• 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

Only these kooks are in power and they abuse it to get votes from the uneducated Iraqi majority.

We have all seen the effects and policies put in place by leaders of the Shiite conservative movement. Can you see Maliki and his ilk standing up for modernism and progressivism? These people do not believe in the values of secularism. They WILL impose a religious approach to the Iraqi democracy.

You are a fear-monger claiming that since there is a religious component and background to the ruling coalition, that it must devolve to something like Iran's situation. The FACTS are that even though there is the religious component, human rights and Bill of Rights style rights are enshrined their constitution and is put into practice. There is no secret police rounding up citizens that disagree with the government. Protests occur against the government with no consequences and no violence. There is freedom of religion. Yes, there are militias and terrorists wreaking some havocc, but NOTHING THEY DO AFFECTS THE SOVEREIGNTY OF IRAQ AND ITS CONSTITUTION.

If its democracy is not formed from a secular and moderate viewpoint, how can you possibly say it is a model democracy? Without these basic principles, how can the Iraqi Democracy ever mature to a level that is acceptable and that respects the rights of all man?

Bull****. You are applying western notions to an Islamic Democracy. It does NOT invalidate Iraq's Democracy as a model to other Islamic countries.


Nothing to the extent of the US. Incomparable even.

Not incomparable. You are setting an unachievable standard for a 5 year old Democracy. 7 years ago it was a despicable, I mean truly despicable, dictatorship. Now it is a Democracy doing very well. Yes, there is still a long way to go, but as young as it is, it inspires Democracy through the Arab world. You keep claiming it does not and you are simply wrong.


Your judging a successful Democracy on the amount of newspapers there are in Iraq and the amount of political parties, which according to you, is evidence of free speech - a poor argument indeed. Media is censored just like it is in Jordan or Egypt and political dissent is handled just like it is in any other part of the Arab world. So how does it stand out? It doesnt.

Prove it is censored. Not an anecdotal example of singular censorship, but broad consistent censorship.


Please feel free to view our previous discussions.

I am not looking through 1446 ****ing posts to find your weak-assed evidence. If you want me to take your point seriously, you will repost your evidence.


You may feel cornered or intimidated by me or whatever it is going through your mind right now, but there really is no need.

Not at all, I know I am right. The Bush Democracy Agenda is completely 10,000% vindicated with current events. Current events have the democratization of Iraq as both a model and an inspiration for what they are now about.
 
Last edited:
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.

No, there are terrorist groups in non-Muslim countries that have the same problems with poverty and a weak state. Uganda has the Lord's Resistance Army, Sri Lanka had the Tamil Tigers until recently, etc. Depending on your definition of what a "terrorist" is, we can expand it out further. Haiti has gangs of thugs that roam the streets, etc.

Grant said:
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.

I think you'd probably feel absolutely safe in most Arab countries too. How many of them are you at serious risk of being the victim of a terrorist attack? Gaza, Yemen, Iraq, maybe the Hezbollah-controlled part of Lebanon (although I doubt it even there). That's about it.

Grant said:
Only Muslims do that. According to this poverty theory the Great Depression would have become the Killing Fields.

The US never had a weak state during the Great Depression though. You need BOTH of those components for a country to become a breeding ground for terrorists.

Grant said:
And of course all Muslim run countries are weak states.

What I mean by a "weak state" is a country where the government is barely in control of large swaths of land, and/or where there is very little rule of law.

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

Well you can't very easily change their religion, so I'm not sure what the point of this line of thinking is, other than to spread prejudice. Let's focus on things that can actually be changed, like poverty and state structure.
 
Last edited:
Moderator's Warning:
Some of you are getting overly aggressive and bordering on personal attacks. I advise calm. Anytime is fine, as long as it starts right now.
 
No, there are terrorist groups in non-Muslim countries that have the same problems with poverty and a weak state. Uganda has the Lord's Resistance Army, Sri Lanka had the Tamil Tigers until recently, etc. Depending on your definition of what a "terrorist" is, we can expand it out further. Haiti has gangs of thugs that roam the streets, etc.



The problem with simple formulas such as these are that they are simple. Life is much more complex than that and while reducing such complexities to such an easy formula may be comforting due to the fact it provides such easy answers, they really don't explain the root cause of terrorism.

Great Britain is hardly a failed state, yet it is now exporting terrorism. In addition, the terrorism is being formented in Universities among other places, which are not exacly examples of abject poverty and hopelesness. Your simple formula does not apply because it does not address all the OTHER reasons ideology spreads.
 
The problem with simple formulas such as these are that they are simple. Life is much more complex than that and while reducing such complexities to such an easy formula may be comforting due to the fact it provides such easy answers, they really don't explain the root cause of terrorism.

Great Britain is hardly a failed state, yet it is now exporting terrorism. In addition, the terrorism is being formented in Universities among other places, which are not exacly examples of abject poverty and hopelesness. Your simple formula does not apply because it does not address all the OTHER reasons ideology spreads.

I'm talking about widespread, chronic problems with terrorism - not a handful of nuts in London. Great Britain certainly does not face the same problems with terrorism as, say, Yemen does. Same thing with university-educated terrorists...I'm not talking about a few smart guys that want to stage some spectacular attack that will end up on CNN. I'm talking about your average terrorist with a vague sense of anger who manages to kill maybe 5 people. Those kind of people are not bred in universities, they come from places like Yemen or Gaza...desperately poor societies where people have little hope for a better life, but where the state isn't strong enough to stop them from becoming terrorists.

If we reduced poverty and strengthened states, would that eliminate all terrorism? Of course not. There will always be random sociopaths and extremists. But it would eliminate the breeding grounds for them.
 
No, there are terrorist groups in non-Muslim countries that have the same problems with poverty and a weak state. Uganda has the Lord's Resistance Army, Sri Lanka had the Tamil Tigers until recently, etc. Depending on your definition of what a "terrorist" is, we can expand it out further. Haiti has gangs of thugs that roam the streets, etc.

Yes, if we want to compare what's going on in the Muslim world with gangs roaming African streets then we can do that, and they should expect the appropriate feedback. I doubt Muslims would appreciate the comparison but I'll not deny it is there. Much of the problems with Islamic terrorism however is that is not restricted to the streets of any certain city or country but is international in its scope. Thus Denmark, Australia, and many countries in between will be effected
I think you'd probably feel absolutely safe in most Arab countries too. How many of them are you at serious risk of being the victim of a terrorist attack? Gaza, Yemen, Iraq, maybe the Hezbollah-controlled part of Lebanon (although I doubt it even there). That's about it.

Perhaps. I don't believe for a second that all Muslims are terrorists and that most would be very hospitable people. The few I've met have been very gracious, but that also goes for 90% of the people I've met in this world. Our concerns must be focused on those who are terrorists, and those who support them. Those who want to live in peace in a better world must unite somehow against modern terrorism, and it shouldn't matter what religion we belong to, political party or the colour of our skins. We can see from 9/11 that everyone is effected by Islamic terrorists and its results are not exclusive to any one group.


The US never had a weak state during the Great Depression though. You need BOTH of those components for a country to become a breeding ground for terrorists.

Point well taken.

What I mean by a "weak state" is a country where the government is barely in control of large swaths of land, and where there is very little rule of law.

And one also that lacks basic human rights - freedom of expression, religion, etc.
Well you can't very easily change their religion, so I'm not sure what the point of this line of thinking is, other than to spread prejudice.

I've no interest in changing their religion, I'm more interested in allowing freedom from religion, and the freedom of other religions to reside within Islamic states. To allow more freedom of expression, less censorship, fatwahs, and so on. When Muslims are at peace, as they have been for many centuries, they are a threat to no one, and no one is a threat to them. We are indifferent to Muslims as we are to any pother group. But their collective character has changed over the past few decades and that should be a concern to everyone.

And as to your charge of my spreading prejudice, it is not Christians, Jews, Agnostics, or Buddhists who are threatening the lives of others if they dare criticize their beliefs. That threat is only coming from the Islamists, and it is they who will support their religion over the rights of others. We see that in the media every day. If you are sincere in seeking out prejudice you need look no further than the Islamists themselves.
 
I'm talking about widespread, chronic problems with terrorism - not a handful of nuts in London. Great Britain certainly does not face the same problems with terrorism as, say, Yemen does. Same thing with university-educated terrorists...I'm not talking about a few smart guys that want to stage some spectacular attack that will end up on CNN. I'm talking about your average terrorist with a vague sense of anger who manages to kill maybe 5 people. Those kind of people are not bred in universities, they come from places like Yemen or Gaza...desperately poor societies where people have little hope for a better life, but where the state isn't strong enough to stop them from becoming terrorists.

If we reduced poverty and strengthened states, would that eliminate all terrorism? Of course not. There will always be random sociopaths and extremists. But it would eliminate the breeding grounds for them.

But there are far more than a 'handful of nuts' in London or any other major European city. Polls results are widely available which show a great many Muslims sympathize with Sharia law as well as terrorists. And we can see that many non Muslims search for any possible prejudices against Muslims while ignoring those wide spread prejudices openly displayed by Muslims. As well, as we can see on this very thread, there are non Musllims who are against Muslims having the opportunity to live in democratic surroundings. They will consign them to dictatorships as though they deserve no better.

And I rather doubt Yemen or Gaza is doing much to control terrorism. The "martyrs" are often being celebrated.

All Muslims states are weak. It just comes with the territory.
 
I think you'd probably feel absolutely safe in most Arab countries too.

Journalists attacked by mobs, detained in Cairo - Yahoo! News

My Way News - UN to evacuate staff from Egypt

you strike me, sir, as a quite knowledgeable individual

and i can't recall ever having seen you demean yourself by going personal

in my opinion, you argue too much out of your head, out of your knowledge base, using logical constructs put together in your thought

reality and logic aren't often the same

you should observe more and rationalize less, in my respectful opinion

stay up
 
You are a fear-monger claiming that since there is a religious component and background to the ruling coalition, that it must devolve to something like Iran's situation.

The religious conservative nature of the key players is going to definitely effect the state of the Iraqi democracy. People like maliki support a pro-Islamic agenda and will definitely seek to implement reforms accordingly. That is a repressive implementation of Democracy which does not seek to address freedom of minorities or the sexes as we are already well aware of in our experience of the Middle East and religion/politics to begin with.

To make matters worse, one of the major blocs in parliament is spearheaded by Moqtada who is responsible for the deaths of US forces in Iraq when they clashed with the Mehdi army. The man is a puppet for Iran and even seeks the status of Ayatollah. His poisonous presence in parliament will influence what Maliki attempts to implement throughout his administration.

The FACTS are that even though there is the religious component, human rights and Bill of Rights style rights are enshrined their constitution and is put into practice.

Its not just a "religious component". Religion is dominant. And the human rights bills can be enshrined into rock for all i care. While the situation is better than under Saddam, they are far from a model Democracy with a model implementation of these rights.

Bull****. You are applying western notions to an Islamic Democracy. It does NOT invalidate Iraq's Democracy as a model to other Islamic countries.

There is nothing western about secularism. Infact, you can find it all over the ME.

You make a horrible assertion by saying Democracy and an Islamic Democracy is the same thing. An Islamic Democracy is made to appease the main religion and isn't based on the values of freedom because by nature Islam purports that one must live a certain way and the state usually enforces laws to protect this way of life. It is usually a patriarchal system that is based around two different sets of legal systems for Muslims and non-Muslims. It has nothing to do with "Democracy". It is NOT the system that America should be advertising. There is nothing "model" about it.


Not incomparable. You are setting an unachievable standard for a 5 year old Democracy. 7 years ago it was a despicable, I mean truly despicable, dictatorship. Now it is a Democracy doing very well. Yes, there is still a long way to go, but as young as it is, it inspires Democracy through the Arab world. You keep claiming it does not and you are simply wrong.

It still has horrible human rights abuses and censorship of political debate that insults government institutions is still in place.


Prove it is censored. Not an anecdotal example of singular censorship, but broad consistent censorship.


I am not looking through 1446 ****ing posts to find your weak-assed evidence. If you want me to take your point seriously, you will repost your evidence.

Your not looking hard enough, and here is another link for you to deliberately ignore.

Iraq book ban raises fears of free speech clampdown


Not at all, I know I am right. The Bush Democracy Agenda is completely 10,000% vindicated with current events. Current events have the democratization of Iraq as both a model and an inspiration for what they are now about.

:roll:
 
The religious conservative nature of the key players is going to definitely effect the state of the Iraqi democracy. People like maliki support a pro-Islamic agenda and will definitely seek to implement reforms accordingly. That is a repressive implementation of Democracy which does not seek to address freedom of minorities or the sexes as we are already well aware of in our experience of the Middle East and religion/politics to begin with.

To make matters worse, one of the major blocs in parliament is spearheaded by Moqtada who is responsible for the deaths of US forces in Iraq when they clashed with the Mehdi army. The man is a puppet for Iran and even seeks the status of Ayatollah. His poisonous presence in parliament will influence what Maliki attempts to implement throughout his administration.

Its not just a "religious component". Religion is dominant. And the human rights bills can be enshrined into rock for all i care. While the situation is better than under Saddam, they are far from a model Democracy with a model implementation of these rights.

You have no idea what Maliki supports nor how he might try to change the government. They have these rights. The rest of the ME does not. There is strong support for Islamic parties, which is no surprise. They have heavy influence in the government, which is also no surprise. Such will be the case in any ME democracy. It does not make those countries non-democratic.

There is nothing western about secularism. Infact, you can find it all over the ME.

Some parties in Iraq are secular. Some are part of the ruling coalition. The Kurds are fairly secular. Allawi's party is fairly secular. Any ME democracy is going to have a mix of secular and religious political parties. This does not invalidate the democracy.

You make a horrible assertion by saying Democracy and an Islamic Democracy is the same thing. An Islamic Democracy is made to appease the main religion and isn't based on the values of freedom because by nature Islam purports that one must live a certain way and the state usually enforces laws to protect this way of life. It is usually a patriarchal system that is based around two different sets of legal systems for Muslims and non-Muslims. It has nothing to do with "Democracy". It is NOT the system that America should be advertising. There is nothing "model" about it.

When I say Islamic Democracy, I do not mean Iran's form of democracy; I do not mean that it is officially termed an Islamic Democracy. I used the wrong term. What I mean, by corollary, is the same as calling the US government a Christian Democracy. One of the major parties has a major component that is explicitly Christian and thinks Christian values should be used to legislate. They ban and select books (Texas). They legislate behavior. Their involvement in the US government does not make our government a Christian Republic. We still have freedom of religion and freedom of expression, even when this party is in power. Likewise, in Iraq.


It still has horrible human rights abuses and censorship of political debate that insults government institutions is still in place.

We had slavery for 70 years. We have Civil Rights problems for 175 years. Democracies evolve.


Your not looking hard enough, and here is another link for you to deliberately ignore.

Iraq book ban raises fears of free speech clampdown

Interesting. I note that people are publicly opposing this. That backs up my case. Try again.
 
Not at all, I know I am right. The Bush Democracy Agenda is completely 10,000% vindicated with current events. Current events have the democratization of Iraq as both a model and an inspiration for what they are now about.

:roll:

You disagree with this? This was the PRIMARY strategic objective of invading Iraq. It has completely worked, as democracy movements start to flourish throughout the Middle East - Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Jordan, Syria, ...

I hope you weren't one of those who claim to be a liberal and yet opposed this most liberal of objectives. Those kinds of people are ****ing hypocrites and are covered in **** and have no claim to ideals of integrity. They opposed Bush's ideals for political reasons. What a bunch of ****ing god-damn piece of **** assholes. Those people probably oppose democracy in Egypt. Pricks.

Bush to the UN Sept 12, 2002:
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.
 
You disagree with this? This was the PRIMARY strategic objective of invading Iraq. It has completely worked, as democracy movements start to flourish throughout the Middle East - Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Jordan, Syria, ...

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, and Syria are certainly primed toward democratic evolution, given their level of economic development and the fact that they have little oil. I'm much less confident that when we look back in 10 years, Iraq or Yemen will be heartwarming stories of democracy. I think the level of democracy you're seeing in Iraq is about the best it's going to get for a very long time, and honestly I wouldn't be surprised to see it regress to full-fledged authoritarianism.

reefedjib said:
I hope you weren't one of those who claim to be a liberal and yet opposed this most liberal of objectives. Those kinds of people are ****ing hypocrites and are covered in **** and have no claim to ideals of integrity. They opposed Bush's ideals for political reasons. What a bunch of ****ing god-damn piece of **** assholes. Those people probably oppose democracy in Egypt. Pricks.

Uhh I'm pretty sure there is a substantial difference between supporting the democratic aspirations of protesters, and forcibly invading a country and imposing it on them. The war in Iraq was an absolute geopolitical catastrophe, both for the United States and for the nations of the Middle East.
 
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, and Syria are certainly primed toward democratic evolution, given their level of economic development and the fact that they have little oil. I'm much less confident that when we look back in 10 years, Iraq or Yemen will be heartwarming stories of democracy. I think the level of democracy you're seeing in Iraq is about the best it's going to get for a very long time, and honestly I wouldn't be surprised to see it regress to full-fledged authoritarianism.

I certainly won't say anything about Yemen, a very difficult situation. As far as Iraq goes, it is certainly possible that it will regress. I do think it is important to note that there is a variety of competing interests, represented both within the ruling coalition and with the opposition parties. I think there are a large number of Shiites concerned about Iranian influence and not enthusiastic about a religiously dominated government. Note that Maliki is NOT a cleric nor particularly explicit about his religion. Of course, Saddam was also not particularly religious yet still created an autocracy. So, it is also entirely possible that Iraq becomes an authoritarian regime with no religious overtones.

While it is possible, I think it would be very hard to implement as I really don't think the Iraqis, en masse, would willingly go back to being enslaved by secret police. I think they would fight against it. However, it can be an insidious development.


Uhh I'm pretty sure there is a substantial difference between supporting the democratic aspirations of protesters, and forcibly invading a country and imposing it on them.

Yet, those same people would have us invade Zimbabwe, Congo, Sudan? Iraq tried to free itself and we capitulated on our promise to support them. With modern weaponry, if the Army decides to oppose a revolution, you are **** out of luck. Invasion was the only possible way to free Iraq. Humanitarian Intervention is a perfectly justifiable reason to go to war. From Just War Theory.

Finally, we didn't force it on them as they elected the government that negotiated the constitution and the Iraqis voted to ratify it. The Iraqis chose their system of government and their current instance of government. It is theirs; they own it.

The war in Iraq was an absolute geopolitical catastrophe, both for the United States and for the nations of the Middle East.

Absolutely not! It was a geopolitical masterstroke and we are are just starting to see the impact it will have on the Middle East. It is a boon for all the people of the Middle East. Between the two of them, Osama and Bush completely changed the hypocritical nature of our ideals vs our foreign policies to the region. The invasion of Iraq sets up the only alternative to religious fundamentalism to replace the dictatorships.

Democracy is the antidote to oppression.
 
Last edited:
Here are the Democracy Indexes of every non-oil-based country in the world, plotted against their GDP per capita. The relationship between economic development and democracy is very strong.

Democracy.jpg


Some countries are slightly above the line and others are slightly below the line. My theory is that if a country gets too far below the line, it will inevitably have some democratic revolution or evolution, to get it closer to where it "should" be. What countries would those be?

Country / Democracy Deficit
Tunisia / -3.36
North Korea / -3.35
Uzbekistan / -3.25
China / -2.75
Djibouti / -2.69
Cuba / -2.67
Egypt / -2.64
Laos / -2.63
Swaziland / -2.48
Burma / -2.15
Vietnam / -2.05
Tajikistan / -2.03
Guinea-Bissau / -1.93
Jordan / -1.81
Fiji / -1.71
 
Last edited:
I hope you weren't one of those who claim to be a liberal and yet opposed this most liberal of objectives. Those kinds of people are ****ing hypocrites and are covered in **** and have no claim to ideals of integrity. They opposed Bush's ideals for political reasons. What a bunch of ****ing god-damn piece of **** assholes. Those people probably oppose democracy in Egypt. Pricks.

Moderator's Warning:
Tone it down, reef, this is borderline, esp after a warning. If you can't remain calm, stay out of the thread.
 
I have lived most of my adult life under the yoke of leftist governance. I have been forced to dissemble, cooperate, and even contribute to their corruption in order to get ahead.

Both Libs and Cons are corrupt... They both had to make shady deals just to get elected. They're just a bunch of spoiled overgrown children who will do anything to get their own way.

ricksfolly
 
I've no doubt that those recruited are as you describe but their commonality is still Islam, rich or poor.

Absolutely. I have never understood why people are so quick to deny themtheir religious identities and prefer rather to just make this an economic issue. Islam is a very common environmental and social theme between Cairo and Islamabad. If you strip away the legitimcay that Allah provides, there would be far less people seeking to end their life through suicide and willing to commit mass murder. When tribes within this religion use their God to legitimize the slaughter of even their own fellow poor and economically starving people in another camp, I feel it should be obvious to even those without the study.
 
Last edited:
If we reduced poverty and strengthened states, would that eliminate all terrorism? Of course not. There will always be random sociopaths and extremists. But it would eliminate the breeding grounds for them.

But you are too willing to excuse the extremely big pile of **** in the room for the sake of a wider general definition. If you eliminate Islam from the world, where does this leave the great debate of terrorism? Far more manageable? The Middle East (and the outsiders in Europe who kill out of religious guilt) sits in its own category. Mass Islamic terrorism between Muslim tribes in the Middle East goes way back. You simply cannot pretend that their religion is not a huge factor in this. Not when every single terrorist describes himself as Islamic. Not when every single attack comes with written praise to God first and foremost. Not when every single written source of inspiration is saturated in Islamic verse. And certainly not when regional recruitment is as easy as a zealot's instruction. Far from just being economic, the Middle East has groomed a local culture of terror for some time and it is absoluterly rooted in Islamic tribe first. When the Sunni were slaughtering the Shia in Iraq and slaughtering non-Arabs in Sudan (there are plenty of reigonal examples), the verbal legitimizer was and always is Islam. You can make them all rich, but their idea of God still demands his human sacrifice and this culture will always have plenty of self-appointed executioners of God.

What we are witnessing today in the Middle east is almost exactly what people witnessed in Europe during the Christian reformation. The very grave difference may be that Islam doesn't have the mechanisms in place that will make their evolution easier. The Crusade era of war between the Crescent and the Cross is long over. Only the Crescent continues to be the source of so much internal and external violent source.
 
Last edited:
But you are too willing to excuse the extremely big pile of **** in the room for the sake of a wider general definition. If you eliminate Islam from the world, where does this leave the great debate of terrorism? Far more manageable?

But what's the point of this? You aren't GOING to eliminate Islam from the world, no matter how much you wish you could. So what's the point of complaining about how horrible it is, other than to make yourself feel superior?

MSgt said:
The Middle East (and the outsiders in Europe who kill out of religious guilt) sits in its own category. Mass Islamic terrorism between Muslim tribes in the Middle East goes way back. You simply cannot pretend that their religion is not a huge factor in this. Not when every single terrorist describes himself as Islamic.

I think it's more a matter of our media describing violent Islamists as terrorists, and violent non-Islamists as something else...militants, separatists, gang members, criminals, psychopaths, etc.

MSgt said:
Not when every single attack comes with written praise to God first and foremost. Not when every single written source of inspiration is saturated in Islamic verse. And certainly not when regional recruitment is as easy as a zealot's instruction.

Yep, when people are about to do something barbaric, they typically need a way to rationalize it to themselves and/or the rest of society. Some do it in the name of religion. Others do it in the name of nationalism. Others do it in the name of some political agenda. Religion happens to be the most convenient choice in the Arab world right now, but this mindset is by no means an intractable part of Arab culture.

MSgt said:
Far from just being economic, the Middle East has groomed a local culture of terror for some time and it is absoluterly rooted in Islamic tribe first. When the Sunni were slaughtering the Shia in Iraq and slaughtering non-Arabs in Sudan (there are plenty of reigonal examples), the verbal legitimizer was and always is Islam. You can make them all rich, but their idea of God still demands his human sacrifice and this culture will always have plenty of self-appointed executioners of God.

Disagree. If the countries were better developed economically and didn't radiate a sense of hopelessness and poverty, there would be far fewer people willing to throw their lives away to lash out against some perceived enemy. The fact that there are ALREADY plenty of Muslim countries that fit this description should be evidence of that.

MSgt said:
What we are witnessing today in the Middle east is almost exactly what people witnessed in Europe during the Christian reformation. The very grave difference may be that Islam doesn't have the mechanisms in place that will make their evolution easier.

Like what?

MSgt said:
The Crusade era of war between the Crescent and the Cross is long over. Only the Crescent continues to be the source of so much internal and external violent source.

You can sit back and blame their religion, which you can't change. Or you can consider solutions to things that CAN be changed, like poverty and state governance. Your choice. I have a feeling that most of the countries in question will be far more amenable to "Gradually reduce your subsidies and tariffs, and improve free speech and women's rights" than they will to "Stop being so damn Muslim."
 
Last edited:
To ensure order, Obama officials back slow-motion change in Egypt - Politics Wires - MiamiHerald.com
WILLIAM DOUGLAS/WARREN P. STROBEL
MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS 02.05.11

The Obama administration joined other Western nations Saturday in endorsing embattled Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's gradual exit from power and, in a shift, urged Egyptians to back the power transition Mubarak and his closest advisers have set in motion.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking at a security conference, touted the transition concept, a strategy that tens of thousands of Egyptian protesters in Cairo appear to reject in favor Mubarak's immediate ouster.

"I think it's important to support the transition process announced by the Egyptian government, actually headed by now-Vice President Omar Suleiman," Clinton said. "That is what we are supporting, and hope to see it move as orderly but as expeditiously as possible, under the circumstances."

At the White House, administration officials said President Barack Obama was briefed Saturday on the latest situation in Egypt, including the resignations of senior officials of Egypt's National Democratic Party, among them Mubarak's son, Gamal.
Administration officials offered a diplomatic response to the resignations.

"As the president has repeatedly said, Egyptians will be the ones that decide how this transition occurs," National Security Council Spokesman Tommy Vietor said Saturday. "We welcome any step that provides credibility to that process."

But an administration official, who asked not to be identified to speak more freely, added: "We view this as a positive step toward the political change that will be necessary, and look forward to additional steps."..."
 
Last edited:
I suppose most want a faster transition but Obama is not alone, nor first.
Probably arriving at that position reluctantly to avoid chaos.

"..The Obama administration joined other Western nations Saturday in endorsing embattled Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's gradual exit from power and, in a shift, urged Egyptians to back the power transition Mubarak and his closest advisers have set in motion..."
 
Last edited:
Uhh I'm pretty sure there is a substantial difference between supporting the democratic aspirations of protesters, and forcibly invading a country and imposing it on them. The war in Iraq was an absolute geopolitical catastrophe, both for the United States and for the nations of the Middle East.

As long as the people accept it by their own choice, then there's no difference. It remains to be seen that 1) the anti-government boys are actually trying to establish democracy and 2) that they're motivated purely by the will of the people.

There have been no declarations, constitutions, nor referendums; which means that so far, these are just a buncha clowns raising hell in the street.
 
I don't think invading Egypt is a smart idea. From what I am reading in the news and what my co-worker told me who is from Egypt, there is a lot of anti-American feeling behind the protests and they feel their government has represented foreign interests ahead of their own. If America were to invade the people would be more likely to support a new radical government just for the sake of keeping the U.S. out, even though it would be bad for them.

Mubarak tossed out his cabinet within the past couple of days so there are signs that the government as it is will not survive. The Egyptians seem to have a big understanding of what is needed next and based on the peaceful protests that include songs and dances, it seems like they are aiming for a democratic government that will put them first.
 
normally, the opinion of a talking head is not of much note

but this is cfr's gelb, here

in other words, obama cares

The Obama White House hasn't helped matters by shifting policy ground almost daily, causing confusion, and thereby squandering America's credibility and limited but precious influence. President Obama has got to learn the fundamental rule of dealing with careening crises: State your basic principles and then shut up publicly! (Meaning, just boringly repeat your mantra daily.)

The United States has no power to shape events in Egypt, but it does have real influence. Using that influence effectively absolutely requires consistency out of the White House. That has not been forthcoming

Here's the gist of the administration's rhetorical roller coaster since the crisis began: They started out saying that Mubarak's regime was "stable," they proclaimed Egypt a "close and important ally," suggesting the need to support Mubarak, and added that he was not a "dictator." Then they threatened to review the billion-dollar U.S. aid package to Egypt, a real body blow to Mubarak and the military. After Mubarak said he would not run for reelection in September, they called for an "orderly transition." As protests continued, they called for Mubarak to begin the transition "now." In sum, they danced to and fro during the first several days and then increasingly hardened their position against Mubarak even as they were privately trying to get him to participate in his own political demise.

The only statement that made complete sense throughout this roller-coaster process was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's on Sunday: "It needs to be an orderly, peaceful transition to real democracy, not faux democracy." That's the heart of the matter, and that's all the administration should have been saying publicly along with a line like, "And, of course, we stand ready to help Egyptians as and when they call upon us to do so."

Egypt Protests: Obama
 
Back
Top Bottom