• 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

1. There is no democratic tradition in the Arab world. None.

.....Aaaaaaaand right here is where I cut you off because the rest of it merely seeks to defend this shallow idea of the world and the events that have have brought us to February 4, 2011. Before France, there was no democratic tradition in greater Europe either. How dare they have a beginning.


Are you aware that the first Caliphate was democraticaly elected by the elders? Are you aware that every single "nation" in the Middle East has had a large base of support to create democracy since the beginning of European colonialism, but has been denied it, and that along the way too many of them began to turn towards "God" as the ultimate solution for their earthly salvation? - (This seperates the majority from the lost souls that merely wish to serve "God" at any cost.)

You see, the reason there has been "no democratic tradition" in the Arab world is because since the age of modernism, Europeans ensured that democracy was a White Western thing while relying on the support of dictators, thugs, and religious leaders elsewhere in order to provide economic stability for their trades. Along came the Cold War and America gets stuck with the world they created as it battles a very immediate ideology war against a nuclear competitor. We maintained the idea of "stability" at any cost and shelved our own values when we saw it necessary (often mistaken for "easier.")

To use the fact that there has been no Vermont or San Fransisco in the Middle East to assume that their destiny relies on oppression and control is not only short sighted, but absolutely racist and morally decrepit. The only question should be whether or not Sunni Arab Islam is compatible with Western democracy. We see it in Indonesia, but this is far removed from the heartland and they are hardly Sunni loyalists. We see it in Turkey, but they were converts and they are not Sunni Arabs in the heartland. Unlike Saudi Arabia, Egypt has a written history that pre-dates Islam too and are themselves victims of Arab colonialism. They too have every tool that Turkey had to create a democracy that respects religion, but draws a line.

Let me put this in other terms. If you actually think that our security and the "stability" of the Middle East relies upon dictators and religious theocracies, I remind you of the long term relationships that the Shah of Iran and what Mubarak has produced. If we have any kind of immediate evironmental awareness about us at all, we should absolutely be able to identify that in Europe and in the U.S., the people will win in the end. The longer we disallow the people their voice in the Middle East, or merely pretend to support their modernists voices, we make the religious threat in the region worse and worse.

I know what I'm talking about. When you sit on the toilet and ponder on who the smartest man in the world is.....relax....it's me.
:darthgunny (<------ Yes, this is my "smilie" and nobody else can use it without express permission from Kelzie or the artist formerly known as GySgt.)
 
Last edited:
I'm inclined to agree with Albert di Salvo. The road to democracy is riddled with pitfalls. In American-English tradition, those pitfalls were spread over the course of a thousand years, with increasingly democratic institutions (like Parliament) developing out of a increasingly democratic culture.

.....Aaaaaaaand right here is where I cut you off because the rest of it merely seeks to defend this shallow idea of the world and the events that have have brought us to February 4, 2011. Before France, there was no democratic tradition in greater Europe either. How dare they have a beginning.

I was thinking of France too, but as a negative example. The French Revolution was bloody and resulted in decades worth of dictatorships.
 
Last edited:
Western democratic theory took a very long time to develop in fertile soil.


It took the French 70 years to create a functioning "Western" democracy. Along the way they even elected an emporer. Perhaps Arabs can be given more than a few years before you **** on their on going efforts? Maybe your grandchildren will wonder about the Western generation that demanded that Arabs were nothing more than pawns in a dictator's game.
 
or the artist formerly known as GySgt.

Hey, where did that guy get off to anyway? Did he get ****canned from the Marine Corp, or something, for becoming a Liberal, or violating DADT? ;)
 
Really? How ironic and racist. And they have the temerity to call themselves liberals. LIARS!



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.





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.


I wish it were true. Obama has abandoned Bush's Democracy Agenda. This is what the Arab World believes:

President Obama, say the 'D-Word' - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

The Arab world may have democracy some day. But I suspect our children's children will be long dead by the time that happens. Anti-democratic forces are on the march throughout the world. China and Iran are authoritarian. Russia is less democratic as time passes. American influence and ideas have been so discredited that America is becoming irrelevant:

Amid Arab protests, U.S. influence has waned

I wish it weren't so.
 
It took the French 70 years to create a functioning "Western" democracy. Along the way they even elected an emporer. Perhaps Arabs can be given more than a few years before you **** on their on going efforts? Maybe your grandchildren will wonder about the Western generation that demanded that Arabs were nothing more than pawns in a dictator's game.

70 years is a long time, especially in the Technological Age. That information and products travel at exponentially faster speeds means that time no longer poses the same obstacle it did in previous centuries.
 
Last edited:
I wish it were true. Obama has abandoned Bush's Democracy Agenda. This is what the Arab World believes:

President Obama, say the 'D-Word' - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

The Arab world may have democracy some day. But I suspect our children's children will be long dead by the time that happens. Anti-democratic forces are on the march throughout the world. China and Iran are authoritarian. Russia is less democratic as time passes. American influence and ideas have been so discredited that America is becoming irrelevant:

Amid Arab protests, U.S. influence has waned

I wish it weren't so.

"The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."
 
I'm inclined to agree with Albert di Salvo. The road to democracy is riddled with pitfalls. In American-English tradition, those pitfalls were spread over the course of a thousand years, with increasingly democratic institutions (like Parliament) developing out of a increasingly democratic culture.

Perhaps if they had a big brother (America/Europe) entity full of people insisting that they were never goiong to be nothing more than what they have been prescribed. Didn't kings and the Catholic Church once prrescribe oppression to a civilization that were never more than peasants for the elite game? Make no mistake. Ralph Peters (among other experts..and I mean expert in the true form) wrote about how Iraq was going to change the world. With an entire region erupting with democratic speeches and China looking to lock down what their people are watching....I'd say the entire world is about to enter a stage it stupidly insisted was never to be.


I was thinking of France too, but as a negative example. The French Revolution was bloody and resulted in decades worth of dictatorships.

Exactly. Think about it. After only 7 years, and the beginning of a regional eruption that themes around democracy, people want every single IED to mean failure. Aren't the stupid French supposed to be the superior human beings in the universe? If they took some 70 years, perhaps we could keep an open mind and give Arabs a little bit of space to trip over some inevitable mistakes along their path to making a more secure and safe world. We have to face this truth....relying on the Mubaraks and the Husseins has been not only morally decrepit, but tactically wrong in terms of long term security.
 
Last edited:
Hey, where did that guy get off to anyway? Did he get ****canned from the Marine Corp, or something, for becoming a Liberal, or violating DADT? ;)

They promoted him and made him a chief of a 17 man team that is headed to Afghanistan for 365 to be imbedded within a certain Afghani force...somewhere.
 
Perhaps if they had a big brother (America/Europe) entity full of people insisting that they were never goiong to be nothing more than what they have been prescribed. Didn't kings and the Catholic Church once prrescribe oppression to a civilization that were never more than peasants for the elite game? Make no mistake. Ralph Peters (among other experts..and I mean expert in the true form) wrote about how Iraq was going to change the world. With an entire region erupting with democratic speeches and China looking to lock down what their people are watching....I'd say the entire world is about to enter a stage it stupidly insisted was never to be.




Exactly. Think about it. After only 7 years, and the beginning of a regional eruption that themes around democracy, people want every single IED to mean failure. Aren't the stupid French supposed to be the superior human beings in the universe? If they took some 70 years, perhaps we could keep an open mind and give Arabs a little bit of space to trip over some inevitable mistakes along their path to making a more secure and safe world. We have to face this truth....relying on the Mubaraks and the Husseins has been not only morally decrepit, but tactically wrong in terms of long term security.

+ 1,000,000

Damn, MSgt, when you're hot, you immolate those who have no vision!
 
MSgt;1059264696...Before France said:
I don't agree with your analysis. Long before the French Revolution there were seeds of democracy planted in European soil. The Age of Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries created fertile soil that people like Locke, Rosseau and a host of other philosophers used to resurrect the ideal of democracy that was first born in Ancient Greece in the Era of Pericles and Solon.

It was Enlightenment Europe that gave intellectual birth to the American Revolution. And it was French veterans who fought under Rochambeau during the American Revolution who took those revolutionary ideas back to Bourbon France where they simmered, and then exploded.

I will not address the notion that the consensus of a handful of elders in selecting a Caliph constitutes democracy. I don't feel the need.
 
They promoted him and made him a chief of a 17 man team that is headed to Afghanistan for 365 to be imbedded within a certain Afghani force...somewhere.

Tell him congrats on the promotion and the honor of looking after the men and leading the mission, not necessarily in that order!

What are your thoughts about Afghanistan, its future, our influence and involvement, and Pakistan's sphere of influence?
 
I'm inclined to agree with Albert di Salvo. The road to democracy is riddled with pitfalls. In American-English tradition, those pitfalls were spread over the course of a thousand years, with increasingly democratic institutions (like Parliament) developing out of a increasingly democratic culture.

I was thinking of France too, but as a negative example. The French Revolution was bloody and resulted in decades worth of dictatorships.
Always like Msgt's posts, but I'm also inclined slightly to the Albert side.

Democratic tradition didn't begin with the American or French Revolutions but with the Magna Carta.
But as you say as well, 70 years is a ling time in the tech age.

In fact, I have aid many times what started the Islamic hostility of the latter part of the last century was Arabs "turning on their TV sets" and realizing they were in fact horribly behind and backwards, shattering their self image.

Now we have Part 2, the onset of Arab TV (jazeera, arabiya, etc) and the internet hooking them all up in information but no ability to voice it at home.

The world moves forward, however bumpily.
Revenge of the neocons.
 
Last edited:



I don't agree with your analysis. Long before the French Revolution there were seeds of democracy planted in European soil. The Age of Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries created fertile soil that people like Locke, Rosseau and a host of other philosophers used to resurrect the ideal of democracy that was first born in Ancient Greece in the Era of Pericles and Solon.

It was Enlightenment Europe that gave intellectual birth to the American Revolution. And it was French veterans who fought under Rochambeau during the American Revolution who took those revolutionary ideas back to Bourbon France where they simmered, and then exploded.

I will not address the notion that the consensus of a handful of elders in selecting a Caliph constitutes democracy. I don't feel the need.

Islamic ethics of individualism, liberalism, religious freedom, and freedom of speech predates The Age of Enlightenment. The soil is fertile.
 
...Democratic tradition didn't begin with the American or French Revolutions but with the Magna Carta...

I guess that is a legitimate point. But I wonder where the reduction of the power of the King John over his Barons constitutes a democratic breakout. The Magna Carta was signed in the early 13th century. Things thereafter remained in stasis until the European enlightenment and the English Revolution. Please correct me if I am mistaken. I am happy to learn from someone like you.
 
I think Obama is hanging on to the caboose. He is not the engineer of the Freedom Train. Bush tried that, and was eviscerated by the American left.

Obama's stance on Egypt is extremely significant, no matter what pundits think about the wane of US influence. But I agree that the freedom wave in the ME is larger than the president at this point. All part of the MASTER PLAN, instantiated by Bush, that you claim was invalidated by the left. I will say again that the left's hatred for Bush caused them to oppose the spread of freedom in the world. That's a complete invalidation of their own ideals. They have nothing to offer the world of value. The left is completely decrepit.

The Democracy MASTER PLAN is alive and well and shaking the region on its own merits without our acquiescence. The freedom movement is set free and running on its own. We cannot stop it even if we wanted too.
 
I guess that is a legitimate point. But I wonder where the reduction of the power of the King John over his Barons constitutes a democratic breakout. The Magna Carta was signed in the early 13th century. Things thereafter remained in stasis until the European enlightenment and the English Revolution. Please correct me if I am mistaken. I am happy to learn from someone like you.

I thought it was Robin Hood. Damn.
 
I noticed that today there were a lot more women in the crowds. I suppose that our progressive handlers of this uprising are listening to Fox News and made the correction to make this look like a real public effort.
 
With all due respect, this is not the way to conduct a debate.

Whatever, dude. You can read. Here, I'll quote.

Ethics

Many medieval Muslim thinkers pursued humanistic, rational and scientific discourses in their search for knowledge, meaning and values. A wide range of Islamic writings on love, poetry, history and philosophical theology show that medieval Islamic thought was open to the humanistic ideas of individualism, occasional secularism, skepticism and liberalism.[9][10]

Religious freedom, though society was still controlled under Islamic values, helped create cross-cultural networks by attracting Muslim, Christian and Jewish intellectuals and thereby helped spawn the greatest period of philosophical creativity in the Middle Ages from the 8th to 13th centuries.[4] Another reason the Islamic world flourished during this period was an early emphasis on freedom of speech, as summarized by al-Hashimi (a cousin of Caliph al-Ma'mun) in the following letter to one of the religious opponents he was attempting to convert through reason:[11][dubious – discuss]

"Bring forward all the arguments you wish and say whatever you please and speak your mind freely. Now that you are safe and free to say whatever you please appoint some arbitrator who will impartially judge between us and lean only towards the truth and be free from the empary of passion, and that arbitrator shall be Reason, whereby God makes us responsible for our own rewards and punishments. Herein I have dealt justly with you and have given you full security and am ready to accept whatever decision Reason may give for me or against me. For "There is no compulsion in religion" (Qur'an 2:256) and I have only invited you to accept our faith willingly and of your own accord and have pointed out the hideousness of your present belief. Peace be upon you and the blessings of God!"

Early proto-environmentalist treatises were written in Arabic by al-Kindi, al-Razi, Ibn Al-Jazzar, al-Tamimi, al-Masihi, Avicenna, Ali ibn Ridwan, Abd-el-latif, and Ibn al-Nafis. Their works covered a number of subjects related to pollution such as air pollution, water pollution, soil contamination, and municipal solid waste mishandling.[12] Cordoba, al-Andalus also had the first waste containers and waste disposal facilities for litter collection.[13]
 
Last edited:
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.

Is that why he doubled military aid to the Arab world?
 
Last edited:
I don't agree with your analysis. Long before the French Revolution there were seeds of democracy planted in European soil. The Age of Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries created fertile soil that people like Locke, Rosseau and a host of other philosophers used to resurrect the ideal of democracy that was first born in Ancient Greece in the Era of Pericles and Solon.

It was Enlightenment Europe that gave intellectual birth to the American Revolution. And it was French veterans who fought under Rochambeau during the American Revolution who took those revolutionary ideas back to Bourbon France where they simmered, and then exploded.


OK, sure. No problems. The point here is that "seeds" were planted. Before Iraqi Freeedom where and what were the seeds? Before Tunisia where was the "enlightenment" for change? It's not like they are blind to the West and to all the prescriptions that have not only made us prosperous, but individually free to express and worship. Do you think Muslims across the region have religious freedom? Ask the Shia outside of Iraq and Iran what they think about that. Ask the non-Arab and Chrisitian victims in Sudan what they think. Ask any tribe within a Sunni government that question. What if this historical awakening and probably most important era in future's history is occurring right before your very eyes? America didn't become so great because it was too afraid to gamble and push so heavily upon our capacity to promote individual expression, creativity, and a basic human rights. Why then, do we insist that only keeping it and not promoting it elsewhere will result in our doom?



I will not address the notion that the consensus of a handful of elders in selecting a Caliph constitutes democracy. I don't feel the need.

It's merely a base in which to show that they have the capacity for it.
 
Is that why he doubled military aid to the Arab world?

Yes. At the same time he helped Saudi Arabia strengthen its fight against Al-Qaeda (and SA really went after them!) and influenced SA and other ME countries started limited reforms.

Political Reform in Saudi Arabia

The paper puts forth two main arguments, the first being that reform measures that have been introduced by the ruling establishment in since 2002 have resulted in an unprecedented degree of political dynamism in Saudi politics, a sustained political opening, and thus a higher degree of popular participation in Saudi politics. In addition, attempts to evaluate political reform in Saudi Arabia should take into account the particularity of the Saudi political system and thus refrain from making comparisons to other Arab countries. A parliament that is fully accountable and has real oversight powers cannot be expected in the short run. Hence, there should be an effort both to lower expectations, and devise more realistic ones that correspond with Saudi realities.

Turning to reform measures introduced between 2002 and 2005, Hamzawy highlighted five major areas: the empowerment of the Shura (Consultative) council; the introduction of partial elections to municipal councils; the expansion of civil society; institutionalization of the national dialogue conference; and educational reforms.

The Shura council is a 150-member body charged with advising the King and cabinet upon their request. Its empowerment took two forms, first by the modification of the body’s internal provisions to give members more autonomy in discussing matters, and second by its marked politicization.

The introduction of partial municipal elections—despite the various limitations on the process including the exclusion of women—has served several purposes: The country’s first elections since the 1960s, they have reinvigorated the memory of elections and participation; the election campaigns attracted public attention. In addition, there has been considerable public debate in Saudi Arabia about the possibility of extending the election mechanism to other bodies such as the Shura councils or by making municipal elections fully rather than partially elected.

The expansion of civil society has taken place through the legalization of various human rights organizations and professional syndicates, and the fact that elections to the boards of these bodies were permitted. Albeit limited, this expansion is generally relevant the Saudi context and more particularly because it presents an opening for underprivileged groups such as women and minorities.

The institutionalization of national dialogue conferences—a government initiative which began in 2003 and consisted of regular meetings of diverse groups to discuss political reform issues—has been instrumental in expanding the Saudi public sphere. National dialogue conferences have actually been Saudi Arabia’s main venue for public debates on reform issues, and have been critical in educating the public.

The issue of educational reform is particularly sensitive because it reflects the balance of power between royal family and the religious establishment. Between 2002 and 2005, a very limited number of reforms have been introduced to create a balance between religious and non-religious subjects in the curricula. There measures were, by in large, introduced hesitantly and reluctantly due to the fierce opposition by the religious establishment.
 
Back
Top Bottom