Riots erupt in Egypt as protesters demand end to Mubarak regime

Fiddytree said:

A Neoconservative perspective on this. You will find there are differences of opinion on this one. Charles Krauthammer , whom William Kristol cites, is of a different mind, as are a number of others.

Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying that Neoconservatives do not have a one size fits all opinion regarding foreign policy, Fiddytree. My bad. I read Krauthammer's article with interest where he called for military takeover a week ahead of time. He's wicked smart, smarter than Kristol I have always thought. You mention other Neoconservative opinions...could you provide me with any links to their writings in recent days?

Lord Tammerlain said:

another from of dictatorship

Click to expand...

One that's been in existance for 4 generations, long before the United States came on the international scene.

Lets see Tunisians are generally fairly well educated and can read. So how about South Korea in 1987, Eastern Europe in the 90's, Georgia a few years ago, the Ukraine, south america in the late 80s and early 90s. Lots of potential inspirations for democratic revolutions dont you think. I am sure the Tunisians are not so narrow minded as to only think that if something only happened to other Arabic people can it happen to them.

Click to expand...

And, they've been reading all about how the Iraqis are expereiencing freedom and democracy.

Except of course when said democratic governments dont support the strategic interests of the other country. IE Iran in the 1950s, Indonesia, Chile in 1973 and plenty of others.

Click to expand...

So, the better idea would have been to allow the Soviets to controll the dictatorship in Iran?

Your logic is flawed, at best. You can't just blame the U.S. You have to throw Canada, France, England, Sweden and Germany into the mix, as well. Because what's good for the United States, is good for all those countries, too and they've had their hands in the post just as much as the United States.

Lord Tammerlain said:

This line of thinking is rather biased.

It assumes Arabs are stupid, poorly informed and incabable of critical thinking

It also ignores much of the history of the region over the last 50 years. Democracy in the ME has been denied arabs through dictators who for the last 30 years have been directly supported by the US in most cases. Roughly 3 arabic countries have dictators who do not receive support from the US as a means to remain in power. Algeria in the 90's had a general election in which an islamist party won the majority of seats, after which the military took power and with assistance of the US has brutally repressed the Algerian people.

I am certain that Egypt could have had a democratic revolution in the 90s or in the 2000s without the invasion of Iraq. Removals of US assistance in supporting the Mubarak regime, and supporting democratic movements within Egypt would have accomplished the same goal years ago. No invasion of Iraq needed.

Overall the US has done more to repress democracy in the ME (and muslim countries in general) then it has to promote it. Iraq has nothing to due with it, and the only reason Mubarak is gone now in Egypt is because the US government finally decided it was time for him to go. Had the Obama admin thrown its support behind Mubarak as all US governments have since the 80s' this democratic movement would have been crushed through brutal oppression. Quite a few other Arabic countries could have the same situation occur if the US decided not to support the regime. Others would not fall with or without US support (Algeria for one, its resources will allow operation of the governemn without US assistance).

In other words democracy could have occured in the ME without the bloodshed of Iraq, had the US stopped supporting the un democratic countries of the region.

Click to expand...

First of all, I thank MSgt for pointing out that our doing business with ME governments does not equate to supporting their form of government, so let's not blame America for causing this situation Sunni Arabs find themselves in. However, I would agree that we have not pressed for reforms until Bush (until 2006 anyways ) due to our FP being focused on stability.

Turns out stability is a fragile thing in an autocracy. All the autocracies have done is promote the rise of religious radicalism. The only example of an option to autocracy has been theocracy, in the ME.

We provided a demonstration of an alternative to theocracy in the ME. Events in Iraq did inspire Arabs with the possibility of real democracy. That is not bias. The reason so many jumped on the bandwagon in Egypt, in spite of the predictable response by the security forces, is that they have inspiration from Iraq's democracy.

It assumes the exact opposite than that Arabs are stupid, poorly informed and incapable of critical thinking. The whole Arab world watched Iraqis "purple finger" revolution courtesy of Al-Jazeera. Arabs are smart enough to see the alternative to theocracy and the way out of their oppression. This is why so many people rose to the occasion over the past 4 weeks from all walks of life. Power to the people.

apdst said:

Your logic is flawed, at best. You can't just blame the U.S. You have to throw Canada, France, England, Sweden and Germany into the mix, as well. Because what's good for the United States, is good for all those countries, too and they've had their hands in the post just as much as the United States.

Click to expand...

Well, I don't know about Canada, Sweden or Germany, but you left out Turkey.

England, France and Turkey originally as the Ottoman Empire, is what created this cluster**** of countries and mixed identities and strongman rule as a result as the default political model.

Glad to see we are on the same side on this issue, apdst!!!

reefedjib said:

Thanks for clarifying that Neoconservatives do not have a one size fits all opinion regarding foreign policy, Fiddytree. My bad. I read Krauthammer's article with interest where he called for military takeover a week ahead of time. He's wicked smart, smarter than Kristol I have always thought. You mention other Neoconservative opinions...could you provide me with any links to their writings in recent days?

Click to expand...

Regardless of whether or not the labels particularly apply (this is always a difficulty), you will find John Bolton and Frank Gaffney Jr. have also promoted more hesitant views.

reefedjib said:

First of all, I thank MSgt for pointing out that our doing business with ME governments does not equate to supporting their form of government, so let's not blame America for causing this situation Sunni Arabs find themselves in. However, I would agree that we have not pressed for reforms until Bush (until 2006 anyways ) due to our FP being focused on stability.

Turns out stability is a fragile thing in an autocracy. All the autocracies have done is promote the rise of religious radicalism. The only example of an option to autocracy has been theocracy, in the ME.

We provided a demonstration of an alternative to theocracy in the ME. Events in Iraq did inspire Arabs with the possibility of real democracy. That is not bias. The reason so many jumped on the bandwagon in Egypt, in spite of the predictable response by the security forces, is that they have inspiration from Iraq's democracy.

It assumes the exact opposite than that Arabs are stupid, poorly informed and incapable of critical thinking. The whole Arab world watched Iraqis "purple finger" revolution courtesy of Al-Jazeera. Arabs are smart enough to see the alternative to theocracy and the way out of their oppression. This is why so many people rose to the occasion over the past 4 weeks from all walks of life. Power to the people.

Click to expand...

Egyptians came to the streets after what they saw occur in Tunisia, not after what they say in Iraq. In Tunisia they saw the people of that country protest, leading to the removal of a dictator, not a foreign country invade, leading to death destruction and mass chaos. In Tunisia they saw the dictator flee flee from a popular uprising that started from quite literally a spark. Iraq had little to due with it. In fact Iraq most likely scared more people from change then promote it. Consider the chaos of Iraq, the 4 million refugees, the civil war etc

Doing business with is different admittedly then providing active support for the continuation of the government. The US does not provide direct support to all of the ME dictatorships, but it does do so to quite a few

Fiddytree said:

Regardless of whether or not the labels particularly apply (this is always a difficulty), you will find John Bolton and Frank Gaffney Jr. have also promoted more hesitant views.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I found:

John Bolton: Egyptian Democracy May be Bad News

The Muslim Brotherhood is the enemy

I am of the view that Iraq's formation of a democracy inspired enough Arabs as an alternative to theocracy and religious fundamentalism, that they will be able to prevail against the MB in fair elections and institution building. The MB could be quite ruthless, I'm sure, but they would be balanced by the Army, who don't savvy no fundamentalism.

It is a test.

I am of the mind that I have very little of mind with this. I want to say it was Jonah Goldberg, who though sometimes nasty in polemics is both amusing and at times insightful, said something like, "Everyone overnight has become an Egyptologist. I do not pretend to be, but sometimes these events happen for the better."

MSgt said:

Aside from select Sunni Arabs, the Global Left is the most stubborn and hypocritical group of people in history. Leftists used to be about the worker. Well, they won. They created unions. In other parts of the world, they created the Hammer & Sickle. They will excuse Mao and Stalin and simply state that they perverted Marx. They will excuse the intellectuals of Germany and Iran and simply state that they were taken advantage of by tyrants. You see, the Global Left is made up of dreamers who are willing to destroy everything and anything that provides them their prosperity just to achieve the impossible dream of utopia. They will develop schemes of population control in the hopes that somebody else somewhere else can take the guilt for administering the plan to reality. They will preach on the people's right to basic human rights, but deny any attempt to make it so. They will point and scoff from afar the genocides of Africa, but turn their backs while screaming on the virtues of "soveriegnty" when asked to do something about it. No matter how many genocides or social oppressions their scemes evolve into, they will always deny it and pretend that the plan would have worked in the hands of other men. Hundreds of millions of corpses between Berlin and Cambodia should be enough to force the schemers to acknowledge that imperfect people will never compliment the "perfect" system. Today's Leftist have resorted to merely being the anti-American voice that can't fathom a global event that can't be blamed on the U.S. After all, along history's path.... all their schemes have failed and fallen under the American boot. Bitter?

We shouldn't kill the dreamers. But we damn sure better kill their dreams.

Click to expand...

You nailed it!

I have seen one or two Leftists explain how they were wrong but, of course, with excuses.

Thanks for the post.

reefedjib said:

Well, I don't know about Canada, Sweden or Germany, but you left out Turkey.

England, France and Turkey originally as the Ottoman Empire, is what created this cluster**** of countries and mixed identities and strongman rule as a result as the default political model.

Glad to see we are on the same side on this issue, apdst!!!

Click to expand...

I know about Sweden, France and Germany.

IRNA: German weapons used to quell anti-Mubarak protests: MP

Outrage Over Swedish Arms Sales to Saudis | Defense & Security News at DefenseTalk

France suspends arms sales to Egypt | Defense & Security News at DefenseTalk

UK refuses to suspend Egypt arms sales | World news | The Guardian

Canadian Arms trade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They're all in this just as deep as the U.S. To say that the U.S. is souly responsible is a level of ignorance that shouldn't be tolerated.

Fiddytree said:

I am of the mind that I have very little of mind with this. I want to say it was Jonah Goldberg, who though sometimes nasty in polemics is both amusing and at times insightful, said something like, "Everyone overnight has become an Egyptologist. I do not pretend to be, but sometimes these events happen for the better."

Click to expand...

Be careful quoting the dude that wrote, Liberal Facism.

Like I said, sometimes he is a very funny man.

Fiddytree said:

Like I said, sometimes he is a very funny man.

Click to expand...

I think he's on time and on target, myself. YMMV.

apdst said:

I know about Sweden, France and Germany.

IRNA: German weapons used to quell anti-Mubarak protests: MP

Outrage Over Swedish Arms Sales to Saudis | Defense & Security News at DefenseTalk

France suspends arms sales to Egypt | Defense & Security News at DefenseTalk

UK refuses to suspend Egypt arms sales | World news | The Guardian

Canadian Arms trade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They're all in this just as deep as the U.S. To say that the U.S. is souly responsible is a level of ignorance that shouldn't be tolerated.

Click to expand...

Mmmm, business as usual.

Personally I don't think its on the same level as divvying up the ME and doing deals to put some of these governments in place within these artificial boundaries. The US had zero to do with that.

The US is of course a HUGE arms supplier to the region. Nice looking M1A1s on the streets of Cairo...

Fiddytree said:

I am of the mind that I have very little of mind with this. I want to say it was Jonah Goldberg, who though sometimes nasty in polemics is both amusing and at times insightful, said something like, "Everyone overnight has become an Egyptologist. I do not pretend to be, but sometimes these events happen for the better."

Click to expand...

Guilty as charged. What the **** do I know? Just my opinions and guesses...

Here's to hoping these events happen for the better.

reefedjib said:

Mmmm, business as usual.

Personally I don't think its on the same level as divvying up the ME and doing deals to put some of these governments in place within these artificial boundaries. The US had zero to do with that.

The US is of course a HUGE arms supplier to the region. Nice looking M1A1s on the streets of Cairo...

Click to expand...

Just as sexy as those Belgian made light machine guns, British made armored cars and Soviet made rifles.

Egypt was buying tanks from the Soviets long before they bought tanks from the United States.

apdst said:

Just as sexy as those Belgian made light machine guns, British made armored cars and Soviet made rifles.

Egypt was buying tanks from the Soviets long before they bought tanks from the United States.

Click to expand...

One thing you have to give Iran is their ability to produce their own weapons. Not just rifles and machine guns either. I am especially impressed with their Silkworm clone.


From multiple angles times a thousand!

reefedjib said:

One thing you have to give Iran is their ability to produce their own weapons. Not just rifles and machine guns either. I am especially impressed with their Silkworm clone.


From multiple angles times a thousand!

Click to expand...

The Egyptians have been stamping out AK's for 30+/- years in their Soviet licensed weapons plant. Where do you think we got all those AK's for the Mujas?

Fiddytree said:

Regardless of whether or not the labels particularly apply (this is always a difficulty), you will find John Bolton and Frank Gaffney Jr. have also promoted more hesitant views.

Click to expand...

Victor Davis Hanson as well.
VDH's Private Papers:: Why the Egyptian Revolution Can Be the Best or Worst Thing to Happen

Catawba said:

Given the choice between democracy and dictatorship, I've got to go with democracy. I've never thought of democracy as a socialist concept.

Click to expand...

The left hijack's terms all the time. What's so surprising about them doing it to this term?


j-mac

j-mac said:

The left hijack's terms all the time. What's so surprising about them doing it to this term?


j-mac

Click to expand...

They hijack the issues as well.

It was the Democrats who vehemently and violently opposed civil rights but after the Civil Rights Bill was actually passed they quickly changed the dialog in order to claim it was they who were always supportive of Civil Rights. And people bought it.

It seems the Republicans rely too much on people's intelligence whereas the Democrats, and indeed Leftists everywhere, have no serious problem with historical revision. They support it for what they think will ultimately be for the greater good but are often unclear on what this greater good might be.

Grant said:

It was the Democrats who vehemently and violently opposed civil rights but after the Civil Rights Bill was actually passed they quickly changed the dialog in order to claim it was they who were always supportive of Civil Rights. And people bought it.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, but don't forget that the Southern Democrats defected over to the Republicans at that time and the Republicans gained their southern conservative base, along with all the racist bull**** too.

Lord Tammerlain said:

Do you not think that if the US government had thrown its support behind Mubarak, ensuring continued support even if the protestors were put down through high levels of violence (and death) that the Mubarak regime would not have tried this.

Click to expand...

I believe what most believe, which is that "stability" was the name of the game. If Mubarak implimented fail safes to ensure proper democracy without disrupting stability, the U.S. government would not have stopped him. As it were, he was the government and we did business with the government. We did notinstall Nasser. We did not install Sadat. Andwedid not install Mubarak. Implying that these men were our puppets only encourages the masses inthe Middle East to hate and murder in the name of an exaggerated lie.

But the Cold War ended in 1989. Nothing prevented the Egyptians from protesting and turning over Mubarak in 1995 in 18 days, but the will of Egyptian people. Thery only found the will in 2011, after the witnessed the dramatic social changes in the region around them. And did we stop them? Or roll our tanks through Cairo? Did the pro American Egyptian military crack down on the people? No. And it is for these reasons one can stepback and declare that status quo of blaming the U.S. for their own culture is exaggerated. And for educated people in the West to preserve that exaggeration is treacherous and dangerous.

Once again, I bring up Jordan. We deliver aid to this country's government as well. King Abdul II has been trying to give more and more power to the people and they have refused. No American aid is preventing anything. The regional habit to blame the West, especially America, 60 years after the "era of independence," is tired and rediculous.

Lord Tammerlain said:

The greatest threat to this democratic movement in Egypt would have been the US government providing ongoing support to Mubarak, rather then the stated removal of it.

Click to expand...

"Would have been?" But it did not. And it would not have in the 1990s. The only ones that don't seem to get that the Cold War is over is the Middle East and anti-Americans who need their scapegoat.

Lord Tammerlain said:

As for why it occurred now, it was in no way due to Iraq.

Click to expand...

Shall I prove otherwise? This bit of denial is a personal fallacy. You and plenty of others seemtothink that nothing happened between Iraq's vote and Tunisia. The logic of this is foolish and very disrespectful. Review my next post for proof....

PART 1 of 2

For Tamarlain and all others who refuse to be humble after the fact. Here is clear evidence that Arabs voting for the laws that would govern them for the first time in history in Iraq was key to what you see on your electronic box of "wisdom" today....

Let's start at the beginning. August 2003 - An Iranian Activist…

Mohsen Sazgara is an Iranian activist and researcher who in August 2003 received a three-month jail sentence for criticizing the regime. Speaking from London, where he is currently receiving medical treatment, he told RFE/RL that he is watching events in Iraq carefully.

"I personally hope that Iraq's [transition to democracy] will be completed successfully so that it can also help our nation," he says. "For sure, neighbors with democratic governments are much better for us than dictators such as Saddam Hussein or backward groups such as the Taliban."

Sazgara -- who faces an additional year in jail when he returns home -- says the recent events in Iraq have the power to encourage many young Iranians to push even harder for democratic change in their country.

"Our young generation in particular has shown -- especially over the past eight years and during the reform movement -- that it has a strong desire for democracy, human rights and civil society, and a strong desire to join the international [community]," Sazgara says. "And when democratic changes take place in our neighboring and brother country Iraq, with its many ties to us, it encourages our youth, and emboldens our young people to ask for change in our current constitution." Iran: Analysts Say Democratic Changes In Iraq May Inspire Similar Trends In Its Neighbor - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty © 2011

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Do you really think that this Iranian activist was all alone with his vision and hopes? That he alone had wider vision and the rest of the Iranians were unable to see across the border? Or the rest of the region for that matter? To suggest so is racist and sophomoric.

This is what President Bush stated in November 2003....

"Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty? Are millions of men and women and children condemned by history or culture to live in despotism? Are they alone never to know freedom and never even to have a choice in the matter?" Egypt protests show George W. Bush was right about freedom in the Arab world

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

He also stated…

Promoting democracy abroad is, to be sure, a long-standing goal of American foreign policy and is closely intertwined with the American understanding of its global role. Since 2003, however, U.S. President George W. Bush has placed a new emphasis on it, with special regard to the Middle East. In a speech at the twentieth anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy on November 6, 2003, George W. Bush declared that the Western approach to the Middle East has failed: "Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe - because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty." AICGS: ANALYSES : Democracy Promotion in the Middle East and North Africa: Recent Experiences and Further Prospects, By Dr. Ulrich Speck

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Condoleeza Rice went on later to state….

In fact, when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke at the American University in Cairo in June, she announced to some surprise that “for sixty years” the United States had been mistaken in “pursuing stability at the expense of democracy” in the Middle East. http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/Consolatore.Egypt.pdf

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

While WMD is what near sighted people chose to solely focus on as the White House and your precious media overly used it to “legitimize” toppling Hussein’s regime, Osama Bin Laden specifically used the UN’s decade long starvation operation in Iraq for 9/11. One could easily argue that by not promoting democracy and supporting the dictator, we welcomed the inevitable 9/11. I can argue it because I'm smart. I can also use my smarts to see what I consider obvious as hell.

“But the 9/11 terrorists weren’t Iraqi, they were Saudi” the simpleton may state in an attempt to deny what he secretly realizes. Well, during the Cold War, analysts used “Roll Back” as a strategy to defeat Soviet communism. It was an effort to roll back the effects of communism without having to attack Moscow. It didn’t work very well, but I submit that such a tactic is far better suited to the concentrated ideology of the Middle Eastern civilization. Perhaps by combating Islamic radicalism on the fringes via freedom and democracy we can avoid attacking Mecca and screwing up oil deals while encouraging more radical responses.

This occurred in 2005 in Saudi Arabia…

Saudi Arabia began its tentative experiment in democracy Thursday as thousands of men filed into schools, government offices and streetside tents to cast what for many were the first votes of their lives. Saudi Men Cast Ballots in First Election Since '63 (washingtonpost.com)

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

And….

It is not exactly a democratic revolution - the election is for only half the members of municipal councils and women may not vote. Still, Saudi Arabia embarks on its first nationwide elections on Thursday and the exercise may end up being more than symbolic. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/10/international/middleeast/10saudi.html

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

MSgt said:

Are you needing history to be recent or all encompassing? You see, it was Islam's Arab armies that exploded out of the peninsula. With the first caliphate, Islam's army found itself at war with the Persian and the Byzantine (Christian) Empires. It was Arabs that first colonized and occupied Christian lands and forced their culture upon others as as far east as Afghanistan, as north as the Balkans, and across northern Africa and into Spain. And the Crusades? Weren't Christian armies merely seeking to regain lost land? And did not Islam's Ottoman army conquer and occupy most of Europe for a thousand years after? And when Europe finally fought back, were they not just recapturing lost land. We tend to label this era "Western Imperialism," but the title is very self flaggelating and pathetic. It's at this point that we like to produce European colonialism as if these local tribes weren't already confused about religion, local identity, and independence.

The fact is that Allah has caused plenty of damage and his armies have occupied far more vast territory as an empire than any of God's armies. But.......if you need history to start with "Western Imperialism" or even the year 1991 when an occupying Muslim military had to get kicked out of Kuwait by the dastardly Christian Army, then you may go ahead and pretend that the West, especially America, is the scourge of the earth.

Foolish.

Click to expand...

No, I am referring to the modern day US military occupations around the world. I see no such military occupations by the Arab states.