• 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

Fiddytree said:
No, but there is a significant change in tone on Fox News, and a more charged feeling in any of the networks with their employees or colleagues being attacked by the pro-government mob. The level of skepticism has really been toned down in comparison with the beginning of this story.
Click to expand...

Maybe you're right you Fox News watcher.:)
 
Catz Part Deux said:
They haven't "gravitated" to dictatorships. Did the majority of the people of Iraq choose to be under the thumb of Saddam Hussein? Thugs and dictators keep control over the majority of the population through the willingness to use unbridled force to control them (and by being better armed and better equipped than the populace that they are oppressing).

Mubarak has maintained control for 30 years in Egypt primarily because WE ARMED AND FUNDED HIM. You are pretending as if these people CHOSE oppression.

In reality, WE CHOSE IT FOR THEM. It's time for you to be intellectually honest.
Click to expand...

We didn't CHOOSE it for them, but yes, and for years, Bush, and now Obama, have pleaded with him to make much needed changes (probably Clinton, too). We didn't support him as a ruthless dictator, but we had to recognize the very tenuous peace that exists between Egypt and Israel, which remains miraculous considering the region.

The answer isn't just black and white. Do we want Egypt to go the way of Libya or Iran? You feel for the people, but you recognize the dangers for Israelis if Egypt or Jordan turn into fundamentalist Islamic ruled nations.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Here's some answers to your questions in a compelling blog post from Pajamas Media:

Michael Totten » Sandmonkey’s Last Post



To those of you who are so sure that we should continue to support Mubarak and that this will result in an Islamic theocracy...

I would only ask...what if you're wrong?

I do not, as a rule of thumb, pray. But my hopes are always with people, in Egypt and elsewhere, who are willing to risk everything for freedom.
Click to expand...

And, at this point there's no clear indication which faction trully wants freedom.

IMO, they are just different sides of the same coin.
 
apdst said:
So, since they don't dig AQ, that makes them the good guys?
Click to expand...

Nope. It doesn't really matter if they're good guys or bad guys. They'll play a role in the next Egyptian government, and we need to have a workable relationship with the Egyptian government.

apdst said:
The MB wants war with Israel. Tell us how that's going to become a workable relationship.
Click to expand...

You seem to be under the false impression that the Muslim Brotherhood A) uniformly wants to go to war with Israel, B) actually would be capable of making that happen, and C) couldn't be dissuaded from doing so. All of those are incorrect. First of all, it's easy for people to say outlandlish things when you're the opposition or running for office, but when you're actually in charge you tend to tone it down a little bit. Second of all, the Egyptian military is not on great terms with the Muslim Brotherhood, and there's no way that they could go to war with Israel without the military's approval. And finally, it wouldn't even be in the Muslim Brotherhood's political interests to launch a war. They're pragmatic enough to understand that they would be crushed by Israel and fall out of favor with the Egyptian public.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
See what happens when we meddle in the affairs of other nations, fund oppressive regimes, and provide them with weapons?

We're reaping what we've sown for the past 30 years, and YES, it is messy.
Click to expand...

We've had to meddle in the affairs, fund, and arm virtually every nation in the world other than Russia and China just to keep them solvent.

The vast majority of this planet is third world, or close to it.
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
Maybe you're right you Fox News watcher.:)
Click to expand...

Hey, today when Meg was going on about Lohan, I got annoyed, flipped the channel, and went to CNN...and found out why I don't like CNN and mostly watch Fox. They were asking people on ****ing Facebook about whether or not Mark Kelly should go to outerfreaking space. One viewer, on facebook *grumble* said "no, he shouldn't. He's already been to space. What's to gain?" I immediately went back to Fox. Fox: the one network less tempted to use ridiculous internet technologies for absolutely nothing. Down with social media!
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
And, at this point there's no clear indication which faction trully wants freedom.

IMO, they are just different sides of the same coin.
Click to expand...

With 40 percent unemployment, most of them aren't concerned with freedom right now. They want a decent meal and some idea of a future of some kind.
 
Erod said:
If somehow Mubarak were to maintain power, we'd definitely have another Saddam on our hands. You know he feels betrayed, no matter how much Bush and Obama have been pleading with him to make changes.

He's got to go. If the Egyptian people can't get that done, do we intervene here, too?

Messy, messy, messy.
Click to expand...

It certainly is messy, but that reality is somewhat dying down on today's narrative for the media. Revolutions really are tricky things. When Shep was bringing up the American Revolution, I wanted him to do a lot more. Bring people in to talk about the nasty business of revolution and how it affects other states near it. Go ahead, go into the French Revolution, talk about what went wrong, and who was deathly afraid of the aftermath spreading to them. Of course, the passioned use of our Declaration of Independence is certainly interesting and reminiscent of the French Revolution and Jefferson's embrace of its beginning, but you aren't going to get a great deal of attention towards political or historical complexity. Going back to CNN today, one reporter talked about Rumsfeld's excerpts from his upcoming memoir and said something like "this is the second blush of history. History occurs, and then you turn the page and it is written about by the participants. Then in about 30 or 40 years we will have it all figured out." Well, no you wouldn't because things are always coming to light and our insights change constantly. You never get it figured out.

Some people are just wanting the conflict to end either way, and no one will be entirely satisfied.
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree said:
It certainly is messy, but that reality is somewhat dying down on today's narrative for the media. Revolutions really are tricky things. When Shep was bringing up the American Revolution, I wanted him to do a lot more. Bring people in to talk about the nasty business of revolution and how it affects other states near it. Go ahead, go into the French Revolution, talk about what went wrong, and who was deathly afraid of the aftermath spreading to them. Of course, the passioned use of our Declaration of Independence is certainly interesting and reminiscent of the French Revolution and Jefferson's embrace of its beginning, but you aren't going to get a great deal of attention towards political or historical complexity. Going back to CNN today, one reporter talked about Rumsfeld's excerpts from his upcoming memoir and said something like "this is the second blush of history. History occurs, and then you turn the page and it is written about by the participants. Then in about 30 or 40 years we will have it all figured out." Well, no you wouldn't because things are always coming to light and our insights change constantly.
Click to expand...

And to add to your point, this situation appeared seemingly out of nowhere. There was Tunesia, then this.

It doesn't have the look of purely a "revolution" per se. Such things usually are seen coming on the horizon pretty clearly for some time, such as the American and French revolutions. This has other components. There are different factions that could benefit if this is done relatively peacefully, and others that will benefit if it devolves into violent chaos.

Right now, I don't think we know what to make of this.
 
From what I have read, there are quite a bit of antecedents. The issue is that from a given distance, we are not necessarily privy to them. Some years ago, a Historian told us, "Americans had no idea what was going on, but you can bet your butt that the people over there knew what was going on."
 
Erod said:
And to add to your point, this situation appeared seemingly out of nowhere. There was Tunesia, then this.

It doesn't have the look of purely a "revolution" per se. Such things usually are seen coming on the horizon pretty clearly for some time, such as the American and French revolutions. This has other components. There are different factions that could benefit if this is done relatively peacefully, and others that will benefit if it devolves into violent chaos.

Right now, I don't think we know what to make of this.
Click to expand...

Revolutions are difficult to predict in advance. It's easy in retrospect to see all the cracks in that the Warsaw Pact had in the 1980s...but not many international observers predicted the downfall of the Soviet Union or the total collapse of communism. It seemingly came out of nowhere in 1989. Similarly, the US government was blindsided by the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1978.

I think this is pretty similar. Up until a few weeks ago, the Arab world was considered fairly stable. Now democratic fervor is sweeping through virtually every non-oil-based Arab state, and even a few of the oil-rich ones.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
Those people weren't just intellectuals and workers. (tho they interview best and ergo get on)
Many were from Egypt's VAST hoard of unemployed and ghetto dwellers who are of course dissatisfied... and again.. won't be helped by ant New govt.
Looting has been Rampant with many decent people, even those who want Mubarak gone, want an end to this.

Let's not pretend all those people who didn't make the CNN/a-j interviews were intellectual democrats.
Without growing poverty (and population), the movement wouldn't have much ground support.
The Shah not just because he was A shah, but because he didn't 'share the wealth'.

Birth rate is the biggest Determinant of Poverty in the Arab World.. only sustainable in the NON-revolting Oil rich countries because they CAN afford them.. for now.

No Riots in Saudi or Qatar. Though GDP per person is going down faster in many years than oil is going up.
Only the spike in oil and China's huge consumption support those monarchies and the social programs that keep everyone happy.
Egypt doesn't have 18K per person to give out-- otherwise.. it'd be much quieter in Cairo.. too.
THAT's What birth rate "has to do with it".
Click to expand...
Mira said:
I don't care who the CNN and al Jazeera interview, this revolution has been boiling up for years through the internet networks. The intellectual youth and the students have been calling for revolt. Check out Facebook and other social networks. Talk to Egyptian intellectuals and the most educated elite, THEY have been wanting Democracy and freedom of speech. Looting happens during any crisis, for pete's sake, which year was it when there was a huge power cut in New York ? remember the looting ?
And plus thousands of thugs and criminals were released from the prisons, by whom exactly ?
Click to expand...
This doesn't refute what I said AT ALL.
The fact that there are a core of net-connected intellectuals (who we see interviewed) is not being denied.
Not addessed by you are the Masses/Hoards of poverty-stricken Ghetto dwellers that would join any 'revolution'.


mbig said:
Unlike in the USA or Israel, the religous party would become the most dominant if not in absolute majority.

I believe the Brotherhood Party and it's proxies make up 'only' app 1/6 of the Egyptian parlialment, but still is the largest block.
Without the suppression of the Mubarak Regime this would easily double IMO, especially with help from outside forces.
Click to expand...
Mira said:
The Brotherhood makes up nothing in the Parliament, they are illegal in Egypt and have been rotting in jails. They are an opposition movement. Opposition to what ?

The Islamists all put together don't even make up 20% of the Egyptian population. If anyone has been providing socila assistance to the poor, it has been the Muslim brotherhood. They gave up violence ages ago.
Click to expand...
Stunning, If I do say so myself:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/04/w...?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=muslimbrotherhoodegypt

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.
Click to expand...
PRECISELY the "doubling" from "1/6" I predicted as well. (from app 84/510)

It doesn't get any better than that.
And I found the just now/After my post checking my Informed Evaluation, vs your BS.
Another typical exchange and result between us.
 
Last edited:
Mira said:
No come on, stop it please. You don't actually believe that, do you ? please tell me that this is a joke.
Click to expand...

There were justifications for invasion, including a justification for a humanitarian intervention and for the democratization of Iraq:

Iraq Resolution
The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:[2][3]
Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population." [humanitarian intervention]
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement. [democratization]
Click to expand...


George W. Bush remarks to the UN General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002

Regarding humanitarian intervention:
Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.
Click to expand...

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.
Click to expand...

And then there was the core objective:
Regarding the objective of democratization:
If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections.

The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.
Click to expand...

My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced -- the just demands of peace and security will be met -- or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.

Events can turn in one of two ways: If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully and dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. The regime will remain unstable -- the region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom, and isolated from the progress of our times. With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.

If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Nope. It doesn't really matter if they're good guys or bad guys. They'll play a role in the next Egyptian government, and we need to have a workable relationship with the Egyptian government.
Click to expand...

Sounds like the same appeasement we tried with Hitler. How did that turn out, again?



You seem to be under the false impression that the Muslim Brotherhood A) uniformly wants to go to war with Israel, B) actually would be capable of making that happen, and C) couldn't be dissuaded from doing so. All of those are incorrect. First of all, it's easy for people to say outlandlish things when you're the opposition or running for office, but when you're actually in charge you tend to tone it down a little bit. Second of all, the Egyptian military is not on great terms with the Muslim Brotherhood, and there's no way that they could go to war with Israel without the military's approval. And finally, it wouldn't even be in the Muslim Brotherhood's political interests to launch a war. They're pragmatic enough to understand that they would be crushed by Israel and fall out of favor with the Egyptian public.
Click to expand...

That's naive, at best.
 
apdst said:
Sounds like the same appeasement we tried with Hitler. How did that turn out, again?
Click to expand...

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand Godwin. :roll:

Not every dictator in the world is Hitler. For that matter, the Muslim Brotherhood isn't even a dictatorship yet. For that matter, there isn't even any indication that they WANT to establish a dictatorship yet. For that matter, they aren't even a part of the government yet.

But you're right, it's better to just refuse to talk to them when they haven't done **** to us. That'll start our relationship with the next government of Egypt off on the right foot.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand Godwin. :roll:
Click to expand...

How does Godwin apply to my comment? Or, is that your retreat position, because you can't respong intelligently?

Not every dictator in the world is Hitler. For that matter, the Muslim Brotherhood isn't even a dictatorship yet. For that matter, there isn't even any indication that they WANT to establish a dictatorship yet. For that matter, they aren't even a part of the government yet.
Click to expand...

Conventional wisdom tells us that we should assume the worst out of any anti-American dicatorship.

But you're right, it's better to just refuse to talk to them when they haven't done **** to us. That'll start our relationship with the next government of Egypt off on the right foot.
Click to expand...

Yeah, man, you got it. Afterall, it worked soooooooooooo well for Lord Chamberlain.
 
So now do we hear news articles and the same sympathy for PRO government protesters rioting in the street?

(for the record...I would have sent the army in and forcibly disbanded the gathering a long time ago)
 
VanceMack said:
So now do we hear news articles and the same sympathy for PRO government protesters rioting in the street?

(for the record...I would have sent the army in and forcibly disbanded the gathering a long time ago)
Click to expand...

but...but...but...they're marching for democracy and freedom! :rofl
 
VanceMack said:
So now do we hear news articles and the same sympathy for PRO government protesters rioting in the street?

(for the record...I would have sent the army in and forcibly disbanded the gathering a long time ago)
Click to expand...

nope. the pro govt people are the people who started the violence, and they aren't so much pro govt as they were ordered to get out in the streets.
 
liblady said:
nope. the pro govt people are the people who started the violence, and they aren't so much pro govt as they were ordered to get out in the streets.
Click to expand...

How fthe hell do you know who they are or what they were ordered to do? MAYBE they are people there that see the prospect of the anti-Mubarek folks ushering in a pro-islamic fundamentalist state and are fighting against it. Maybe they are people that have gay family members and are concerned that if Egypt goes fundamentalist they will be executed. Who the hell do you KNOW??? What makes their cause any less valid than the others? How are they any less a part of this 'democratic process'???
 
apdst said:
but...but...but...they're marching for democracy and freedom! :rofl
Click to expand...

Well...as much as the other side is I suppose... ;)
 
liblady said:
nope. the pro govt people are the people who started the violence, and they aren't so much pro govt as they were ordered to get out in the streets.
Click to expand...

There's no way in hell that you can know that as a fact.
 
VanceMack said:
Well...as much as the other side is I suppose... ;)
Click to expand...

You got it, brother!

thumbs-up-low-res.jpg
 
Watching the news and seeing that they are cracking down on news reporters. I predict things are gonna get real bloody here soon.:( I'll bet you dollars to donuts the Egyptian gov is gonna blame it on the protester too.
 
apdst said:
There's no way in hell that you can know that as a fact.
Click to expand...

VanceMack said:
How fthe hell do you know who they are or what they were ordered to do? MAYBE they are people there that see the prospect of the anti-Mubarek folks ushering in a pro-islamic fundamentalist state and are fighting against it. Maybe they are people that have gay family members and are concerned that if Egypt goes fundamentalist they will be executed. Who the hell do you KNOW??? What makes their cause any less valid than the others? How are they any less a part of this 'democratic process'???
Click to expand...


Vodafone: We were forced to send pro-Mubarak texts | Politics and Law - CNET News
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom