The Prof
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Messages
- 12,828
- Reaction score
- 1,808
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I don't think anyone is suggesting "jihadists".I agree, the hotbeds of terrorism in the Arab world (e.g. Gaza and Yemen) are very poor. Most other Arab countries are not. That's why I'm not too worried about jihadists overrunning the Egyptian government anytime soon. Egypt might have high unemployment, but it's far more economically developed than failed states like Gaza and Yemen.
Me::: NY Times::: Abdel Halim Qandil said:"...Mr. Qandil nonetheless estimated that in a free election, the Brotherhood would win about a Third of seats in parliament, support that he suggested might ebb as competing parties gain attention.
I don't think anyone is suggesting "jihadists".
So you are Throwing up another Strawman here.
mbig said:However, the Muslim Brotherhood/Islamists will almost certainly be an even larger party (already the largest) party (they are already despite suppression) and depending on the new structure of the Egyptian govt, it's PM will be a Brotherhood-er.
"...Mr. Qandil nonetheless estimated that in a free election, the Brotherhood would win about a Third of seats in parliament, support that he suggested might ebb as competing parties gain attention.
Incorrect."Straw man" implies that I was arguing against someone or something. I was simply providing my view on what conditions cause terrorism. Namely, crushing poverty and a weak state. Conditions which are present in Gaza and Yemen, but not so much in Egypt.
Right now they control 1/6th (app 17%) despite heavy suppression by Mubarak.OK, so even if it didn't decline at all and they won a third of the seats, it's still only a third. That means they'd need to form a coalition with other groups that might not share all their views. And doing something disastrous for the country like launching a war with Israel could cause coalition partners to abandon them.
Sometimes democracy means that the voters elect people you don't like. Egypt has a right to self-determination...especially because there is no plausible alternative at this point. Even if you're inclined to support a dictator like Mubarak in the name of "stability," his government isn't looking very stable right now and there's absolutely no way he's going to survive this politically. So I'm not quite sure what course of action you are suggesting...
Right now they control 1/6th (app 17%) despite heavy suppression by Mubarak.
They are already the largest faction.
I suggested, and later found the above confirming this might double without Mubarak sitting on them.
All the other parties were smaller even before this potential doubling.
33% is very Large against a backdrop of 10%ers.
So despite it sounding small by most Western Govt's fewer-faction standards.. 1/3 is far and away the largest and has the largest voice.
Coalition, of course.
Amid protests, views of post-Mubarak Egypt emerge - Yahoo! FinanceI think most Egyptians would be quite happy with an election Heavily monitored by an International team
No one is going to trust any faction without it.
There's simply no foundation/infrastructure for an honest election now or a few months from now.
I can't foresee any agreed upon result without perhaps the most extensively monitored election in history.
"....President Barack Obama said that discussions have begun in Egypt on a turnover of the government and he called for "a transition period that begins now."
"We want to see this moment of turmoil turned into a moment of opportunity," Obama said in Washington. He did not explicitly call for Mubarak to step down immediately, but U.S. officials said the administration has made a judgment that Mubarak has to go soon if the crisis is to end peacefully.
Under one U.S. proposal, the 82-year-old Mubarak would step down and hand power to a military-backed temporary government headed by his newly appointed vice president, Omar Suleiman, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive talks. The government would prepare for free and fair elections later this year.
That would mesh in some ways with the demands of the protesters. But one significant difference was the timetable.
Nobel Peace laureate Mohamed ElBaradei, one of the leaders of the protesters, criticized the government's plan to reform the constitution within 5 months and hold presidential elections in September, saying that was too rushed.
It would take a full Year under a transitional government to sufficiently loosen the ruling party's entrenched monopoly on politics before a truly democratic election can be held, ElBaradei said. The ruling party has squeezed out almost all rivals with a grip solidified in vote fraud, election rules tilted in its favor, widespread patronage, emergency laws and domination of the media...."
Since Obama now supports the aspirations of the people of Egypt, can anyone tell me why Obama didn't support the aspirations of the people of Iran in their attempted Green Revolution that was put down by force? There is an apparent inconsistency in Obama's actions. Can the inconsistency be reconciled?
Since Obama now supports the aspirations of the people of Egypt, can anyone tell me why Obama didn't support the aspirations of the people of Iran in their attempted Green Revolution that was put down by force? There is an apparent inconsistency in Obama's actions. Can the inconsistency be reconciled?
Ohhh big tough guy Obama trying to tell the leader of another country to step down. Does anyone honestly think that this Mubarek Ex- Military man, thug, dictator is going to jump for this panty waist of a president, he is probably going to dig his heels in even deeper for everytime Obama makes another demand he resign, if you were just thrown under the bus by your ally wouldnt you?. Mubarek will stay until he is ready to go on his own terms probably in September when he says he will. That seems to be a fair amount of time for parties to organize for an election if that is indeed what he has in mind.
Iron Yank said:In any event is anyone afraid of Obama? The Iranians are laughing at him, the Saudis are shaking there heads along with the Red Chinese to whom he constantly bows down to.
Or.... why isnt he calling for the ouster of the country next door, the Leader of Sudan whom has governed over a genocide in the south & Darfur?
This guy is way worse than anything Mubarak ever did but we've never heard a peep from the dear leader on this.
The administration has bobbled Iran badly IMO.Since Obama now supports the aspirations of the people of Egypt, can anyone tell me why Obama didn't support the aspirations of the people of Iran in their attempted Green Revolution that was put down by force? There is an apparent inconsistency in Obama's actions. Can the inconsistency be reconciled?
You know what? You could be right. After Iran revolted (against a brutal dictator supported by the USA), the immediate aftermath left a power vacuum in which an expelled ayatolah was able to swoop in from Europe and install himself as the new dictator. So what? The people accepted him with open arms. He didn't turn out to be such a good deal in the long run, but if they want to implement another change, the people themselves will have to do so. It must be the choice of the people.
If Egypt ends up with a government run by the Muslim Brotherhood, the peace treaty with Israel is thrown out the window, and sharia law installed, then so be it. It's the people's choice. They will have to live with Mubarak's replacement, for better or worse, just as those in Iran have done. Or perhaps they will find the freedom and democracy they crave. Either way, they deserve the chance to have a real say in the way their country is run.
You're not understanding what I'm trying to say. The people of every country have the right to freedom and liberty, not just the people of countries whose governments we d not support. THAT is hypocrisy. If they chose badly for themselves then they will have grown wiser as a people and a nation, and they'll just have to do it all over again.
But under no circumstance should any American wish for these brave attempts to secure freedom for themselves to fail because it's not in our interests for them to be free.
Our government is clearly pro-demonstrators, and has done all it can do to encourage Mubarak to step down immediately without going public with such a demand, therefore scaring the collective pants off of our other ME allied dictators in Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Jordan.
Because Obama has a soft spot for radical Islamists (in this case the Iranians) as evidenced by his behavior from day one in the attempted closing of Gitmo, followed by his kinder & gentler rules of engagement forced upon our troops in Afghanistan along with a dated withdrawel, followed by the hush hush (shh..it wasnt Jihad) killings by Major Hasan at Fort Hood.... I could go on & on... but I'm sure you get the point.Since Obama now supports the aspirations of the people of Egypt, can anyone tell me why Obama didn't support the aspirations of the people of Iran in their attempted Green Revolution that was put down by force? There is an apparent inconsistency in Obama's actions. Can the inconsistency be reconciled?
Personally, I say we let them work it out. Maybe it all works out for the best and they have a peaceful transition and democracy. OR...they still have no jobs because their country has little outside of the toruism industry, they end up in flames, and become a fundamentalist state. Either way...they kill each other off, have at it. They become a fundamentalist state and kill off the liberals and put women back in burkas, well...thats 'democracy' after all...isnt it? They attack our allies, well..we should come to their aid as quickly as we would France or England and turn the place into a great big giant smoking hole.
The administration has bobbled Iran badly IMO.
He first tried to butter them up- dropping the Bush press for Intl sanctions and letting them off the hook on Nukes.
Though this has now been somewhat rectified. Just more time wasted.
Everyone is basically letting Iran play delay until it's too late.
Everyone knows the game and the game is Lost/over.
Iran will have Nukes.
Supporting the Green Revolution would have discredited the movement as 'Foreign based' (or zio-plot). You know the routine.
So Admins have to play it cool sometimes. Playing it under the table.
But on Iran in General, Obama hasn't done well IMO. Though I'm not sure what woud have made an appreciable difference with the Mullahs calling the shots and Mahdi-coming AhmadInJihad doing the dirty work.
Probably would have just meant more jailed and dead freedom demonstrators.
Iran's leaders are willing to do anything to stay in power- while Egypt's leader is old and relatively soft.
He's through at 82 and he knows it.
Oh.. and too many Foreign Camera men in Cairo vs Tehran.
Because Obama has a soft spot for radical Islamists (in this case the Iranians) as evidenced by his behavior from day one in the attempted closing of Gitmo, followed by his kinder & gentler rules of engagement forced upon our troops in Afghanistan along with a dated withdrawel, followed by the hush hush (shh..it wasnt Jihad) killings by Major Hasan at Fort Hood.... I could go on & on... but I'm sure you get the point.
Obama likes radicals because he is one & has hung out with them most of his life.
He has no critisizm for Dictators like Ahmadinjad who brutally put down the democracy movement in Iran, along with supplying IEDs to the Taliban.
No critisizm for Bashir in Sudan who committed genocide in his country
No critisizm for Hamas (A wing of the Brotherhood) who after there election, killed & threw the oppostion out of the country then fired rockets at Israel.
He has talks with the Muslim brotherhood before the overthrow attemp in Egypt
All Radical Islamists
Then we look at Israel & Britain.... two of our biggest allies when Obama came to office and he has totally thrown these two under the bus
Israel in favor of Hamas, Britain in Favor of Russia
He also has hardly a word for the democratically elected government of Lebanon whom was recently deposed by Hezzbolah.
Anyone see a pattern here?
That's the problem, they're not going to be satisfied with just killing each other. They're going to want to kill some Israelis, Americans and Brits, too. Because that real danger exists, I think we are well within our rights to have a say in who's running the show.
The Iranians are probably terrified that all the unrest in the Arab world will spread eastward.
Thanks.Very good post. Do you play chess?
He came in very inexperienced.Obama doesn't. He doesn't even know how to play checkers. That's part of the gap that shouldn't exist in the cultural background of a president of the US.
Obama could have acted like Machiavelli instead of Captain Kangaroo. What cannot be done directly can be done indirectly. It requires the ability to play chess and to out think your opponent by several steps ahead.
I agree here.Obama does not know or understand his foreign enemies. Thus, he can never out think them.
If one understands one's enemy it is possible to use his weaknesses against him. It would have been straight forward to operate on several different levels to instill fear into the hearts of the mullahs. One only negotiates when compelled to do so for fear of the magnitude of the hurt your opponent can put on you.
So you're suggesting he play all the ethnicities/factions agianst the govt?The Theocrats in Iran have a number of weaknesses that could have been exploited. But Obama allowed the moment to pass. Now it is too late. Besides, the night of the long knives is coming.
Obama could have used this video to transfix the world. 55 seconds in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkCv9ZNweWs
He could have had American client states invoke a special meeting of the UN Security Council. He could have had African and Latin American countries up in arms leading the charge. He could have acted sub rosa.
A bare majority of Iranians are ethnically Persian. There is much unrest among the Iranian Kurds, the Iranian Baluchis and the Iranian Arabs of oil rich Iranian Khuzestan next door to Iraq. He could have allowed the MEK to infiltrate. Iran imports gasoline because it can't refine enough for its own use.
He could have done a number of things. But Obama and his foreign policy staff were too inexperienced.
He doesn't have the killer instinct.Now Obama is frozen into inaction because people like me will use any mistake he makes to destroy his ideology. He doesn't know how to play chess.
There are plenty of Islamic countries (even Arab countries) that aren't breeding grounds for terrorists in the same way that Gaza and Yemen are. The best way to reduce terrorism is to eliminate the conditions in which it thrives: Desperate poverty and a weak state.
Thanks.
Speed chess these days. (1 min + 1 sec increments) No patience for long games.
He came in very inexperienced.
He didn't understand the economy was still tanking and promised too much.
He thought just recession. It was really an abated 1929. The Fed knew what to do this time or it would have been over bfore he was sworn in.
He thought he could woo the Islamic world.
Obama was very naive-not ready for prime time- even though a smart guy.
He's almost up to speed now- whatever speed that is.
I agree here.
He should be Blan***king Ruthless under the table.
Putin is THE MAN in that Chess game.
and China is eating our lunch (and dinner) on economics.
Let me have a month.
Hardball.
So you're suggesting he play all the ethnicitis/factions agianst the govt?
I agree.
We use ll means possible. Use the CIA to arm everyone who is gianst the govt. Everything.
He doesn't have the killer instinct.
He doesn't understand the economy that ell, tho his advisors and Bernanke do.
It's just not in his mentality, though many have said he's been tough in Chicago/Illinois politics.. and that's not nothing.