Another Hot Anti-Trump Story Gets Walked Back

[MrShangles]

Keep hoping. Unlike the Benghazi circle jerks that conservatives in the halls of congress performed for years Mueller is conducting a real investigation with a real Grand Jury.

You tell um, we don’t need no stinking evidence, that stuff just gets in the way.
You got one guy that lied to FBI, same ready Trump fired him.
You got one guy with some tax problems or something.
Yep the investigation is closing in on Trump. But still nothing on Trump. Sad little liberals, don’t worry Christmas is just around the corner, maybe you’re mom will get you some more crayons for your safe space in her basement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[iliveonramen]

You tell um, we don’t need no stinking evidence, that stuff just gets in the way.
You got one guy that lied to FBI, same ready Trump fired him.
You got one guy with some tax problems or something.
Yep the investigation is closing in on Trump. But still nothing on Trump. Sad little liberals, don’t worry Christmas is just around the corner, maybe you’re mom will get you some more crayons for your safe space in her basement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I guess time will tell.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Oh I had to think hard on this to remember:


What you described reminded me of the "Progress Trap." It's a theory pushed forward by Ronald Wright in A Short History of Progress that talks about how societies can collapse. Due to more information being known now, his chapter on Easter Island doesn't fit anymore, but his general argument is sound I think. As I recall, one of his examples was how the Native Americans used cliffs in Canada to slaughter buffalo and bison in mass. Instead of the effort of taking the time to sneak up and kill a few, they learned that they could just work them into a frenzy and chase them towards cliffs, where they would simply pick up what they needed and move on. This left hundreds and thousands rotting. In time this "progress" wrecked the hunting grounds of their food source, which forced them to move south. Another chapter is on global warming. We know what's happening, yet we continue our bad habits and call it "progress" like morons.


Our politicians do the same. They are trapped in a system of exploitation between wealthy donors/lobbyists and themselves. They use each other to "progress" their agendas. And despite politicians knowing that this has caused great interruption in our ability to move society forward and is very harmful, they simply keep doing it.

I read through that wiki synopsis. I think, "Yeah, that's pretty much the same phenomenon with a different context."
Long-term counter productive behavior is rewarded in the short term.
In some of those instances listed in the wiki (Rome and the Maya), the issue is similar to ours in that the rewards are coming from the folks who've a vested interest in the untenable status quo.
In our case, those would be the political players and their donors.


There're many aspects to the situation.
There're only a few which can be influenced by each of us regular folks.




[I guess I coulda just clicked the like button]

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Maybe I would have been more accurate to say its one of capitalisms "flaws". That wealth can concentrate to the point it subverts democracies. Especially representative ones where power is distilled down to a relatively tiny handful.

Imho, it's not the accumulation of wealth so much as it is the ability of that wealth to interfere with the intention that the office holders be primarily accountable to the electorate.

 

[What if...?]

Imho, it's not the accumulation of wealth so much as it is the ability of that wealth to interfere with the intention that the office holders be primarily accountable to the electorate.

But it has been rare in history for a situation to exist where for a time so much money was sidelined in the economy that a billion dollars could have been given to every single congressman and there would still have been trillions sitting around.

I don't think wealth has concentrated so much in the past.

I could be wrong.

But if I am I bet there was a revolution or other major upheaval shortly afterwards.

Revolution is apparently always a response to greed or the hunger to power.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

The "Arab Spring" was an islamic uprising to establish a caliphate. It was not, nor ever was it a protest for "socioeconomic justice, dignity, and democracy." that's what the administration, hillary, and the media tried to sell it as. The "arab spring" was almost exclusively a disaster.

LOL! Comedy gold!

 

[slick]

The sooner those that have come to believe the scam that is the "Russia Collusion Investigation", the sooner their credibility will return. [best case]

'Today’s Democrat Party=> Unhinged lunatics and unstable drama queens
Far left talk show host Chelsea Handler blamed President Donald Trump for the California fires today.'

And this happens when I'm still trying to determine whether Trump's demand for two scoops of ice cream while
all others are entitled to have only one will be among his misdeeds incorporated into the impeachment document.

Oh well, I imagine the intellectual giants & leaders of the impeachment movement Al Green & Auntie Maxine will
determine that at the appropriate time.

 

[MSgt]

read this: Link

This is surface trash based on an Islamist's dream that is not achievable. The reporter has merely reproduced the ideas of Al-Qaeda, which cling to the essence of Qutb's 1964 prison manifesto. One may as well read Mien Kampf in 1939 and declare the future's doom.

You give Islamists too much credit. There is a reason they developed the way they have from al-Banna to Qutb to Faraj and to Zawahiri.

1) al-Banna (1920s - 40s): Convince the local leader and the traditional ulema to create an Islamic state in order to separate from European interference and imperialism.
2) Qutb (1960s): A vanguard somewhere needed to "remove" the local leader, and shove aside the traditional ulema, who prevents the emergence of an Islamic state.
3) Faraj (1970s): Assassinate the local leader who prevents the emergence of an Islamic state.
4) Zawahiri (2000s): Execute betrayers of Islam, to include members of the ulema so that an Islamic state can can rise.

This is a description of desperation as the twentieth century unfolded the way it did. And with these types of men imprisoned, tortured, and executed along the way, they were denied a political voice. Violence became an option. There is a reason we understand that today's Islamism was created in the prisons of Egypt. Beginning largely with Faraj, the assassination of Sadat began to fragment Egyptian Islamism. Along the way, as the local violence increased, the further away they pushed Muslims. The came the Luxor massacre on November 18, 1997, in which extremists from al-Jama’a al-Islamiyya (one of many fractured offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood) beheaded fifty-eight Western tourists and four Egyptians. This shocked the Egytpian population and even Islamists who were banned from the country. The Muslim Brotherhood began to issue statements to renounce the violence of these groups and promised to work through the democratic system to achieve their goals.

Because of the desperations over the decades, the Islamist philosophy has been reduced to ashes and the result is a lashing out of violence with no ability to sustain. Even Qutb would not recognize what Islamists are today because IS has betrayed the "milestones" of Qutb's instructions to even deserve to create an Islamic state. The conduct of the so-called Islamic State has soured the idea of Muhammad's fabled Islamic state for many Islamists. The mere fact that the vast majority of the entire Middle East and Muslim world wanted nothing to do with IS should tell you something. The fact that towards ninety-percent of the people killed by Islamist terrorists are Muslims (not Westerners) should tell you something. You fear temporary organizations that now only rely on even the terror and bloodshed of their own to convince them that their way way is the right way. However, since today's Islamists are a product of being denied a place in the political system since the 1920s, it is permissible to state that their kind cannot exist in an environment where the population has a political voice.

then read this: Link

You tell me which of the "Arab spring" nations, was a success.

And this is an opinion piece, based on nowism and without the obvious education to make it even look good. His opinion is very ignorant and I was not surprised that the author is of a Conservative Think Tank. One may as well try to explain America through the words of a man who comes from a Leftist Think Tank.

Like I stated, you are too quick to declare failure. Stop being sold on things by politicians who are just as dumb as their comments. I will once again point out that all new constitutions, following deposing the dictator, were liberal and democratic, not Islamist. This is a process; and given the fact that the French lined up tens of thousands in front of guillotines during the First and then the Second White Terror, following the French Revolution and before Napoleon, this should be an indicator that democracy isn't ready made and does not just spring forth simply.

What you are witnessing in the MENA is a civil issue between the Islamic Modernist and the failing Islamist philosophy. The first article you offered relies upon an organization's impractical and impossible dream. Even Iran's modernist philosophers (many of which were jailed and executed in the 1990s) struggle to push Iran's religious government more towards secularism because they know that their experiment failed. Iranians, especially those who lived the Revolution of 1979, know that they replaced a secular tyrant with religious tyranny.

 

[Removable Mind]

We had Brian Ross' hot scoop that candidate Trump told Flynn to contact the Russians, which fizzled.

Now a New York Times scoop is getting the same treatment. Again on the Russia story.

These guys want the Russia collusion story to be true sooooo baaaaad that they keep getting ahead of themselves. They keep trying to turn speculation and innuendo into facts.

What is bringing all this to white hot intensity is the fact that Trump is on the verge of succeeding bigly. If they can't take him down before the economy gets really good then they will have lost for good in the same way they lost to Reagan. That's Victor David Hanson's theory [video link, long], anyway.

Here’s what I, nor most others people who don’t find Trump to be a competent president don’t want, is a president that is more interested is turning the country into a Christian theocracy.

 

[Oborosen]

Like I said, many on the Left and Right have bought into the lie and can't back out.

All we have left, is to see how deep this hole gets dug.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Like I said, many on the Left and Right have bought into the lie and can't back out.

Well yes but Fantasy and willful ignorance has long Trumped reality in America.

WE USED TO BE BETTER

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

This is surface trash based on an Islamist's dream that is not achievable. The reporter has merely reproduced the ideas of Al-Qaeda, which cling to the essence of Qutb's 1964 prison manifesto. One may as well read Mien Kampf in 1939 and declare the future's doom.

You give Islamists too much credit. There is a reason they developed the way they have from al-Banna to Qutb to Faraj and to Zawahiri.

1) al-Banna (1920s - 40s): Convince the local leader and the traditional ulema to create an Islamic state in order to separate from European interference and imperialism.
2) Qutb (1960s): A vanguard somewhere needed to "remove" the local leader, and shove aside the traditional ulema, who prevents the emergence of an Islamic state.
3) Faraj (1970s): Assassinate the local leader who prevents the emergence of an Islamic state.
4) Zawahiri (2000s): Execute betrayers of Islam, to include members of the ulema so that an Islamic state can can rise.

This is a description of desperation as the twentieth century unfolded the way it did. And with these types of men imprisoned, tortured, and executed along the way, they were denied a political voice. Violence became an option. There is a reason we understand that today's Islamism was created in the prisons of Egypt. Beginning largely with Faraj, the assassination of Sadat began to fragment Egyptian Islamism. Along the way, as the local violence increased, the further away they pushed Muslims. The came the Luxor massacre on November 18, 1997, in which extremists from al-Jama’a al-Islamiyya (one of many fractured offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood) beheaded fifty-eight Western tourists and four Egyptians. This shocked the Egytpian population and even Islamists who were banned from the country. The Muslim Brotherhood began to issue statements to renounce the violence of these groups and promised to work through the democratic system to achieve their goals.

Because of the desperations over the decades, the Islamist philosophy has been reduced to ashes and the result is a lashing out of violence with no ability to sustain. Even Qutb would not recognize what Islamists are today because IS has betrayed the "milestones" of Qutb's instructions to even deserve to create an Islamic state. The conduct of the so-called Islamic State has soured the idea of Muhammad's fabled Islamic state for many Islamists. The mere fact that the vast majority of the entire Middle East and Muslim world wanted nothing to do with IS should tell you something. The fact that towards ninety-percent of the people killed by Islamist terrorists are Muslims (not Westerners) should tell you something. You fear temporary organizations that now only rely on even the terror and bloodshed of their own to convince them that their way way is the right way. However, since today's Islamists are a product of being denied a place in the political system since the 1920s, it is permissible to state that their kind cannot exist in an environment where the population has a political voice.




And this is an opinion piece, based on nowism and without the obvious education to make it even look good. His opinion is very ignorant and I was not surprised that the author is of a Conservative Think Tank. One may as well try to explain America through the words of a man who comes from a Leftist Think Tank.

Like I stated, you are too quick to declare failure. Stop being sold on things by politicians who are just as dumb as their comments. I will once again point out that all new constitutions, following deposing the dictator, were liberal and democratic, not Islamist. This is a process; and given the fact that the French lined up tens of thousands in front of guillotines during the First and then the Second White Terror, following the French Revolution and before Napoleon, this should be an indicator that democracy isn't ready made and does not just spring forth simply.

What you are witnessing in the MENA is a civil issue between the Islamic Modernist and the failing Islamist philosophy. The first article you offered relies upon an organization's impractical and impossible dream. Even Iran's modernist philosophers (many of which were jailed and executed in the 1990s) struggle to push Iran's religious government more towards secularism because they know that their experiment failed. Iranians, especially those who lived the Revolution of 1979, know that they replaced a secular tyrant with religious tyranny.

Lets focus and make this simple.


Which countries are considered a "success" after the arab spring.


My article written in 2005 has been pretty spot on thus far. But you think the arab spring was not a failure? then lets discuss a couple of the more "successful ones"

 

[Buzz62]

I agree our policy is wrong headed. We need a complete withrdrawal, let the arab world fall where it may without our money, and let muslim men fight muslim wars.

Bravo!

I would go even further.
Regardless of the events that has lead to this refugee/Islamist Terrorist BS in Europe and world wide, These people are coming in numbers that Europe cannot deal with. This creates ghetto situations which creates malcontent and anger. People ripe for the picking for the IS fighters. Thus IMO, Europe needs to close the entry points, interview each existing refugee for any signs of belief in Sharia, expel those who fail the interview (back on Soros' ships would be nice) and execute a full navel blockade.

Let them kill each other till they finally come to grips with themselves and the rest of the world...then we'll talk about being "inclusive".

 

[MSgt]

Lets focus and make this simple.


Which countries are considered a "success" after the arab spring.

This is not being simple. This is being obtuse. If you wish to take this route, then you must declare the American Revolution and the French Revolution failures too. One does not get to judge those events after two hundred years of process (which involved mass murder, execution, dictatorship, civil war, and uprising), and turn around and judge the MENA for its very first step. The fact that all constitutions from all countries that saw deposed dictators were liberal and democratic is proof enough that Islamism was not and is not the goal (would you like me to summarize these constitutions with links to the actual constitutions?). The fact that others (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait) offered liberal and economic concessions to back the crowd down is proof enough that they were not after Islamism.

This is a general bitterness that seems to stem from Iraq not turning out to be paradise as ignorantly promised by Bush & Co. Add in the Arab Spring, for which the GOP and Fox News chose to make an opposite stand from the Liberal side, and we get a skewed perspective of what is happening. Europeans and Americans do not get to colonize and imperialize a region for over two hundred years and expect the transition from dictatorship and religious extremism (a developed answer to imperialism) to be "simple."

My article written in 2005 has been pretty spot on thus far. But you think the arab spring was not a failure? then lets discuss a couple of the more "successful ones"

Your article isn't even a matter of nowism and is far from spot on. Aspects of it are merely lucky because it addresses a religious region. Like I referred to, Mein Kampf was pretty "spot on" in 1943. But such manifestos merely look it in the moment of intensity. Since this impractical 2005 Islamist ideal...

- You have seen the rise of the so-called Islamic State; and you have seen them brutalize and terrorize to the point where even prominent Islamists and other terrorist groups (Al-Qaeda) have condemned them. You have also seen their recent destruction.

- You have seen Egyptians elect a Muslim Brother over a dictator's former PM; and you have seen Egyptians take right back to the streets in protest as that Muslim Brother began to Islamise the government and betray the new amendments (dealing with elections, freedom of the press, and religious freedom) of their constitution. Neither the Egyptian people nor the military wants what Khomeini did in Iran.

There is nothing about a 2005 Islamist dream that is practical or "spot on."

 

[MSgt]

Bravo!

Sure, but also highly impractical.

- There is no complete withdrawal as long as allies in the MENA need assistance against the enemy and actively fight them.

- There is no complete withdrawal as long as the worlds economy hinges on oil/gas availability and prices.

Statements of "we should just leave" are not productive because it just isn't really an option. Until the world get's off oil, the MENA matters. As long as the socioeconomic misery exists in the MENA, religious extremism and its blame-seeking product will continue to lash out internationally. And do you think this Jerusalem move was smart? We don't even have to be there to have made this error.

One may as well state that we should just "nuke 'em." It's a statement that avoids the reality.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

This is not being simple. This is being obtuse. If you wish to take this route, then you must declare the American Revolution and the French Revolution failures too. One does not get to judge those events after two hundred years of process (which involved mass murder, execution, dictatorship, civil war, and uprising), and turn around and judge the MENA for its very first step. The fact that all constitutions from all countries that saw deposed dictators were liberal and democratic is proof enough that Islamism was not and is not the goal. The fact that others (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait) offered liberal and economic concessions to back the crowd down is proof enough that they were not after Islamism.

This is a general bitterness that seems to stem from Iraq not turning out to be paradise as ignorantly promised by Bush & Co. Add in the Arab Spring, for which the GOP and Fox News chose to make an opposite stand from the Liberal side, and we get a skewed perspective of what is happening. Europeans and Americans do not get to colonize and imperialize a region for over two hundred years and expect the transition from dictatorship and religious extremism (a developed answer to imperialism) to be "simple."



Your article isn't even a matter of nowism and is far from spot on. Aspects of it are merely lucky because it addresses a religious region. Like I referred to, Mein Kampf was pretty "spot on" in 1943. But such manifestos merely look it in the moment of intensity. Since this impractical 2005 Islamist ideal...

- You have seen the rise of the so-called Islamic State; and you have seen them brutalize and terrorize to the point where even prominent Islamists and other terrorist groups (Al-Qaeda) have condemned them. You have also seen their recent destruction.

- You have seen Egyptians elect a Muslim Brother over a dictator's former PM; and you have seen Egyptians take right back to the streets in protest as that Muslim Brother began to Islamise the government and betray the new amendments (dealing with elections, freedom of the press, and religious freedom) of their constitution. Neither the Egyptian people nor the military wants what Khomeini did in Iran.

There is nothing about a 2005 Islamist dream that is practical or "spot on."

I will ask you again.... Which countries are considered a "success" after the arab spring?

You cannot compare the arab spring to our revolution.

 

[Buzz62]

Sure, but also highly impractical.

- There is no complete withdrawal as long as allies in the MENA need assistance against the enemy and actively fight them.

- There is no complete withdrawal as long as the worlds economy hinges on oil/gas availability and prices.

Statements of "we should just leave" are not productive because it just isn't really an option. Until the world get's off oil, the MENA matters. As long as the socioeconomic misery exists in the MENA, religious extremism and its blame-seeking product will continue to lash out internationally. And do you think this Jerusalem move was smart? We don't even have to be there to have made this error.

One may as well state that we should just "nuke 'em." It's a statement that avoids the reality.

OK I respect your ideas. And you make some good points.
But consider...
We...humans in general...like to breath, and its apparent we'd prefer to do it with air that isn't poisonous.
Canada and Russia alone, poses enough oil to support our needs till we can research a realistic alternative to the explosive and powerful energy release from blowing up oil-based products. Sure, Arab Oil is cheaper...by far...to process, but do we 'need' that oil? Not really.
As I'd said, I would go further. Understand that allot of that 'further', has to do with the bloody Saudis and the Israelis.
I'm not a big fan of either, and think they deserve each other. Frankly, I'd like to see the USA and the rest of the 'colonial west' get what we 'deserve', but my family is in the west. Its their home. And guess what fathers will do in order to protect the home of their kids. Besides...as far as retrobution for recent transgressions to the Arab world, I'd be good with letting 'em have Bush to do as they will...

A siege of the Middle East comes to mind. Israel could be serviced via air, if they were to live through such a siege.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

But it has been rare in history for a situation to exist where for a time so much money was sidelined in the economy that a billion dollars could have been given to every single congressman and there would still have been trillions sitting around.
I don't think wealth has concentrated so much in the past.
I could be wrong.
But if I am I bet there was a revolution or other major upheaval shortly afterwards.
Revolution is apparently always a response to greed or the hunger to power.

Laws cannot prevent all crime.
But making something illegal often changes the calculus of taking certain actions by increasing the risks beyond the realm or profitability—the risk become greater than the reward.
So then, incidences of the illegal activity decline in number.

Currently, it's quite legal to use lucre to influence laws.
Certainly, lucre will always have a luster for the venal. And it's likely there will always be the venal among us seeking positions of power and influence.
However, just removing the legal avenues for wealth to influence lawmaking etc would go far toward reducing its negative impact on the primacy of the electorate.

I concede that there would still be folks willing to break the law.
But, presumably you're also willing concede that if the commercialization of influence were illegal, the number of people active in that market would decrease (probably) dramatically.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Sure, but also highly impractical.
- There is no complete withdrawal as long as allies in the MENA need assistance against the enemy and actively fight them.
- There is no complete withdrawal as long as the worlds economy hinges on oil/gas availability and prices.
Statements of "we should just leave" are not productive because it just isn't really an option. Until the world get's off oil, the MENA matters. As long as the socioeconomic misery exists in the MENA, religious extremism and its blame-seeking product will continue to lash out internationally. And do you think this Jerusalem move was smart? We don't even have to be there to have made this error.
One may as well state that we should just "nuke 'em." It's a statement that avoids the reality.

The land in the ME is not the necessary central hub between continents anymore—at least not for us, the US.
We have far flung bases and a magnificent Navy.
We can project military force to any continent without needing to secure passage through the ME.

In my ignorant opinion, the only reason we're still tied to the ME strategically is as you say, the World is addicted to petro products.

That's one of the reasons why I have been a fan of a moon-shot sized program in the US to revamp our infrastructure and energy usage to wean ourselves off petro.
It reduces our need to protect and be involved in that historically volatile area.
With that need gone, we be better able to objectively identify our interests in the area.
I assume w/o a petro dependency, those interests would largely be humanitarian.

 

[MTAtech]

This is as brazen as i've seen yet; you're claiming that the credibility of the media is contingent upon their telling you what you want to hear.

People are free to fantasize, but to quote the best president of the 21st century: "Reality has a way of asserting itself."

Orwell: " The point is that we are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield."

 

[Absentglare]

Orwell: " The point is that we are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield."

Very salient.

Another gem:

"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself—that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word—doublethink—involved the use of doublethink."

-1984

 

[MSgt]

The land in the ME is not the necessary central hub between continents anymore—at least not for us, the US.
We have far flung bases and a magnificent Navy.
We can project military force to any continent without needing to secure passage through the ME.

In my ignorant opinion, the only reason we're still tied to the ME strategically is as you say, the World is addicted to petro products.

That's one of the reasons why I have been a fan of a moon-shot sized program in the US to revamp our infrastructure and energy usage to wean ourselves off petro.
It reduces our need to protect and be involved in that historically volatile area.
With that need gone, we be better able to objectively identify our interests in the area.
I assume w/o a petro dependency, those interests would largely be humanitarian.

Despite variations in details from administration to administration, or expressed ideologies, our historical foreign policies have always been about regional stabilities. Of course, and I am sure you are quite aware, this has had everything to do with economics. We have slowly come to a time where our interests in the region no longer really matter. Cold War interests involved the oil and also denying the Soviet Union influence. But the contest of capitalism versus communism isn't in play anymore. And we don't need the oil so it is not specifically about us in regards to that.

It is difficult to pin down what our interests in the region are any more because our foreign policy, since Clinton, began to fuse ideology and realpolitik. Bush pushed ideology (with poor arguments) after 9/11. Obama introduced more of a "wait-and-see" policy and dealt with matters inconsistently. And Trump, in the absence of a policy, has merely maintained the "wait-and-see" policy with haphazardness an even more inconsistency. Along the way, oil to America became less and less a necessity. We almost just drifting along now and unsure about how to support the very allies in the region that are a part of the Islamist problem. So, we just "wait-and-see" and merely react. This makes us even more hypocritical to our expressed values than during the Cold War.

 

[MSgt]

I will ask you again.... Which countries are considered a "success" after the arab spring?

Alright, but this avoids the pesky details, implies half truths, and the processes currently taking place...

Tunisia: Success, it toppled a dictator and wrote a democratic/liberal constitution.
Libya: Success, it toppled a dictator and wrote a democratic/liberal constitution.
Egypt: Success, because it toppled a dictator and wrote democratic/liberal amendments to the existing constitution.
Yemen: Success, because it toppled a dictator, held a presidential election.

Jordan: Success, the King gave concessions by dissolving Parliament and appointed a member of the Prague Society for International Cooperation as the new Prime Minister.
Oman: Success, the Sultan dismissed minsters, offered economic concessions, and granted lawmaking powers to the elected legislature.
Bahrain: Success, the king offered economic concessions, negotiated with the Shia and release of political prisoners (not terrorists).
Kuwait: Success, parliament was dissolved.
Morocco: Success, the king offered sociopolitical concessions and held a referendum on constitutional reform.
Saudi Arabia: Success, the king offered economic concessions, held municipal elections (2011), and approved the female vote and to run for election (2015).

Other countries maintained a status quo. Now, these "successes" can be misleading if you take them simply. Dissolving parliament is an old tactic (trick) to kick the can down the road. These "successes" are only first steps in a region where one country affects another. Each step matters. Even Syria's civil war is a first step, not only for Syria but the region. Civil wars are a part of this process because factions are not only politically divided, but have chosen the Islamist ideology. And this ideology opposes the demands of the Arab Spring, which center around the philosophy of the Islamic modernists. Islamists have to be militants and this will not work if they are trying to convince the same population that they only torment anymore.

You cannot compare the arab spring to our revolution.

Oh yes I can. Despite the rhetoric of ideology, our "Revolution" was about economics. It was more a "War of Independence" than a "Revolutionary War." It opposed tyranny from afar. It also had to address those "Americans" who remained faithful to the Crown during the Revolution. And immediate "success" involved dealing with divisions and maintaining slavery in order accomplish unity. This would be dealt with as soon as the political Slave Power in the nation declined and 620,000 Americans gave their lives in civil war almost a century later.

We look at the MENA, a region not just a country, and see great socioeconomic and political injustice. We see where the foreign hand has been heavily involved in local governments for a couple hundred years. We see Islamic Revivalism develop in the late-nineteenth century as a philosophical attempt to bring the people together under Islam in order to oppose those foreign tyrants and to gain independence. Long after the Cold War, the U.S. continued its support even as Islamism grew within the population as that desperate answer.

But unlike what the U.S. experienced, we also see the local dictators in the MENA who have been agents of that foreign string pulling. Where we kicked the British hand out, Muslims have had to deal with foreign supported and powerful strongmen who maintained the "stability" we demanded as a price. Still we saw a wide sweeping movement at revolution where some tyrants were toppled and others made concessions to kick the can. But in none, did Islamism rise and create little Irans across the region as critics began to argue. This is their process.

 

[Dirt Sands]

Despite variations in details from administration to administration, or expressed ideologies, our historical foreign policies have always been about regional stabilities. Of course, and I am sure you are quite aware, this has had everything to do with economics. We have slowly come to a time where our interests in the region no longer really matter. Cold War interests involved the oil and also denying the Soviet Union influence. But the contest of capitalism versus communism isn't in play anymore. And we don't need the oil so it is not specifically about us in regards to that.

It is difficult to pin down what our interests in the region are any more because our foreign policy, since Clinton, began to fuse ideology and realpolitik. Bush pushed ideology (with poor arguments) after 9/11. Obama introduced more of a "wait-and-see" policy and dealt with matters inconsistently. And Trump, in the absence of a policy, has merely maintained the "wait-and-see" policy with haphazardness an even more inconsistency. Along the way, oil to America became less and less a necessity. We almost just drifting along now and unsure about how to support the very allies in the region that are a part of the Islamist problem. So, we just "wait-and-see" and merely react. This makes us even more hypocritical to our expressed values than during the Cold War.

I kind of agree. Our system of allies is changing. We seem to be using Saudi Arabia to engage in proxy wars on our behalf. Better them then us, I guess. The problem, along with Pakistan, is they hardly embrace democratic values or our Western ideals. They are fundamentally different than us.

Egypt is less of an ally now that they are letting Russia use their airfields. Russia's influence is expanding along with China's throughout the world.

Trump's got to pull it together. I hope he's better at foreign policy than golf.


Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk

 

[MSgt]

I kind of agree. Our system of allies is changing. We seem to be using Saudi Arabia to engage in proxy wars on our behalf. Better them then us, I guess. The problem, along with Pakistan, is they hardly embrace democratic values or our Western ideals. They are fundamentally different than us.

Very true. But the way I see it, countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are having to face the product they created. Much has been stated about how America created this problem because of its support for dictators. Often enough scholars, mostly journalists (like Stephen Kinzer), not historians, will use the CIA-led 1953 coup as a source. But this is an error because such blame removes responsibility from the region and those who are intimately responsible. The U.S. merely exacerbated a developing local problem.

- Islamic Modernists: Philosophers and academic scholars developed a theory that it was the weakened condition of Islam that had made the Muslim world so vulnerable and easily subjugated by the late nineteenth century. Instead of blaming the foreign powers, Islamic modernists from India, Iran, and Egypt agreed that the traditional ulema (religious scholars) was to blame because they, for centuries, had refused Sharia (Sacred Law) to grow as time advanced. They believed that since foreign colonial systems of economy and law were alien, Islam was necessary to unite Muslims against the Europeans. BUT, by reinterpreting the original sources to meet the demands of present day, they argued that Islam and Sharia was adaptable to democracy.

Doesn't sound so bad, right? They blamed themselves? They sought to harmonize Islam (as was done during the Golden Age) to today's systems of economy and governance? However, time continued. Europeans dug in deeper. Not only did they create a World War, in which countless Muslims died too, but Europeans actually carved up the Middle East in 1922 to try to comply with promises to local Muslim allies, thus creating Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Arabia.

- Islamists: With Rida (before WWI), but largely with al-Banna (after WWI), Islamists began to see that the "enlightened" Europeans were not so enlightened and their systems led to the deaths of almost 40 million people. And now they slashed borders across Middle East deserts? Islamists began to argue that only they could save themselves and that this meant only Islamic government. They agreed with the Modernists that some reinterpretation was necessary in order to embrace technology, philosophy, and education. But foreign systems only led to a World War. Between Rida and Qutb, all Islamist philosophers agreed that one of the purposes of creating an Islamic state was to counter the twentieth-century’s exponentially growing immorality. SO, Islamists began to argue that only Muhammad's fabled Islamic state could lead them out of subjugation and better the world.

Sound familiar? Europeans dug in deeper. Then came another, more devastating, World War. The people liked them for their social and educational programs that compensated for the local government's failures. Then came the creation of Israel. Along the way, Islamists were imprisoned, tortured, and executed for their political views and stresses upon local governments. This is why it is properly argued that Islamism was born in the Egyptian prisons. Then came the U.S. during the Cold War, which supported the strongman who would deny the Soviets. Then came an angry Qutb in 1964, who lashed out in his prison manifesto and used the U.S.' culture and dominance over the globe as an assault on Muslim society.

AND today we see the Arab Spring versus the so-called Islamic State. One pushed for socioeconomic justice, dignity, and democracy in a region-wide attempt to topple dictators. One pushed to punish Muslims in a bitter and violent display of Islamic perversion just so they could replace autocratic tyranny with religious tyranny. This represents that Islamic Modernist philosophy against the Islamist philosophy. If we are going to see this mess to the other side, we have to wake up and see this for what it is. Our foreign policy has to acknowledge what is actually going on countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and Egypt have to own the mess they created. But like the U.S., they are merely reacting.

Egypt is less of an ally now that they are letting Russia use their airfields. Russia's influence is expanding along with China's throughout the world.

This is because we largely lack a Foreign Policy. All of this "America First" junk and purposefully removing ourselves from world leadership just to thumb our noses at "Libruls" has pushed allies to seek other allies.