to at least act in their own best interests.
Click to expand...

You really don't know anything about them, nor their attitudes toward terrorism or Israel. You should investigate their website some more before you make these hasty comments.

I find it's best to not automatically assume the worst intentions for other nations and political entities, in the absence of solid reasons to assume the worst. That leads to poor relations with other nations, which doesn't benefit anyone.
Click to expand...

We needn't assume the worst but let's not be entirely naive of what they stand for either. There is a lot of information about them, information they have published themselves, and we can certainly get a good idea of what they are about, as well as their deceptions.

I don;t think we should entirely trust them but at the same time we can certainly listen to what they have to say.
Click to expand...
 
Kandahar said:
So then, the only reason that an Egyptian would join the Muslim Brotherhood is if they agreed with the desire to establish a totalitarian theocratic state that stretches for thousands of miles, wanted to fight a war with Israel, and wanted to suppress women's rights? :roll:
Click to expand...

Isn't that what militant Islamism is all about?

The Muslim Brotherhood has been the default anti-Mubarak group in Egypt for 30 years. They appealed to a lot of people for precisely that reason and nothing else. The idea that they are a monolithic hive mind, and every member is dedicated to that agenda is absurd.
Click to expand...

You have still not familiarizd yourself with this group. You are self censoring to the point of irrationality.

And what makes you think that they'll cease to act in their own best interests if they gained power?
Click to expand...

The point is trying to be made that they are always acting in their own best interests, and have been for many years.
You'd rather have a pro-American totalitarian controlling them.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with being pro-American? What would you prefer?
 
Kandahar said:
Saddam Hussein was neither an Islamist nor a pro-American totalitarian when we deposed him. What in God's name are you talking about? Just dropping random comments that have nothing to do with the chain of the conversation? :confused:
Click to expand...

I understood the point completely, and I'm sure many others did as well.
 
Grant said:
I don't think anyone has discussed "shunning" them. All I'm suggesting is that we be made aware of their presence, their philosophy, and to watch them closely. Maybe they are harmless, perhaps not. But let's also not live in denial.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree, there's no need to trust them. And if they become part of the next Egyptian government, we should absolutely continue urging them to respect freedom of speech and women's rights. I'm just saying that there's no need to start off threatening them or shunning them (which has been advocated in this thread by apdst). We can and do work with groups with very different agendas from ours.

Grant said:
I don;t think we should entirely trust them but at the same time we can certainly listen to what they have to say.
Click to expand...

I agree with this.

Grant said:
The point is trying to be made that they are always acting in their own best interests, and have been for many years.
Click to expand...

And doing something irrational like trying to launch a war with Israel, or pissing off the Egyptian military and/or the US government would not be in their best interests.

Why do we need to have a good relationship with the next Egyptian government? Isn't it at least as important that they have a good relationship with the West? It's not them who are handing out billions of dollars in aid each year.
Click to expand...

Yeah but an Egypt that was hostile to the US would have the ability to stir up quite a bit of trouble. I doubt that any democratic government will be as close to the US as Mubarak was, but we can at least have a decent relationship with them.

Grant said:
What's wrong with being pro-American? What would you prefer?
Click to expand...

I would prefer that the Egyptians be able to decide what kind of government they want.

Grant said:
I understood the point completely, and I'm sure many others did as well.
Click to expand...

Maybe you can fill me in then. I generally don't even respond to Erod's turds because he never follows the chain of conversation.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
And doing something irrational like trying to launch a war with Israel, or pissing off the Egyptian military and/or the US government would not be in their best interests.
Click to expand...

They could not attempt anything like this in the past because they didn't have the power. But they are certainly growing in force and influence and we should be aware of their stated ambitions.

Yeah but an Egypt that was hostile to the US would have the ability to stir up quite a bit of trouble. I doubt that any democratic government will be as close to the US as Mubarak was, but we can at least have a decent relationship with them.
Click to expand...

We can have a decent relationship with anyone, but can they have a decent relationship with us? That question is not asked often enough, as though it is the west who always has to extend a friendly hand, filled with cash.

I would prefer that the Egyptians be able to decide what kind of government they want.
Click to expand...

Sure, but will they get the government they want? Look what happened in Iran, the rumblings all over the ME, and what's happening in once secular Turkey. Experience tells us that elections n the Middle East have often been a sham, just as they have in many dictatorships. One man-one vote-one time.
 
Dirty Harry said:
You've got it wrong. The neocon movement began with Reagan. Many in his administration were neocons. It has always been a right wing thing.
Click to expand...

Your first mistake is to call me wrong. You may as well learn this now. I don't blurt out BS. But if you consider it BS because you have not spent time looking past a few sensational "headlines," you can guarantee yourself that I have thought well on it. Your second mistake is one of sophomoric political sheepdom.....

"New" conservatives initially approached this view from the political left. Neoconservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Now that you have an idea of where the NeoCons originated, let's look further and see when they drifted to the right....

Neoconservatives came to dislike the counterculture of the 1960s baby boomers, and what they saw as anti-Americanism in the non-interventionism of the movement against the Vietnam War.

As the policies of the New Left pushed the Democrats to the Left, these intellectuals continued to support the Roosevelt-Truman-Kennedy traditions of the party while becoming disillusioned with President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society domestic programs.

They rejected the Democratic Party's foreign policy drift in the 1970s, especially after the nomination of anti-war candidate George McGovern for president in 1972. The influential 1970 bestseller The Real Majority by Ben Wattenberg expressed that the "real majority" of the electorate supported economic liberalism but social conservatism, and warned Democrats it could be disastrous to take liberal stances on certain social and crime issues.

Many supported Democratic senator Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson during his 1972 and 1976 campaigns for president. Among those who worked for Jackson were future neoconservatives Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, and Richard Perle. In the late 1970s neoconservative support moved to Ronald Reagan and the Republicans, who promised to confront Soviet expansionism. Neoconservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I provided you a link so that you can read up what I consider political common knowledge. The next time you feel like accusing me of error do your homework first. The NeoCon movement began with Reagan? Pull your head out of your ass. My guess is that you are young and are a political victim of mommy and daddy.
 
Last edited:
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei says that America is on the verge of irreparable defeat in the Middle East as a result of the toppling dominos in Tunisia and Egypt. Imo America is simply irrelevant now.
 
Dirty Harry said:
Really?
Wikipedia


Neocons became a force under Reagan. Not Clinton

Ollie North was a neocon. He was never a liberal democrat.
Click to expand...

Oh no...no...no. Frst you blurted out that NeoCons "began with Reagan" (POST 1124). Now you state that they "became a force under Reagan" (POST 1132). Figure it out. By altering your words, you produce acknowledgement that you were wrong. You recognize this and now assume to be able to change your words around because we are what....too stupid to read?
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei says that America is on the verge of irreparable defeat in the Middle East as a result of the toppling dominos in Tunisia and Egypt. Imo America is simply irrelevant now.
Click to expand...

Transcend the nonesense and the rhertoric. A possible democratic Middle East defeats the mother of democracy across the Atlantic? Make sense.

A democratic Middle East defeats the Ayatollah and virtually every single religious nut in the region. Why else do you think religious theocracies and Islamic extremists fear it so? Why else do you think Ahmenedejad was the Iranian Majlis' choice as a leader? Why else do you think Al-Queda rushed to disrupt the Iraqi democratic progress at every turn and tried to so hard to ignite tribal slaughter as a suitable alternative? Do you think that Al-Queda is happy with the progressing democracy in the center of the Arab world? Do you think the Tali-Ban wants Afghainstan to achieve something greater than the oppression they prescribed? And with virtually every single Sunni terrorist in the last 50 years being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, do you not think they learned that they could use "democracy" to get the democratic leaning majority in the region to choose them to power? What's happening in the Middle East will eventually make Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenbei irrelevent. Not the U.S.

The fact is that these types of people can't survive the way they wish in a society where the people have a choice in regards to their destinies.
 
MSgt said:
Transcend the nonesense and the rhertoric. A possible democratic Middle East defeats the mother of democracy across the Atlantic? Make sense.

A democratic Middle East defeats the Ayatollah and virtually every single religious nut in the region. Why else do you think religious theocracies and Islamic extremists fear it so? Why else do you think Ahmenedejad was the Iranian Majlis' choice as a leader? Why else do you think Al-Queda rushed to disrupt the Iraqi democratic progress at every turn and tried to so hard to ignite tribal slaughter as a suitable alternative? Do you think that Al-Queda is happy with the progressing democracy in the center of the Arab world? Do you think the Tali-Ban wants Afghainstan to achieve something greater than the oppression they prescribed? And with virtually every single Sunni terrorist in the last 50 years being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, do you not think they learned that they could use "democracy" to get the democratic leaning majority in the region to choose them to power? What's happening in the Middle East will eventually make Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenbei irrelevent. Not the U.S.

The fact is that these types of people can't survive the way they wish in a society where the people have a choice in regards to their destinies.
Click to expand...

Jesus.jpg


Beautiful Touchdown...
 
MSgt said:
Transcend the nonesense and the rhertoric. A possible democratic Middle East defeats the mother of democracy across the Atlantic? Make sense.

A democratic Middle East defeats the Ayatollah and virtually every single religious nut in the region. Why else do you think religious theocracies and Islamic extremists fear it so? Why else do you think Ahmenedejad was the Iranian Majlis' choice as a leader? Why else do you think Al-Queda rushed to disrupt the Iraqi democratic progress at every turn and tried to so hard to ignite tribal slaughter as a suitable alternative? Do you think that Al-Queda is happy with the progressing democracy in the center of the Arab world? Do you think the Tali-Ban wants Afghainstan to achieve something greater than the oppression they prescribed? And with virtually every single Sunni terrorist in the last 50 years being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, do you not think they learned that they could use "democracy" to get the democratic leaning majority in the region to choose them to power? What's happening in the Middle East will eventually make Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenbei irrelevent. Not the U.S.

The fact is that these types of people can't survive the way they wish in a society where the people have a choice in regards to their destinies.
Click to expand...

1. There is no democratic tradition in the Arab world. None. It takes a very long time to develop a democratic leaning intelligentsia. Egypt is not Poland or Hungary that had prior democratic experience.

2. Hezbollah has just taken over the Lebanese Govt. Hezbollah is an agent of the Iranian theocracy. These are not democratic organizations.

3. Arabs don't know what democracy is. They want change and prosperity. They want freedom. Freedom is not democracy unless there are institutions that protect freedom.

4. Iran won the Second Iraq War that began in 2003. Iran brokered the end of the deadlock between Allawi and Maliki. In the process the virulently anti-American Muktadar al Sadr became part of the Maliki govt. America is becoming irrelevant in Iraq.

5. Iran's Theocracy crushed the Green Revolution in Iran in 2009 while Obama watched with disengagement.

6. We can't lie to ourselves about reality and expect not to be harmed by the forces of history.


Edit: Obama is presiding over what will become a political defeat for America in its Afghanistan War. Body counts don't equate to victory when the will to achieve victory does not exist.
 
Last edited:
MSgt said:
Transcend the nonesense and the rhertoric. A possible democratic Middle East defeats the mother of democracy across the Atlantic? Make sense.

A democratic Middle East defeats the Ayatollah and virtually every single religious nut in the region. Why else do you think religious theocracies and Islamic extremists fear it so? Why else do you think Ahmenedejad was the Iranian Majlis' choice as a leader? Why else do you think Al-Queda rushed to disrupt the Iraqi democratic progress at every turn and tried to so hard to ignite tribal slaughter as a suitable alternative? Do you think that Al-Queda is happy with the progressing democracy in the center of the Arab world? Do you think the Tali-Ban wants Afghainstan to achieve something greater than the oppression they prescribed? And with virtually every single Sunni terrorist in the last 50 years being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, do you not think they learned that they could use "democracy" to get the democratic leaning majority in the region to choose them to power? What's happening in the Middle East will eventually make Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenbei irrelevent. Not the U.S.

The fact is that these types of people can't survive the way they wish in a society where the people have a choice in regards to their destinies.
Click to expand...

Beautifully said.

When Bush realized US Foreign Policy had to change to the Middle East, he also realized the only counter-strategy to terrorism and fundamentalism is Democracy.

Democracy is the antidote to fundamentalism.
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
Edit: Obama is presiding over what will become a political defeat for America in its Afghanistan War. Body counts don't equate to victory when the will to achieve victory does not exist.
Click to expand...

Afghanistan is inconsequential. The Middle East is where the game is played. Democracy is the antidote to fundamentalism.
 
reefedjib said:
Beautifully said.

When Bush realized US Foreign Policy had to change to the Middle East, he also realized the only counter-strategy to terrorism and fundamentalism is Democracy.

Democracy is the antidote to fundamentalism.
Click to expand...

Bush's Democracy Agenda was discredited by the American left, and abandoned by Obama. Western democratic theory took a very long time to develop in fertile soil. The Arab world has shown no evidence that its soil is fertile for democracy. If you have countervailing evidence then please share it.
 
reefedjib said:
Afghanistan is inconsequential. The Middle East is where the game is played. Democracy is the antidote to fundamentalism.
Click to expand...

Let's get into an analysis of the underlying facts. Can you show me the factual basis for believing that democracy is breaking out in the Arab world? I just don't see any evidence of it. Revolution and democracy are not the same things.
 
reefedjib said:
Beautifully said.

When Bush realized US Foreign Policy had to change to the Middle East, he also realized the only counter-strategy to terrorism and fundamentalism is Democracy.

Democracy is the antidote to fundamentalism.
Click to expand...

Quite right, and summed up nicely here.

Jeff Jacoby
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
Bush's Democracy Agenda was discredited by the American left
Click to expand...

Really? How ironic and racist. And they have the temerity to call themselves liberals. LIARS!

and abandoned by Obama
Click to expand...

Too late to matter. The artillery rounds were already downrange. The re-election of Bush in 2004 gave him the ability to finish his Democracy surgery in Iraq. Genesis had occurred before Obama entered office. I can well imagine that Bush's farewell letter to Obama stressed the importance of supporting revolutions, protest movements and democracy efforts throughout the ME, delicately done so as to minimize damage to our interests and alliances. It probably said that it is time we were on the side of the people.

Western democratic theory took a very long time to develop in fertile soil. The Arab world has shown no evidence that its soil is fertile for democracy. If you have countervailing evidence then please share it.
Click to expand...

Albert Di Salvo said:
Let's get into an analysis of the underlying facts. Can you show me the factual basis for believing that democracy is breaking out in the Arab world? I just don't see any evidence of it. Revolution and democracy are not the same things.
Click to expand...

Revolution seems to be a prerequisite for transformation from autocracy to democracy. It may take a long time to (re)discover an idea in the world, but much less time for it to be retransmitted to other parts of the world. There are many examples of fine democracies generated in parts of the world with no "fertile soil".

The fact that Egyptian authorities and protesters are talking about the importance of freedom of expression, assembly, protest, and yea, even revolution - as documented in our Declaration of Independence, is evidence that the liberal ideas supporting democracy are finding themselves in fertile soil.

It may take 50 years, but the ball is rolling.
 
Grant said:
Quite right, and summed up nicely here.

Jeff Jacoby
Click to expand...

Yes, quite a shame that Bush backed off his Freedom Diplomacy. I suspect it was in large part due to the exploding insurgency and civil war that broke out in Iraq.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom