• 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

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.
I don't think anyone is suggesting "jihadists".
So you are throwing up another Strawman here.

However, the Muslim Brotherhood/Islamists will almost certainly be an even larger party (already the largest despite suppression) and depending on the new structure of the Egyptian govt, it's PM will probably be a Brotherhood-er.

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.

and see above by The Prof
 
Last edited:
I don't think anyone is suggesting "jihadists".
So you are Throwing up another Strawman here.

"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.

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.

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...
 
"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.
Incorrect.
Strawman suggests you are are arguing against yourself, not any real opponent, by throwing up an extreme ("Jihadists") that can easily be shot down, usually in the same post. Yours a classic example.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.

Mm-hmm. And I suggest we let democracy take its course and do our best to keep a good diplomatic relationship with Egypt, regardless of who wins. What are YOU suggesting we do?
 
Last edited:
I 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.
Amid protests, views of post-Mubarak Egypt emerge - Yahoo! Finance

"....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...."
 
Last edited:
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.

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.
 
Last edited:
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?

Yes. We have influence with the government and the military of Egypt, and therefore have some power to encourage them to do the right thing and to discourage violence. We have no such influence with Iran, and therefore our support will be ignored at best, or used as evidence of an American conspiracy at worst.

Furthermore, we had to be worried about how our actions would be perceived if the Iranian government survived, as it did. In the case of Egypt, we need not worry because it's obvious that Mubarak is done for.
 
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?

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.
 
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.

The protesters don't trust him to keep his word, and I don't blame them. He could try to rig the elections after the protests died down. If they want him to leave now, I certainly understand their wishes. Let some other transitional figure be in charge until they can organize elections.

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.

The Iranians are probably terrified that all the unrest in the Arab world will spread eastward; their government is not exactly on solid ground itself.
 
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.

Because A) we're trying to discourage Bashir from interfering with the South Sudanese independence, and B) we aren't going to stir up trouble where none exists. If the Egyptian people hadn't staged mass protests against Mubarak, I'm quite sure Obama would be content to continue having him in power. So far, the Sudan has only seen minor protests. If the people of the Sudan stage huge protests on the scale of what you're seeing in Cairo, it's quite possible that Obama WILL tighten the screws on Bashir.

If they don't, it would be wise to continue our policy of rapprochement with the Sudan, as long as they allow South Sudan (and probably Darfur) to break away.
 
Last edited:
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?
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 Cameramen in Cairo vs Tehran.
 
Last edited:
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.

But, is it really the, "people's choice"? Or, is that what they got stuck with, because the latest, "uprising for freedom and democracy", was just a sham to grab power?

I'm not sold on the beautifulness of this uprising, sorry.

I think, in the long run, that it will end up making alotta peoples's lives a living nightmare and I'm not just talking about Egyptians.

People have mentioned American interests numerous times in this thread. One of our, "interests", are the lives of American kids that will lose their lives fighting a very bloddy war against an Islamist army that is bent on world domination.

One of the German civilians that was forced to tour the death camp at Buchenwald dropped to her knees after the tour and cried, "We were lied to!". I think the United States has a responsibility to it's citizens, as well as the citizens of the world that the regime that replaces Mubarack isn't, "lieing to us".

Personally, I think the, "naw, that ain't gonna happen", crowd is living in la-la land. I hope I'm wrong, but so far, there's no evidence to suggest that I am. Even Hitler denounced the strong arm tactics of the SA, murdered Ernst Rhom and sought a legal, constitutional path to dictatorship.
 
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?
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?
 
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.

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 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.


Very good post. Do you play chess? 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.

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.

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.

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.
 
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?


Good post. Obama isn't a Muslim, but he is an Islamophile. Because of the positive early experiences in his life surrounded by Islam he is well disposed toward them. Because of the radical anti-Western ideology of his mother Obama is estranged and alienated from at least fifty percent of the people over whom he rules.

Obama is not able to even pretend to express solidarity with us because he does not understand or relate to us. To Obama we are the Other. The Stranger. L' Etrange. To Obama we are livestock to be milked and ultimately consumed.
 
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.

I doubt the current administration has the stones or inclination...but that was why i said earlier...we stand with our allies. All of them. And Allah start lining up the virgins because if they attacked our allies, I'd do them a favor and send him a WHOLE bunch of them.
 
Very good post. Do you play chess?
Thanks.
Speed chess these days. (1 min + 1 sec increments). No patience for long games.
Yahoo chess if it all.

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.
He came in very inexperienced.
He didn't understand the economy was still tanking and promised too much.
He thought it was just a recession. It was really an abated 1929. The Fed knew what to do this time or it would have been over before 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.

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.
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.

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.
So you're suggesting he play all the ethnicities/factions agianst the govt?
I agree.
We should use All means possible. Use the CIA to arm everyone who is against the govt. Everything.
Back stab/double tricks/Russian weapons. Everything.

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.
He doesn't have the killer instinct.
It's just not in his mentality, though many have said he was tough in Chicago/Illinois politics.. and that's not nothing.
He's not mean/tough enough to to play the big boys I named above.
He doesn't understand the economy that well, tho his advisors and Bernanke do.
 
Last edited:
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.

Not being direct sponsors of terrorism shouldn't be noteworthy but in today's Muslim world it seems that it is.

Poverty is not exclusive to Muslim run countries but contemporary terrorism is.

I have visited some extremely poor areas of the world, as many of us have, and felt absolutely safe, and none of the people I've seen would have thought of attaching a bomb to their bodies and detonating themselves in order to murder innocent people. Only Muslims do that. According to this poverty theory the Great Depression would have become the Killing Fields.

And of course all Muslim run countries are weak states.

The problem is cultural, and Islam and its leaders create the culture.
 
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.

Bingo! We have a winner.

While Obama is book smart, smart people are a dime a dozen. Obama has been carried by others all of his life. He has never faced adversity until now. He knows how to beat Republicans who play by the rules. But Obama doesn't know how to knife fight, and he hasn't hired anybody who could teach him. And now the Reckoning is upon him and the country.

Obama thinks he lives in the world of Kant. He is unfortunately unfamiliar with Hobbes.
 
Back
Top Bottom