Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: AZRedhawk44 on January 27, 2011, 10:55:29 PM
-
Is this good for American interests (i.e. Increased "westernization" that is being opposed by the governing powers), or is this bad for American interests (i.e. Radical Islam gaining traction in a slumping economy), or none of the above?
-
Nobody knows. Obviously the Muslim Brotherhood is playing a role, and certainly our newspapers here have played them up, but I don't think anybody really knows, even the Egyptians themselves.
But! If you're interested I'm going to go out and get the weekend issue of Yedioth and see what they have to say.
-
I'm not sure. I will say that I believe the flaw in our assumptions in attempting to democratize countries is that the necessary social/political institutions and values will grow organically out of a democratic process. It's fundamental principles and that make western systems work. Without the principles the mechanics are irrelevant.
If the destabilization in Egypt brings down Mubarak, it isn't necessarily good for our interests and could result in another islamic fundamentalist regime, if that's what a plebiscite (honest or otherwise) demands. Iran 2.0.
ETA: democratize, dammit.
-
I, too, would like to know what the riots are about. The American press is noticeably silent on that wee little detail. They don't say why the population is dissatisfied with the current government or what triggered the rioting, nor what the rioters hope to accomplish.
I'm not sure. I will say that I believe the flaw in our assumptions in attempting to democrate countries is that the necessary social/political institutions and values will grow organically out of a democratic process. It's fundamental principles and that make western systems work. Without the principles the mechanics are irrelevant.
What's this got to do with Egypt? We did not try to democratize Eqypt, and Eqypt isn't democratic in any true sense.
-
We have a dilemma: dictators or radical Islamist populism. Both options are lousy. If there's an answer it would have been to try and promote "Reform Islam" decades ago, but it's probably way, way too late for that now.
-
Rising prices, unemployment, and mindblowing corruption are important issues to the Egyptians.
-
Rising prices, unemployment, and mindblowing corruption are important issues to the Egyptians.
Yeah, but why now? Poverty and corruption aren't exactly new in the middle east.
-
HTG:
I didn't say, or mean to imply, that we are involved in Egypt's politics, or that Egypt's current government was democratic. In looking at the situation through the prism of our national interest, per the OP, an anti-government movement, even a democratic one, isn't necessarily a good thing for us because the results may not conform to our expectations. Sorry if I was unclear.
SADShooter
-
So long as the illiteracy rate in the Muslim sphere is as staggeringly high as it is I don't see much hope for progress there.
-
Apparently the Islamic brotherhood is not really as involved as it'd like to be.
-
I think this is another case of deliberate "benign neglect." I believe in his heart Obama would love to see "populist" uprisings through the Muslim world, even if they end with Islamist autocracies after the democratic froth is gone. This is still the man with dreams from his father, and those dreams include global revolt by People of Color everywhere, regardless of what that means for the U.S.
-
This is a direct result of he successful Tunisian revolution. That's why now. A secular government is likely to result, and no democracy of any kind in he middle east will do anything other than prepare for war with Israel.
-
I'm not sure. I will say that I believe the flaw in our assumptions in attempting to democrate countries is that the necessary social/political institutions and values will grow organically out of a democratic process. It's fundamental principles and that make western systems work. Without the principles the mechanics are irrelevant.
Very true.
All this, "scratch a savage foreigner and fins an American underneath" self-delusion has to stop.
This is a direct result of he successful Tunisian revolution. That's why now. A secular government is likely to result, and no democracy of any kind in he middle east will do anything other than prepare for war with Israel.
Case in point: Turkey.
"If you want to join the EU you must democratize!" The result of such is a more thuggish & benighted Islamist regime.
-
Looks as if Mubarak is anointing his "Sejanus:" the head of their "CIA." I think we've seen this movie before...
-
All this, "scratch a savage foreigner and fins an American underneath" self-delusion has to stop.
much truth!!! we need rooster to be in foreign service!
Quote from: De Selby on Today at 06:08:28
This is a direct result of he successful Tunisian revolution. That's why now. A secular government is likely to result, and no democracy of any kind in he middle east will do anything other than prepare for war with Israel.
Case in point: Turkey.
"If you want to join the EU you must democratize!" The result of such is a more thuggish & benighted Islamist regime.
end times are nigh! rooster agrees with "de selby and i with the both of them
-
This is a direct result of he successful Tunisian revolution. That's why now. A secular government is likely to result, and no democracy of any kind in he middle east will do anything other than prepare for war with Israel.
It would be madness for Egypt to make war on Israel. I can see them trying if religious nutcases took over, but no sane secular government would.
I think what's of more concern is Egypt ending its cooperation in Israel in certain fields.
Me?
If I lived in Europe or Australia, I'd be perfectly fine with seeing a secular democracy rise in Egypt. Even an imperfect democracy, like the one enjoyed by the Indonesians, would be better than what they have now. Living where I live, I can afford at best to be cautiously optimistic.
-
Micro, it would be madness-today. You can bet that a democracy in Egypt, which will likely be secular, is going to work on its military capability against Israel.
Anymore in the wave of democracy, and israel is going to be gone inside of 50 years. There's no way it can survive without the cooperation it gets from the existing regimes.
-
This is a direct result of he successful Tunisian revolution. That's why now.
That does nothing to answer the question of "why now". Poverty, corruption, and dictatorship are nothing new in Tunisia, either. So what suddenly prompted the Tunisians to take to the streets?
-
That does nothing to answer the question of "why now". Poverty, corruption, and dictatorship are nothing new in Tunisia, either. So what suddenly prompted the Tunisians to take to the streets?
I'm actually surprised that you haven't heard the story of the young street vendor who burned himself there-a self immolation motivated people to hit the streets. The name Mohammed Bouazizi is quite famous all across the Arab speaking world now.
-
I don't recall any mention of an immolation in the American press.
As I said before, our local press has been pretty bad about reporting on these riots. When they report on it at all, their only interest seems to be trying to one up each other with the most dramatic pics and vids of rioters in action.
Charlie Sheen's most recent drug escapade got more and better press coverage yesterday than the revolution in Egypt.
-
As I said before, our local press has been pretty bad about reporting on these riots. When they report on it at all, their only interest seems to be trying to one up each other with the most dramatic pics and vids of rioters in action.
And that is why our media (mostly main stream media but also fringe elements of alternative media) is increasingly irrelevant.
-
Micro, it would be madness-today. You can bet that a democracy in Egypt, which will likely be secular, is going to work on its military capability against Israel.
Anymore in the wave of democracy, and israel is going to be gone inside of 50 years. There's no way it can survive without the cooperation it gets from the existing regimes.
Problem:
1. Military capability is a function of overall cultural health. A society capable of producing a Western-grade military would not be a modern Arab society.
2. There's no guarantee Egypt will still be wanting to fight Israel after 50 years of democracy.
-
I'm actually surprised that you haven't heard the story of the young street vendor who burned himself there-a self immolation motivated people to hit the streets. The name Mohammed Bouazizi is quite famous all across the Arab speaking world now.
It's a weird culture where people who set themselves on fire are considered awesome.
-
It's a weird culture where people who set themselves on fire are considered awesome.
Uh? Self-sacrifice is awesome throughout the world.
-
It's a weird culture where people who set themselves on fire are considered awesome.
couple monks in vietnam fomented as much more change than operation linebacker
-
"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."
-
Uh? Self-sacrifice is awesome throughout the world.
Self-sacrifice, yes - sacrificing yourself when it is necessary to do so. "I'll hold off the zombies, you make for the zeppelin without me." Or taking a bullet for somebody else, etc.
But self-immolation is like suicide by hunger strike. Unnecessary (it's not "you set yourself on fire or we kill everybody in town") and doesn't directly damage the people you're fighting against. If a cause is worth dying over, isn't it worth killing over, too? You douse the other guy with gasoline, and set him on fire.
S-I just doesn't make sense to me.
-
He did far more damage to the regime than any violence towards others could have. It's tough to argue with actual results, even if it makes no sense in theory
-
Self-sacrifice, yes - sacrificing yourself when it is necessary to do so. "I'll hold off the zombies, you make for the zeppelin without me." Or taking a bullet for somebody else, etc.
But self-immolation is like suicide by hunger strike. Unnecessary (it's not "you set yourself on fire or we kill everybody in town") and doesn't directly damage the people you're fighting against. If a cause is worth dying over, isn't it worth killing over, too? You douse the other guy with gasoline, and set him on fire.
S-I just doesn't make sense to me.
if you believed that you could foment needed change by
a) going to war killing many of your enemies as well as having many of your likeminded friends die
or
b) lighting yourself on fire to draw the attention of the world to the wrongs being done which is the better course?
add in being a Buddhist
your comment about it not making sense to you is symptomatic of the american failing in the east. we go at it expecting things there to make sense in a western context, and we plan/act accordingly. results in us getting our butt handed to us
find the film of the monks imolating themselves they don't move, they sit still as they cook. its spooky
-
The Moslem Brotherhood wants to retake the middle east and return to sharia law.
-
The Moslem Brotherhood wants to retake the middle east and return to sharia law.
They never had the middle east, and these revolutions are proof that religious radicals are far less influential than secular refomers
-
if you believed that you could foment needed change by
a) going to war killing many of your enemies as well as having many of your likeminded friends die
or
b) lighting yourself on fire to draw the attention of the world to the wrongs being done which is the better course?
A. The world's attention is drawn to all sorts of massacres and mayhem, and they rarely end up doing anything but issuing a mildly-worded denunciation of the crimes in question. And collecting donations. And chances are, the good guys will be killed by the evil government guys either way. So you take the initiative and show the course others should follow.
-
its interesting that you continue to press your imaginary scenario in the face of real life proven action that worked. have you seen the film? not still but the film?
-
its interesting that you continue to press your imaginary scenario in the face of real life proven action that worked. have you seen the film? not still but the film?
Yes.
And according to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-immolation
the practice is still ongoing in India, with no apparent success that I can determine, despite happening in higher numbers.
Setting oneself on fire is not an automatic win. It just kills you (if you're lucky). Sometimes it has major effects, sometimes nobody seems to care.
-
Self-immolation analysis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEKwU_B_n_M
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuSHA0OKEkc
i can't imagine how you hold still while you burn
13 of em did it
-
The thing about self immolation (or other suicidal protests) is it probably won't work, and when you're dead you can't actually do anything to help your cause. And the reports I've heard indicate that the Tunisian set himself on fire because he was frustrated over not being able to get a job? If that's accurate...
-
it won't work?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E37cMtCrKoA&NR=1
it helped greatly to change regimes in vietnam
-
I am watching CNN and wondering if we are seeing the birth of Iran 2.0, but in Egypt.
-
It's tough to argue with actual results, even if it makes no sense in theory
Ayup.
"Hey, don't you sully my theory with reality!"
your comment about it not making sense to you is symptomatic of the american failing in the east. we go at it expecting things there to make sense in a western context, and we plan/act accordingly. results in us getting our butt handed to us
find the film of the monks imolating themselves they don't move, they sit still as they cook. its spooky
This.
They. Ain't. Like. Us.
Spooky, yes.
-
The Tunisian dude, was it his intention to cause riots and revolution by setting himself on fire? Or was it just a random, unintended consequence, butterfly wings and hurricanes and whatnot?
All this talk about self-sacrifice and effectiveness seem to presume that the outcome the immolator accomplished was the outcome he desired or intended. But I wonder if this is actually the case.
-
All this talk about self-sacrifice and effectiveness seem to presume that the outcome the immolator accomplished was the outcome he desired or intended. But I wonder if this is actually the case.
True.
-
True.
one has to believe it will and have enough faith to give it a whirl.
the fact we are having this discussion might seem an indicator
-
Problem:
1. Military capability is a function of overall cultural health. A society capable of producing a Western-grade military would not be a modern Arab society.
2. There's no guarantee Egypt will still be wanting to fight Israel after 50 years of democracy.
For one, these revolutions are part of improving social health. At a minimum, they'll buy Russian. It's hard to predict what strategies they'll take, but they will improve their capabilities for sure.
There's really no imaginable scenario where an Arab democracy is happy with Israel existing as it does-now that Mubarak is clearly on his way out, I think it's probably safe to predict the demise of Israel as a Jewish state within our lifetimes.
-
I think it's probably safe to predict the demise of Israel as a Jewish state within our lifetimes.
I think the Israelis would be surprised to hear this.
-
I think the Israelis would be surprised to hear this.
You should read how nervous their government is about this in the press-but you are right that they will see it as a surprise. So did Mubarak and bin Ali. This is what happens when your foreign policy depends on dictatorships and force, rather than consensus.
-
Israel is a dictatorship?
-
Israel is a dictatorship?
No-israel's foreign policy depends on its neighbors being dictatorships. This is because it's policies of expansion and refusal to grant Palestinians equal rights or statehood have made it irretrievably sinister in the eyes of Arab populations. As a result, the only way it gets cooperation is through unpopular dictators.
It's probably too late for a change of course-there have been so many wars and bungled Mossad attacks in Arab countries that no democracy will countenance the existing government. The best case scenario is a binational state, which will end up largely identifying as Palestinian. Worst is an ugly pitched battle, the result of which will be a rise in antisemitism that makes the middle east uninhabitable for Europeans of Jewish heritage.
-
Oh, the media in Israel is always paranoid about something. This time it's about the MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD RISING TO SWALLOW US ALL. Even Yossi Beilin has caught the bug.
-
This is because it's policies of expansion and refusal to grant Palestinians equal rights or statehood have made it irretrievably sinister in the eyes of Arab populations.
Expansion? Let's see. They got the West Bank, Gaza and the Sinai after defeating Egypt, Syria and Jordan in the Six Day War (which kinda makes me question your "demise" statement, when they can defeat three countries at once), and have agreed to give 97% of the West Bank and Gaza land won in the 1967 war to the Palestinians. That agreement keeps getting rebuffed by Hamas in the form of rocket attacks.
I did a Google search for "Israel expansion" and the first page of results were from socialist websites. Funny how that works.
-
Expansion? Let's see. They got the West Bank, Gaza and the Sinai after defeating Egypt, Syria and Jordan in the Six Day War (which kinda makes me question your "demise" statement, when they can defeat three countries at once), and have agreed to give 97% of the West Bank and Gaza land won in the 1967 war to the Palestinians. That agreement keeps getting rebuffed by Hamas in the form of rocket attacks.
I did a Google search for "Israel expansion" and the first page of results were from socialist websites. Funny how that works.
Well, certainly they did not "agree to 97 percent for the Palestinians" - there's a new wikileaks type scandal with that. The released documents show the Israelis rejecting offers of pretty much every important territory by the Palestinians, and then saying "look, it's government policy to just keep building until its ours. You will have to live with it." The release of the documents basically destroyed the Palestinian Authority, because the concessions they were offering made them look so weak.
But apart from your version of the facts or mine, obviously the people who are engaging in these revolutions do not agree with you. Their perceptions matter for this purpose, and they are clearly of the opinion that Israel is an aggressive, expansionist state. They do not recognise any right of people to come to that land from Europe just because they're Jewish.
And yeah, the six day war is a good example of dictatorship fail. Jordan hardly counts - the Hashemites have relied on Israel since its inception. There would be no Jordanian monarchy but for Israel today. The rest of those nations were, to a t, badly managed dictatorships (with the possible exception of Egypt.) And Israel's greatest success was of course starting the war - by hitting first, they took out all air opposition. How do you think Arabs today view that?
Micro, it isn't the Muslim Brotherhood that is a threat. Islamism never was to Israel, which is why Israel has been more than happy to cooperate with Islamists, including Hamas (originally funded by Israel) and Saudi Arabia (maintains close ties with the Mossad). Islamism simply does not have enough mass appeal in the Arab world to motivate big changes.
The real threat is secular Arab reform. That kind of change will get the numbers and motivation to threaten the existence of the state.
-
And yeah, the six day war is a good example of dictatorship fail.
And Israel's greatest success was of course starting the war...
Once again my blue sky is your green sky.
Egypt kicked out the UN Emergency Force that had been guarding the Straits of Tiran and stationed Egyptian troops there, and closed the straits to Israeli shipping. Egypt then massed troops along Israel's border on the Sinai peninsula. Jordan allowed Iraqi troops to deploy against Israel along the Jordanian/Israeli border. Syria and Egypt signed a mutual defense agreement, bringing Syria into the fray.
Sure sounds like Israel started it to me. ;/
Winning a war isn't the same as starting it.
So, how again is Israel a dictatorship?
-
This is because it's policies of expansion and refusal to grant Palestinians equal rights or statehood self preservation, rejecton of Sharia law, rights for women, and religious tolerance have made it irretrievably sinister in the eyes of Arab populations nearby Isalamofascists.
FIFY.
. . . And Israel's greatest success was of course starting the war - by hitting first, they took out all air opposition. How do you think Arabs today view that?
The same way they view the Crusades and Reconquista - - by discounting consideration of things like the Moorish invasions of Europe that came first, because Islamic agression is ordained by Allah, and resistance by infidels is an abomination.
-
This is because it's policies of expansion and refusal to grant Palestinians equal rights or statehood
Hank:
As an inhabitant of Israel, I feel you misunderstand the situation in the Occupied Territories quite a bit.
Rights of women, rejection of Sharia? In Israel [though of course like every other nation in the region, we DO have Sharia courts], including Israeli-Arab women. Not in Palestine.
Now, IN NO WAY DO I JUSTIFY THE SORT OF THING PALESTINIAN TERRORISTS DO.
But. What would you do if England invaded America again, and ruled - for example! - that the I-95 Highway was closed off to Americans, and only Subjects of the Queen could travel on it? I bet you'd be taking your rifle out of the basement.
The Palestinians have legitimate grievances against Israel. There will never be peace until we address these in a calm manner.
-
The Palestinians have legitimate grievances against Israel. There will never be peace until we address these in a calm manner.
It appears to me that at least some of your leaders have tried to address the issue calmly, but the Palestinian leaders (Arafat, Hamas, etc) haven't bargained in good faith. Or am I wrong on that?
It just seems that you'll never have peace unless you can get a Palestinian leadership that will honor an agreement.
-
I'm not sure how what I wrote got interpreted as "Israel is a dictatorship". It obviously is not, although it's far from a liberal democracy as well.
-
I'm not sure how what I wrote got interpreted as "Israel is a dictatorship". It obviously is not, although it's far from a liberal democracy as well.
I guess I misinterpreted what you were saying.
Just out of curiousity, which countries in the world would you categorize as "liberal democracies"? Would the US count?
-
It appears to me that at least some of your leaders have tried to address the issue calmly, but the Palestinian leaders (Arafat, Hamas, etc) haven't bargained in good faith. Or am I wrong on that?
In a sense, yes.
Yes, the peace treaties have been violated - by all parties. But: to the extent that they have been observed, they've benefited ISrael greatly. Israel is safer today against terrorism than it ever was, in terms of how likely terrorist attacks are to succeed.
The current FATAH leadership is doing what appears to us to be a genuine effort to comply, and to root out Hamas operatives in their part of the Occupied Territories, Hamas and Islamic Jihad are being their usual selves. But right now, the issue with negotiations is not as much compliance but agreeing on the specifics.
If we could agree on a specific border line, pull out any settlements beyond that line, and build a solid concrete wall on it, then that would make Israel far safer from a military perspective than it has ever been in its history.
-
Here is a nifty map of Israeli settlements by decade:
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/fullMaps_Sa.nsf/luFullMap/E75C8388391FEB01852573E20076305A/$File/fmep_SET_pse080201.pdf
You can't deny expansion there... What is not diagrammed is the crisscross network of "Israeli only" highways that interconnect these settlements, roads which Palestinians cannot use or cross, which compound the problem: Palestinians can't move freely about in their "own" territory.
A "two state solution" looks rather bleak since pulling out all those settlements doesn't seem to be on Israel's short list at all... I mean, even if there was the will to do so, does any Israeli leader have the political capital to pull that off?
-
Any reason why the Jordanians or Syrians or Egyptians won't take the Palestinians? Could these countries have been directing all the hatred toward Israel to avoid having the Palestinians move into their countries?
-
Why should the Palestinians be made to abandon their homes in Gaza, Ramallah, Schem, Sodom? Because we want to live there?
-
Any reason why the Jordanians or Syrians or Egyptians won't take the Palestinians? Could these countries have been directing all the hatred toward Israel to avoid having the Palestinians move into their countries?
The Palestinians don't want to be expelled from their own country - they view that as ethnic cleansing, the project of expelling Arabs and leaving only Jews.
-
I guess I misinterpreted what you were saying.
Just out of curiousity, which countries in the world would you categorize as "liberal democracies"? Would the US count?
Yes the US would count, although it has extremely dangerous security state trends - I don't think anyone on APS would disagree that the "OMG Terror! I better imprison you without charge and search your kids' diapers" is out of hand.
Most of Western Europe are, Australia certainly is. Canada too, of course. I judge it based on freedom of speech, integrity of elections, and minimal intervention of the state into matters of private conscience. So those countries let you worship how you want, sleep with who you want to, do what you want in your home, etc, which in my mind makes them liberal democracies.
-
So those countries let you worship how you want, sleep with who you want to, do what you want in your home, etc, which in my mind makes them liberal democracies.
I haven't heard of any pagans or Hindus or dog worshipers being persecuted in the US, or gays being arrested, or anyone being arrested for lathering his/her partner with whipped cream in his/her home, or having a latex party. Have you?
The only behavior I've seen outlawed on your own property is smoking, but that's happened even in the "liberal democracies" that you mention.
-
The Palestinians have legitimate grievances against Israel. There will never be peace until we address these in a calm manner.
Israel's been around for six decades. Islam has been a problem for the West for 14 centuries. Israel is not the issue in the Middle East, the prospective global Caliphate is.
-
Yes the US would count, although it has extremely dangerous security state trends - I don't think anyone on APS would disagree that the "OMG Terror! I better imprison you without charge and search your kids' diapers" is out of hand.
Most of Western Europe are, Australia certainly is. Canada too, of course. I judge it based on freedom of speech, integrity of elections, and minimal intervention of the state into matters of private conscience. So those countries let you worship how you want, sleep with who you want to, do what you want in your home, etc, which in my mind makes them liberal democracies.
Off topic, but I find this to be a fascinating insight.
Conspicuously absent from your conception of free/liberal societies is any mention of access to weapons or self-defense.
You bring up terrorism responses as a negative descriptor, but make no mention of the ability to keep the product of your own labor.
-
or gays being arrested, or anyone being arrested for lathering his/her partner with whipped cream in his/her home, or having a latex party. Have you?
yes we've had court cases over it
-
Any modern executions?
-
They never had the middle east, and these revolutions are proof that religious radicals are far less influential than secular refomers
Sorry, "retake" was the wrong term.
Still from what I have read and seen the Moslem Brotherhood has had a strong presence in the civil unrest.
-
Yes the US would count, although it has extremely dangerous security state trends - I don't think anyone on APS would disagree that the "OMG Terror! I better imprison you without charge and search your kids' diapers" is out of hand.
Most of Western Europe are, Australia certainly is. Canada too, of course. I judge it based on freedom of speech, integrity of elections, and minimal intervention of the state into matters of private conscience. So those countries let you worship how you want, sleep with who you want to, do what you want in your home, etc, which in my mind makes them liberal democracies.
In my mind, this is actually a fairly narrow rating. It's almost like these people who cry out America is 'fascist' because they don't have quite all the freedoms they want.
I may disagree with the way Europe conducts things - in fact I think the EU is morally depraved and should fall - but it would be silly if I described America as the world's only free society. Equally I think it is wrong to describe Asian or Middle-Eastern democracies as failed just because they're not quite as shiny as a modern Western country.
I recommend a different descriptor: The Freedom House rating.
-
Off topic, but I find this to be a fascinating insight.
Conspicuously absent from your conception of free/liberal societies is any mention of access to weapons or self-defense.
You bring up terrorism responses as a negative descriptor, but make no mention of the ability to keep the product of your own labor.
Yes, that's because to make firearms and taxes primary would make a farce of any assessment- try to name a place you would want to live other than the US. You won't be able to find a credible alternative that has firearms rights to the same degree.
Monkeyleg, I was including the US in " these countries"
-
Yes, that's because to make firearms and taxes primary would make a farce of any assessment- try to name a place you would want to live other than the US. You won't be able to find a credible alternative that has firearms rights to the same degree.
De Selby is right here. America is the freest country in the world. If we defined "free" as "as free as America", everybody else would fail.
-
Yes, that's because to make firearms and taxes primary would make a farce of any assessment- try to name a place you would want to live other than the US. You won't be able to find a credible alternative that has firearms rights to the same degree.
You'd be hard pressed to find an alternative with the same respect for property, either, which is arguably a much bigger problem. If you don't own the product of your own labor, what are you?
And yet, the rest of the world still seems perfectly willing to call those places liberal democracies, and harp on the US over terrorism responses. As long as you can screw whoever and however you want then everything's cool, eh?
-
Technically, at least 8 countries have a freer economy than the United States.
http://www.heritage.org/Index/
-
You'd be hard pressed to find an alternative with the same respect for property, either, which is arguably a much bigger problem. If you don't own the product of your own labor, what are you?
And yet, the rest of the world still seems perfectly willing to call those places liberal democracies, and harp on the US over terrorism responses. As long as you can screw whoever and however you want then everything's cool, eh?
The ironic thing about this is that almost no one "owns the product of his labor" in a modern economy. The guy who builds a car rarely owns it and decides how it will be used or sold.
Wages are not products, obviously. But yes, being able to keep your wage is important, and the US is not special in this regard. It also has a higher risk than other free places of your money being reduced to nothing by unscrupulous financiers. The freedom to be fleeced by failing banks or dishonest investment houses is hardly a measure of property rights
-
Let me be the first to point out a country with no repressive taxes, lax firearms laws and the ability to keep the fruits of your own labor: Somalia.
-
Let me be the first to point out a country with no repressive taxes, lax firearms laws and the ability to keep the fruits of your own labor: Somalia.
Except for the taxes enforced by warlords. Somalia is not an anarchy and has never been one.
-
Let me be the first to point out a country with no repressive taxes, lax firearms laws and the ability to keep the fruits of your own labor: Somalia.
I always find it funny that, apart from economies that were already advanced, the communist satellites generally blow the competition out of the water. They had better education, better medicine, and better security than any of the third world countries that adopted free market policies in the 80s. But I guess all that pales in comparison to the economic freedoms enjoyed by Latin American peasants.
-
I always find it funny that, apart from economies that were already advanced, the communist satellites generally blow the competition out of the water. They had better education, better medicine, and better security than any of the third world countries that adopted free market policies in the 80s. But I guess all that pales in comparison to the economic freedoms enjoyed by Latin American peasants.
Better education? In what subject? Biology, with genetics being a pseudoscience, or electronics, where cybernetics was the corrupt whore of the bourgeois capital? History? What subject?
And which specific Communist satellites do you speak of?
-
Better education? In what subject? Biology, with genetics being a pseudoscience, or electronics, where cybernetics was the corrupt whore of the bourgeois capital? History? What subject?
And which specific Communist satellites do you speak of?
Better education across all subjects - literacy rates were higher, basic math, etc. I'm thinking of Bulgaria as an example. Compare that medieval place that developed under communist rule to similarly medieval countries that entered into "free market" systems.
-
Finally, some reasonable insight that is neither blatantly pro-western or pro-durkadurkaboom, and comments on how it all probably came to pass:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/the_story_of_the_egyptian_revo.html
Very interesting:
I do not aim to turn this into a personal story, but those people are my friends and family. It is a personal story to me. My neighbors were all stationed in my father-in-law's house with men on the roof to lookout for possible attackers. A friend of mine was shot at by a gang of thieves and another actually killed one of them to defend his house and wife. Another friend's brother arrested 37 thieves that day. The army's only role in all of this was to pass by each area to pick up the arrested thieves. Army officers informed the street committees that anyone with an illegal weapon should not worry and should use it. Any death of one of the thieves would not be punished.
I'm very enheartened by this turn of events, actually. It sounds like Egyptian youth learned about the freedom of communication and peaceable assembly to petition for redress of grievances.
The Muslim Brotherhood had a better-organized propaganda machine and piggybacked onto the protests, sparking violence. Much like the anarchist insurgents in the Seattle WTO protests that turned it into a riot.
The Egyptians don't want the MB to take over egyptian politics, and they started cleaning house in their own neighborhoods when trash came calling... and the Army supported those decisions. the Army will be in charge of Egypt for awhile, and they're not going to side with the MB.
I think that Egypt will be short-term hurt, but experience long-term gain from this turn of events.
-
never mind
-
the Army will be in charge of Egypt for awhile, and they're not going to side with the MB.
hope you are right but i think that presumes facts not in evidence
-
Better education across all subjects - literacy rates were higher, basic math, etc. I'm thinking of Bulgaria as an example. Compare that medieval place that developed under communist rule to similarly medieval countries that entered into "free market" systems.
The supremacy of a culture doesn't depend on how many B students you have; it depends on how many creative people you have in the top one-tenth of one per cent.
-
If the choice is China or Somalia, we'd all better find an island to hide on. ASAP.
-
Finally, some reasonable insight that is neither blatantly pro-western or pro-durkadurkaboom, and comments on how it all probably came to pass:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/the_story_of_the_egyptian_revo.html
Interesting, thank you.
It seems the immolation in Tunisia has nothing to do with it. Neither do the Muslim Brotherhood or El Baradei.
-
Interesting, thank you.
It seems the immolation in Tunisia has nothing to do with it. Neither do the Muslim Brotherhood or El Baradei.
No on one here-the tunisian revolution was the obvious spark.
How are the muslim brotherhood in any way connected to the violence, or " trying to take control"? All they've done so far is join the protesters who already numbered in the hundreds of thousands. Military rule is not necessary to keep them out of power; indeed, it's likely the military will rely on the brotherhood if it does take over.
-
The supremacy of a culture doesn't depend on how many B students you have; it depends on how many creative people you have in the top one-tenth of one per cent.
Nonsense.
Look at Russia. Piles of awesome inventors, creative artists, etc. Yet it consistently lacks the ability to mass-produce their awesome inventions. Sikorski, Koshkin, Kalashnikov, Dragunov, Margolin. And yet observe the state of Russian industry.
Geniuses are not enough. You need hundreds of thousands of B-average students and the ability to organize their effort right. It is that latter part in which the Socialists failed utterly.
-
Nonsense.
Look at Russia. Piles of awesome inventors, creative artists, etc. Yet it consistently lacks the ability to mass-produce their awesome inventions. Sikorski, Koshkin, Kalashnikov, Dragunov, Margolin. And yet observe the state of Russian industry.
Geniuses are not enough. You need hundreds of thousands of B-average students and the ability to organize their effort right. It is that latter part in which the Socialists failed utterly.
Uh-huh. You want to name some of the great innovations and innovators that have changed the world in recent times that have come out of Russia.
I realize this is a gun forum, but you'll have to do better than Kalashnikov, Dragunov, and Simonov.
My point is not that the general state of intelligence and competence and organization don't matter, it's that the game-changing and culture-changing science and technology originates with the highly superior and exceptional.
-
My point is not that the general state of intelligence and competence and organization don't matter, it's that the game-changing and culture-changing science and technology originates with the highly superior and exceptional.
No, you're wrong too. (I'm implying Micro is wrong as well.)
Geniuses will exist in every state of man. Genius is a given.
What doesn't exist is incentive to pursue that genius. A centrally planned economy will try to find those geniuses and exploit them for their own purposes. Because a centrally planned economy is incapable of having the knowledge as to those geniuses "best" use, they will be directed and encouraged to the preferred aims of the leaders of that society. (Which is why so many of the Russian geniuses were dealing with weapons.)
Geniuses in a free society are free to invent, think and fail on their own. Others will find ways to use their genius to supply a need or want in that society. As such, we'll get genius in areas not directed by the central authority, leading to advances in areas not even dreamed previously.
The answer isn't people organizing efforts towards production (we don't need even C or D students for that, we barely need literacy for that, and our factories in Asian countries will bear that out) nor is it having the smartest or the brightest. The smartest and the brightest will exist as a matter of random chance. What we need is freedom to pursue genius in whatever areas it exists.
What we everyone needs is less government interference.
-
Uh-huh. You want to name some of the great innovations and innovators that have changed the world in recent times that have come out of Russia.
I realize this is a gun forum, but you'll have to do better than Kalashnikov, Dragunov, and Simonov.
My point is not that the general state of intelligence and competence and organization don't matter, it's that the game-changing and culture-changing science and technology originates with the highly superior and exceptional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Russian_inventors
-
Any reason why the Jordanians or Syrians or Egyptians won't take the Palestinians? Could these countries have been directing all the hatred toward Israel to avoid having the Palestinians move into their countries?
They already have Palis in them that they have refused to settle and accept for decades. So much for Arab & Muslim hospitality.
The Palestinians don't want to be expelled from their own country - they view that as ethnic cleansing, the project of expelling Arabs and leaving only Jews.
OTOH, the Arabs are quite good at ethnically cleansing the Jews from majority Arab countries. Which Israel has accepted & settled.
The Palis are a despicable lot, about the most unsympathetic group on the planet, despite some real grievances. If it weren't for self-hating westerners, they would have been chewed up and spit out on the side of the road.
-
You should read how nervous their government is about this in the press-but you are right that they will see it as a surprise. So did Mubarak and bin Ali. This is what happens when your foreign policy depends on dictatorships and force, rather than consensus.
Truly, this is bilge water.
Who else was Israel (or anyone dealing with the ME) going to deal with? I seem to have missed all the middle eastern tolerant & liberal republics that ruled by the consent of the governed before the Jews came and ruined it all.
Dictatorship is what existed then, what exists now, and what will exist for the foreseeable future in the ME. The best that can be hoped for in the latest round of ME unrest is a slightly less repressive dictatorship. There is no tradition of tolerance and liberality in the ME and the benighted & hateful dirt-scrabbling rabble would no more know what to do with it than a swine would know what to do with a Blackberry.
"Consensus," indeed.
"Offering democracy to an Arab is like bringing a horse to a steakhouse."
----Jeff Cooper
-
I always find it funny that, apart from economies that were already advanced, the communist satellites generally blow the competition out of the water. They had better education, better medicine, and better security than any of the third world countries that adopted free market policies in the 80s. But I guess all that pales in comparison to the economic freedoms enjoyed by Latin American peasants.
Geeze Louise, what willful blindness is fostered in the academy!
Most communist satellites were European. The others you compare them to are African and majority Amerindian.
Here in America we have a vision of eastern Europe as a dark & backward place, even before the communists ground them down. But, that is relative to the West. A comparison of the development, cultural & human capital to Africa & latin America shows E Europe has a huge advantage.
-
i would add this to roosters post
the Arabs are quite good at ethnically cleansing the Jews the palestinians from majority Arab countries. other than to do menial labor
-
No, you're wrong too. (I'm implying Micro is wrong as well.)
Geniuses will exist in every state of man. Genius is a given.
What doesn't exist is incentive to pursue that genius. A centrally planned economy will try to find those geniuses and exploit them for their own purposes. Because a centrally planned economy is incapable of having the knowledge as to those geniuses "best" use, they will be directed and encouraged to the preferred aims of the leaders of that society. (Which is why so many of the Russian geniuses were dealing with weapons.)
Geniuses in a free society are free to invent, think and fail on their own. Others will find ways to use their genius to supply a need or want in that society. As such, we'll get genius in areas not directed by the central authority, leading to advances in areas not even dreamed previously.
The answer isn't people organizing efforts towards production (we don't need even C or D students for that, we barely need literacy for that, and our factories in Asian countries will bear that out) nor is it having the smartest or the brightest. The smartest and the brightest will exist as a matter of random chance. What we need is freedom to pursue genius in whatever areas it exists.
What we everyone needs is less government interference.
Of course, we need less government interference. But to believe that the smartest and brightest exist, as you say, as a matter of random choice is, frankly, absurd. If you look at the people who created, for example, the Industrial Revolution you will notice that those most responsible are from only a few cultures and are comparatively few in number.
-
Cassandra, I don't need to look at Wikipedia to find Russian inventors. I already know, from rumor, that the Russians invented everything. =D
-
"Offering democracy to an Arab is like bringing a horse to a steakhouse."
----Jeff Cooper
Did you see the link I posted in the other thread?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World_%28report%29
In the past 40 years, democracies have appeared in various places in the world where they wouldn't have been thought possible. There's even some in Africa. They may be crappy by the standard of Western Europe, but they're better than many things European history had known. There's no such thing as a nation of people incapable of, or undeserving of, freedom.
All men. Are endowed by their Creator.
-
Did you see the link I posted in the other thread?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World_%28report%29
In the past 40 years, democracies have appeared in various places in the world where they wouldn't have been thought possible. There's even some in Africa. They may be crappy by the standard of Western Europe, but they're better than many things European history had known. There's no such thing as a nation of people incapable of, or undeserving of, freedom.
All men. Are endowed by their Creator.
I saw the link.
It showed no arab countries as free.
Jeff Cooper's point stands.
-
So in your view, Africans can have freedom - Indonesian Muslims can have freedom - Latin Americans can have freedom - Germans can have freedom - and yet Arabs cannot?
What is magically wrong with Arabs that makes it impossible?
-
So in your view, Africans can have freedom - Indonesian Muslims can have freedom - Latin Americans can have freedom - Germans can have freedom - and yet Arabs cannot?
What is magically wrong with Arabs that makes it impossible?
Not so much that Arabs "cannot," I think he means Arabs "will not."
-
So in your view, Africans can have freedom - Indonesian Muslims can have freedom - Latin Americans can have freedom - Germans can have freedom - and yet Arabs cannot?
What is magically wrong with Arabs that makes it impossible?
Sorry for smudging your theory with grubby reality. I can be a right bastard that way.
Whether arabs can have freedom is an open question, because none of them have achieved it in the entire history of humanity.
Were I a betting man, I'd bet that there is some severe cultural defect that makes it a damnsite less likely for freedom to bloom in an Arab country than most anywhere else.
Also, I notice some of your examples have "freedom." In some cases that "freedom" involved "freedom for me, massacres and arson for Christians and pagans." Indonesian muslims being one such you tout as "having freedom." Somehow, I think Freedom House is grading on a curve.
-
Whether arabs can have freedom is an open question, because none of them have achieved it in the entire history of humanity.
Had an observer discussed this with relation to the French before about 1793, he could make the same observation.
Had an observer discussed this with relation to the Germans before about 1945, he could make - and indeed men made - the same observation.
And yet both nations now enjoy individual liberty.
Also, I notice some of your examples have "freedom." In some cases that "freedom" involved "freedom for me, massacres and arson for Christians and pagans." Indonesian muslims being one such you tout as "having freedom." Somehow, I think Freedom House is grading on a curve.
I dealt with that in my first post on the issue. Re-read it.
-
The cultural theory about Arabs is amusing, considering that the traditional method of Arab governance is an elected leader who holds consultation on all major decisions of state. There was no hereditary sovereignty, a disease which plagued Europe until the French revolution.
Another amusing feature of this conversation is that it displays an obvious and common hatred of all things Arab-culture, supports dictatorship to get them to do what we want, and denies that they have any rights...yet there are surely some here who think Arabs don't like America because of it's religion or freedom.
Did we stop to consider that maybe they hate us because we hate them, deny that they have any rights, claim their culture is trash, and on top of it give billions in aid to dictators that oppress them?
-
DS:
Please, stop your histrionics and straw-man building.
Neither the USA nor Israel existed during the traditional Arab fantasy-land epoch of happiness and light, consensual government and civil liberality.
During the existence of the USA & Israel, the arab countries have been variations on the tyrannical dictator theme. Were we supposed to create a time machine so we could go back to the fairy-land arab countries and deal with them rather than actual arab leaders of the 20th & 21st centuries?
It has nothing to do with supporting Arab dictatorship to stymie arab liberality movements, because such movements promising liberality never existed outside of the class rooms and dorm rooms of western universities. Every rival with any reasonable chance of overthrowing an arab dictator has produced yet another arab tyrant. There have been numerous overthrows of arab government, but little change in the nature of arab governance. Usually it boils down to some clan or tribe gaining supremacy over another. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Most folks in the West were blessedly ignorant of arab culture until the last few decades. It took arab savages murdering and blowing the crap out of folks to get the West to pay attention. The more one learns of arab culture, the less there is to admire and the more there is to despise, if one values a liberal order.
When the best educated arabs at their most prestigious universities toss teachers out of windows for blasphemy and go apey when another names a teddy bear after Mohamed, I'm thinking that the less-educated and less-refined arabs are not likely to be any more tolerant. These defenestrators, the cream of the arab crop, don't (for some crazy reason) inspire awe & admiration from civilized folk.
Yes, it must be our fault the arabs have such a bad reputation.
I dealt with that in my first post on the issue. Re-read it.
I read it the first time. Enough caveats to make the Freedom House designation almost meaningless. I do suspect FH was grading on a curve so that they cold get a country or two from every possible region, but the curve was so large for the arab countries that it did not pass the laugh test.
-
Yep. It's all Americas fault. I'm sure Bush helped too. Hell, it's probably Americas fault that Germany flexed it's might in 38.
-
I read it the first time. Enough caveats to make the Freedom House designation almost meaningless. I do suspect FH was grading on a curve so that they cold get a country or two from every possible region, but the curve was so large for the arab countries that it did not pass the laugh test.
Do you believe the US South in the 1960's was equally unfree as, say, Nazi Germany or modern Belarus?
-
http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/egypt-won-t-be-quick-to-give-muslim-brotherhood-a-chance-1.341210
Major opposition group has been largely absent from the uprising in Egypt, and it's unlikely to be leading the country anytime soon.
-
What T.E. Lawrence had to say on Arab culture:
""Arabs could be swung on an idea as on a cord; for the unpledged allegiance of their minds made them obedient servants. None of them would escape the bond till success had come, and with it responsibility and duty and engagements. Then the idea was gone and the work ended--in ruins.
"Without a creed they could be taken to the four corners of the world (but not to heaven) by being shown the riches of earth and the pleasures of it; but if on the road, led in this fashion, they met the prophet of an idea, who had nowhere to lay his head and who depended for his food on charity or birds, then they would all leave their wealth for his inspiration.
"They were incorrigibly children of the idea, feckless and colour-blind, to whom body and spirit were for ever and inevitably opposed. Their mind was strange and dark, full of depressions and exaltations, lacking in rule, but with more of ardour and more fertile in belief than any other in the world. They were a people of starts, for whom the abstract was the strongest motive, the process of infinite courage and variety, and the end nothing.
"They were as unstable as water, and like water would perhaps finally prevail. Since the dawn of life, in successive waves they had been dashing themselves against the coasts of flesh. Each wave was broken, but, like the sea, wore away ever so little of the granite on which it failed, and some day, ages yet, might roll unchecked over the place where the material world had been, and God would move upon the face of those waters. One such wave (and not the least) I raised and rolled before the breath of an idea, till it reached its crest, and toppled over and fell at Damascus. The wash of that wave, thrown back by the resistance of vested things, will provide the matter of the following wave, when in fullness of time the sea shall be raised once more."
-
THIS same lawrence?
During the closing years of the war he sought, with mixed success, to convince his superiors in the British government that Arab independence was in their interests. The secret Sykes-Picot Agreement between France and Britain contradicted the promises of independence he had made to the Arabs and frustrated his work.[14]
# ^ Rory Stewart (presenter). (23 January 2010). The Legacy of Lawrence of Arabia. BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00qgtjk/The_Legacy_of_Lawrence_of_Arabia_Episode_2/.
-
Perhaps the man was a "romantic?" But, yes, the same.
-
Democracy is just one more tool.
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2011/02/democracy-of-cannibals.html
-
Democracy is just one more tool.
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2011/02/democracy-of-cannibals.html
One vote.
Once.
<Followed by the usual savagery we have come to expect.>
-
This fellow voices something close to my position on the current fracas and arab politics in general:
http://radio.nationalreview.com/radioderb/post/?q=Njk2YjBkOTAxMmI0MWE2NzI3NTJjNjRiOTg4NmY2MzE=
Starts at 1:15 & goes to 7:30.
-
Back to the top, and I'm guessing that Mubarak has...
(a) a very tenuous grasp on reality
and
(b) a death wish
Seriously. What part of "it's over, and you really need to go see if your money is in the Caymans" doesn't he understand? Didn't he take "Despotic Dictator 101?"
-
Given he's >80 and apparantly has cancer I suspect he doesn't think he really has much to lose, so he is making a "last stand."
-
I read somewhere that he was worth 70 million (or was it billion?). Either way, I don't know why he's sticking around. That kind of money buys a lot of hookers and coke.
-
Because the best high and best orgasm is power.
-
Because he can't be sure his replacement doesn't track him down and shoot him in the head. Think of Suha Arafat.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110210/ap_on_re_us/us_egypt_mubarak_3 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110210/ap_on_re_us/us_egypt_mubarak_3)
WASHINGTON – CIA Director Leon Panetta says U.S. intelligence indicates that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is on his way out.
TRANSLATION: Mubarak will be President for Life..... :facepalm:
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110210/ap_on_re_us/us_egypt_mubarak_3 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110210/ap_on_re_us/us_egypt_mubarak_3)
TRANSLATION: Mubarak will be President for Life..... :facepalm:
Of course at his age that could still be a pretty near term event.
I've been wondering if we are going to see a Tianamen Square type event in Eqypt?
For the pups-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989)
-
I think we're more likely to see a repeat of 1789 than 1989 if this keeps up- the rank and file are not sufficiently organized to massacre a protest this tenacious to death. It has way, way too much popular support, and has managed to focus on getting Mubarak out and having elections, rather than being focused on substantive political agendas. It probably cannot be split for that reason.
Most likely, Israel and the US have demanded that Mubarak stay until suleiman can organize a viable dictatorship of his own. There's no other way to preserve the peace treaty, and the gulf regimes are starting to wobble. If they go you can expect WWIII
-
Most likely, Israel and the US have demanded that Mubarak stay until suleiman can organize a viable dictatorship of his own.
Of course the US would want a dictatorship. Wanting a democracy would be, like, so Bush.
-
I think we're more likely to see a repeat of 1789 than 1989 if this keeps up- the rank and file are not sufficiently organized to massacre a protest this tenacious to death. It has way, way too much popular support, and has managed to focus on getting Mubarak out and having elections, rather than being focused on substantive political agendas. It probably cannot be split for that reason.
Let me be clear.
Do you feel that Israel cannot exist unless the populations of Syria, Egypt, and several other countries - at the very least, 100 million people - are suppressed in dictatorships, and that should there be fair elections in these countries, loathsome dirtbags would come to power that would proceed to prepare for another war?
Is it effectively your argument?
-
I see it as a possibility. Not so much that they need to be represses/surpressed by a dictatorship but if a radical enough leadership takes control of enough of Isreals historic enemies an attack is a possibility
Not saying that the IDF isn't a very capable, top notch military machine but if it came down to pretty much the muslim middle east against Isreal it could be pretty ugly.
And, with the current seat warmer in the Oval Office I would be surprised if the US offered anything more than a luke warm protest against any offensive acts against Isreal.
-
RKL,
I think the fact that the Israelis vehemently deny that they have nukes and aren't afraid to use them to turn several, if not all Arab et al, capitals and large cities into glass parking lots, have done more to stay the hand of the Arab nations arrayed against Israel.
Sadat and Egypt made peace with Israel for piles of US Cash.
Jordan did it for money as well, trade and piles of US Cash.
The former Iraq, and the rest of the Arabian peninsula now just make anti-Israel noises to keep the screaming beards happy. Lots o' business being done on the QT between them.
Syria lives in fear becoming the largest and nearest glass parking lot.
Iran is run by the screaming beards, hence their whole "peaceful" nuclear project, which if their allowed to complete will produce a butcher's bill like the world has never seen.
History has shown that liberal democracy's tend not to attack one another.
-
Let me be clear.
Do you feel that Israel cannot exist unless the populations of Syria, Egypt, and several other countries - at the very least, 100 million people - are suppressed in dictatorships, and that should there be fair elections in these countries, loathsome dirtbags would come to power that would proceed to prepare for another war?
Is it effectively your argument?
Yes - that is exactly my argument. The populations of these countries do not accept; rather, they vehemently reject the idea that there can be a state for mainly Europeans and Russians in the middle east based solely on their religious identity; they view Israel as a colony of Europeans created by European powers, not as an organic entity that grew up in the middle east.
In any middle east where democracy is the order of the day, there will not be a single population that votes in favour of Israel or that votes even to be neutral to its existence. It is a national idea that is rejected by the entire population that surrounds it and that lived within its borders before its establishment.
-
We could call that ignorant tribalism, but let's just call it racial and ethnic bigotry and get it over with.
Without the Americans and British where would the Middle East be today?
Egypt can't live off the Pyramids forever, especially if they don't much like "foreign" tourists.
All of what's going on now can only end one way, and I hope the death-impulse embedded so deeply in Muslim culture doesn't prevail.
-
Yes - that is exactly my argument. The populations of these countries do not accept; rather, they vehemently reject the idea that there can be a state for mainly Europeans and Russians in the middle east based solely on their religious identity; they view Israel as a colony of Europeans created by European powers, not as an organic entity that grew up in the middle east.
Forgetting entiletly the fact that Zionism is based on the ethnic-national idea of Jews, not the religious idea mainly -
If what you believed were true, then Israel would not would deserve to exist. Even if it ceded every yard of the Occupied territories to the Palestinians (as I do believe it shoul), Israel would not deserve to exist if the cost of its existence were the perrenial enslavement of a 100 million people.
-
Forgetting entiletly the fact that Zionism is based on the ethnic-national idea of Jews, not the religious idea mainly -
If what you believed were true, then Israel would not would deserve to exist. Even if it ceded every yard of the Occupied territories to the Palestinians (as I do believe it shoul), Israel would not deserve to exist if the cost of its existence were the perrenial enslavement of a 100 million people.
Oh, horse manure.
If those 100 million people are a bunch of hateful, sand-poundingly ignorant homicidally-bent ethnic bigots, I think keeping such brutes in check by one of their own who is even more brutish is a solution. So is beating them soundly on the field of battle and humiliating their democratically elected leaders.
If Israel were magically transported to the 1930s US South, we wouldn't make excuses for the majority's bigotry & hostility. "If it requires Federal troops to keep them in check and Federal judges to take over their school systems, black children do not deserve to exist." Yeah, that pig's gonna fly.
-
If the only thing these despots were violating was the right of screaming beards to be machinegunned en masse by the IDF, that wouldn't be a problem. That has never been the case.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3UMRy.jpg&hash=2541d6d81b4ecc40665eae9a2fd1f7260fa98a5c)
-
Forgetting entiletly the fact that Zionism is based on the ethnic-national idea of Jews, not the religious idea mainly -
If what you believed were true, then Israel would not would deserve to exist. Even if it ceded every yard of the Occupied territories to the Palestinians (as I do believe it shoul), Israel would not deserve to exist if the cost of its existence were the perrenial enslavement of a 100 million people.
I don't think deserve has anything to do with it - no state deserves anything; it's an administrative unit that has value only insofar as it protects the rights of individuals.
The present condition is not inherently necessary in Israel's existence; it's been your leaders' foreign policy choices since 1948 that made it this way. Instead of compromise and integration, they chose expansion and aggressive deterrence. The result is that yes, Israel absolutely cannot exist without dictatorship in all of its neighbours. It is too unpopular at this stage to do anything else.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3UMRy.jpg&hash=2541d6d81b4ecc40665eae9a2fd1f7260fa98a5c)
If Jon Lovitz was Egyptian....
-
Oh, horse manure.
If those 100 million people are a bunch of hateful, sand-poundingly ignorant homicidally-bent ethnic bigots, I think keeping such brutes in check by one of their own who is even more brutish is a solution. So is beating them soundly on the field of battle and humiliating their democratically elected leaders.
If Israel were magically transported to the 1930s US South, we wouldn't make excuses for the majority's bigotry & hostility. "If it requires Federal troops to keep them in check and Federal judges to take over their school systems, black children do not deserve to exist." Yeah, that pig's gonna fly.
Yeah the problem is that the analogy doesn't even remotely fit - Arab opposition has more to do with immigration and decision making from Europe by Europeans in the age of anti-colonialism than it does with race or religion.
-
....... Instead of compromise and integration, they chose expansion and aggressive deterrence. The result is that yes, Israel absolutely cannot exist without dictatorship in all of its neighbours. It is too unpopular at this stage to do anything else.
"Compromise and integration?" [tinfoil] [tinfoil] Israel is surrounded by neighbors who, after she was established, promptly attacked her and tried to destroy her, multiple times.
You think they can "integrate" with them in that situation? :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
I'd choose "aggressive deterence" in that condition too -- you'd be insane not to if you wanted to survive.
You do live on the planet Earth ....... right? [tinfoil] [popcorn]
-
"Compromise and integration?" [tinfoil] [tinfoil] Israel is surrounded by neighbors who, after she was established, promptly attacked her and tried to destroy her, multiple times.
You think they can "integrate" with them in that situation? :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
I'd choose "aggressive deterence" in that condition too -- you'd be insane not to if you wanted to survive.
You do live on the planet Earth ....... right? [tinfoil] [popcorn]
Well, you can believe that if you want to, but look at where Israel is at now - Mubarak going down is literally the end of that state. And when they're forced to make arrangements, you can be sure that those arrangements will be on the most unfavourable terms possible.
In 50 years time, mark my words, no one will be calling the former Israel's policies since 48 smart.
-
It's established history. Find a history book and read it.
-
Well, you can believe that if you want to, but look at where Israel is at now - Mubarak going down is literally the end of that state. And when they're forced to make arrangements, you can be sure that those arrangements will be on the most unfavourable terms possible.
In 50 years time, mark my words, no one will be calling the former Israel's policies since 48 smart.
Everyone in the world--including everyone in Egypt--is wondering what's going to happen in the next few months in that country, and in the next few years in the region. Since you seem to be the only one who knows the future, I think you owe it to the world to at least give the president a call.
-
I do not, of course, think De Selby is correct. I think that -if the Egyptians proceed to develop a democracy, their people will proceed to NOT wage a war on us.
-
Exactly.
As history as shown, liberal (in the classical sense) democracies tend NOT to wage war on each other.
Liberal democracies do not vote to go to war, unless attacked.
-
My fear is that any new democracy will last only long enough for the people to vote the "screaming beard" types into power. After that, Egypt will be a democracy only in a theoretical sense. Then, all bets will be off and Israel will be in real trouble.
-
Yes - that is exactly my argument. The populations of these countries do not accept; rather, they vehemently reject the idea that there can be a state for mainly Europeans and Russians in the middle east based solely on their religious identity; they view Israel as a colony of Europeans created by European powers, not as an organic entity that grew up in the middle east.
In any middle east where democracy is the order of the day, there will not be a single population that votes in favour of Israel or that votes even to be neutral to its existence. It is a national idea that is rejected by the entire population that surrounds it and that lived within its borders before its establishment.
Wow. Here's an example of someone who takes Helen Thomas seriously. I mean, I knew theoretically that they existed, but to read it firsthand is impressive.
-
Wow. Here's an example of someone who takes Helen Thomas seriously. I mean, I knew theoretically that they existed, but to read it firsthand is impressive.
Why? Helen Thomas (and De Selby) just give voice to the anti-semitism that most on the far left believe in, but don't talk about.
-
In 50 years time, mark my words, no one will be calling the former Israel's policies since 48 smart.
I'll take that bet and raise you, predicated on a worst case scenario: In 50 years, mark my words, people will be wondering what that thing called Islam was.
If you believe that Israel is going to go extinct without exacting Biblical-level revenge, you have been doing too many dervish-twirls.
-
Why? Helen Thomas (and De Selby) just give voice to the anti-semitism that most on the far left believe in, but don't talk about.
Please explain how it's anti-semitic to point out that most Arabs do not accept the legitimacy of Israel, and wouldn't, given the chance, vote for governments that support it. I think that's a relatively well established fact, supported more so by the daily anti-Israel chants in Egypt.
-
Please point out to me a post of yours that has anything charitable to say about Israel.
-
Please point out to me a post of yours that has anything charitable to say about Israel.
What does that have to do with this? I oppose Israeli policies and have stated repeatedly on this board that a negotiated solution with the Palestinians (like what Micro alludes to in this very thread) would be the best case scenario.
Unfortunately, these revolutions are a sign that the moment for such a solution is long gone. This is the result of Israel adopting policies like the ones that get supported here all the time - beat the Arabs into submission and they'll leave it alone. Wrong. Now we'll have to contend with the results of 60 years of policy based entirely on force.
What specific form the new governments will take is certainly in doubt; what is not in doubt is that no government will rise to power in Arab democratic country that supports peace and cooperation with Israel.
-
We come back to one inescapable fact: what's wrong with Muslim societies in the Middle East (and everywhere) is not the fault, even remotely, of Israel. Muslims want to blame Israel and the Jews for what's wrong with their own cultures. Were Israel to disappear tomorrow, the Middle East would remain the victim of its own ways and beliefs.
-
I do not, of course, think De Selby is correct. I think that -if the Egyptians proceed to develop a democracy, their people will proceed to NOT wage a war on us.
I'm no expert but I have stayed on a floating Holiday Inn that transited the Suez more than a few times. Christ, they have almost finished clearing all the wreckage out of the ditch since their last war. A democratic Egypt would probably lynch whoever decided to start the next one.
-
We come back to one inescapable fact: what's wrong with Muslim societies in the Middle East (and everywhere) is not the fault, even remotely, of Israel. Muslims want to blame Israel and the Jews for what's wrong with their own cultures. Were Israel to disappear tomorrow, the Middle East would remain the victim of its own ways and beliefs.
\
I'm not sure why you decided to restate that.
-
I'm no expert but I have stayed on a floating Holiday Inn that transited the Suez more than a few times. Christ, they have almost finished clearing all the wreckage out of the ditch since their last war. A democratic Egypt would probably lynch whoever decided to start the next one.
This.
The Egyptian military is not the least bit interested in attacking Israel again.
I have trained, drank, and broke bread with a bunch of Egyptian's, some of which were pretty high ranking. NONE of them want to go try Israel. If a screaming beard did manage to seize control (something that is by no means assured) they would have a difficult time finding officers to lead that attack, screaming students in the streets notwithstanding.
I also disagree with De Selby's main point that the mid-east's troubles are the result of Israeli aggression. The issue with the mid-east as a whole is that modern Muslim governments have shown little desire to live in peace with their neighbors, or the world.
-
I think I finally understand where De Selby's train of thought is running, although I don't think he's on the right track. (Ok, enough with the train metaphors).
I believe he's saying that the people in the ME are anti-Israel, and the only thing that's kept Israel from being attacked more than it has been is dictatorial governments in the rest of the ME countries. Do I have that right, De Selby?
If so, here's where that line of thought falls apart. The governments or parties most openly hostile to Israel have been largely the ones run by dictators or dictatorial parties: Iran, Hamas, Syria, etc.
Individuals on extremes of an issue are usually in the minority. The majority of people tend to gravitate to the middle on an issue, and many don't care. This is true of Second Amendment issues, abortion, civil rights, what have you.
It would follow that a democratically-elected government, acting on the will of the people, would probably tend to be more moderate on Israel policy than would a government run by someone like Ahmadinejad.
Egypt has been fairly benign toward Isreal under Mubarak, but that's a result of the '67 war, and the military not wanting a repeat of that. A group like the Muslim Brotherhood would likely not be a representative government, but would be more like Hamas, a group that used violence to win its election.
-
Monkeyleg, that is my point - the dictatorships that Israel has actively supported (in one case it actually saved the royalty in Jordan) are the only reason it has been able to get cooperation on security.
You point to Iran, Hamas, and Syria without highlighting one crucial factor - those entities, while far from freedom-loving, are miles ahead of places like Mubarak's Egypt in terms of political rights and representing their populations. They are significantly more popular, which is why they aren't threatened with mass waves of protest like the rest of the middle east. One thing, for example, many forget about Iran is that equally large numbers of people turned out (unpaid, significantly) to support the regime as to oppose it.
The torture and repression bill for Iran and Syria to remain in power has, on the whole, been far lower from year to year than in any of the Israel-allied (Jordan, Tunisia, Egypt) or Israel-neutral (Saudi, UAE, Yemen, the gulf monarchies generally).
Ahmadinejad and his nuclear program consistently poll so far ahead of Israel and the gulf leaders it's almost a joke - on the numbers at least, that guy more represents the Arab public than any of the Arab leaders (except Hassan Nasrallah, who is easily the most popular Arab politician in the world.)
The angry anti-Israel chants in both of the revolutions so far are further evidence to support this view.
-
The torture and repression bill for Iran and Syria to remain in power has, on the whole, been far lower from year to year than in any of the Israel-allied (Jordan, Tunisia, Egypt) or Israel-neutral (Saudi, UAE, Yemen, the gulf monarchies generally).
I call bullhockey on most of that due to the excessive bullhockey content.
-
They are significantly more popular, which is why they aren't threatened with mass waves of protest like the rest of the middle east. One thing, for example, many forget about Iran is that equally large numbers of people turned out (unpaid, significantly) to support the regime as to oppose it.
Oh, yeah. I imagine the Iranian government is really beloved, which is why they killed dozens (according to some sources hundreds) of the protestors, and injured thousands.
Please don't let Obama hear that killing protestors is a way to gain popularity.
-
Yes the US would count, although it has extremely dangerous security state trends - I don't think anyone on APS would disagree that the "OMG Terror! I better imprison you without charge and search your kids' diapers" is out of hand.
Most of Western Europe are, Australia certainly is. Canada too, of course. I judge it based on freedom of speech, integrity of elections, and minimal intervention of the state into matters of private conscience. So those countries let you worship how you want, sleep with who you want to, do what you want in your home, etc, which in my mind makes them liberal democracies.
I'll point out that Canada has jailed at least one pastor for "hate speech" after pointing out that the Bible expresses condemnation of homosexuality.
-
Oh, yeah. I imagine the Iranian government is really beloved, which is why they killed dozens (according to some sources hundreds) of the protestors, and injured thousands.
Please don't let Obama hear that killing protestors is a way to gain popularity.
Who is saying Iran is loved? What I am saying, and what the evidence supports, is that it has far more support from it's people than any of the gulf states. That's likely the product of the fact that Iran actually has elections, even if the elected officials aren't the supreme power.
This is more a comment in just how bad the gulf dictatorships are, that their people look with admiration on Iran.
-
...what the evidence supports...
I always like seeing evidence. Can you show it to me?
-
Are you actually arguing that Iran's elections accurately represent the will of the people?
:shakes head.
Also, I don't think that's correct at all. There's several MidEast countries where the government enjoys the support of the people. Kuwait for instance.
-
I always like seeing evidence. Can you show it to me?
Sure.
First off, there's no way to compare Gulf and Jordanian presidential elections to Iran - that's because they don't have them, and Iran does.
Hamas, incidentally, was elected.
I hope those facts aren't in dispute; if they are I'll drudge up some articles.
Public opinion in Arab countries has about 57 percent of the population saying that a nuclear armed Iran would improve their region: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2010/08_arab_opinion_poll_telhami/08_arab_opinion_poll_telhami.pdf (http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2010/08_arab_opinion_poll_telhami/08_arab_opinion_poll_telhami.pdf)
The same poll lists the public as identifying, by a margin of 88 percent, Israel as an enemy. 9 Percent of Arabs think Iran is an enemy.
The top three leaders admired outside of each Arab country? Recep Erdogan, Hugo Chavez, and Hassan Nasrallah.
Of course, you don't need the statistics to see the obvious, which is that Egypt and Tunisia are gone, Jordan is particularly uneasy, and the Gulf states are in over-drive trying to cut off protests at the knees.
The states most likely to survive the wave of protests are Syria and Iran. I don't think any serious analyst of the situation would deny that, even though they will both face some protest (and both should.) The reason is that they have much stronger popular support, and can field supporters of their regimes in response....the Arab states besides Syria have zero support, because they rely on gun-barrel governance at the hands of folks like the UAE royal who tortures people on video for fun (and gets acquitted of it in his own courts.)
Further evidence of the brutality, btw, is in the protest deaths...
Iran protest killings from today's protests: 1
Egyptian killings from its protests: 300.
Dogmush,
Iranian elections aren't exactly free and open, but they aren't meaningless either - the population actually gets to choose from a range of opinions. It's a whole lot better than say, Saudi Arabia, where you get no choice whatsoever.
Kuwait commands so much loyalty from its people that they ran, arms loaded with watches and money, as fast as they could from Saddam rather than stand and fight for the royals. Kuwait's government would last about five days if the protest-lid cracks there.
Try to analyze it this way - if you were a random Arab guy and your personal freedoms were your main concern, which Arab state, or Iran, would you choose to live in?
-
Iran protest killings from today's protests: 1
Egyptian killings from its protests: 300.
Remember the Egyptians reached that number over several days. To compare them in this way is a fallacy.
-
Remember the Egyptians reached that number over several days. To compare them in this way is a fallacy.
While that's true, even the Iranian 09/10 election crackdown did not kill as many over a longer period. And there were investigations and charges afterwards for some of the killers.
Iran and Syria are not great, freedom-loving places by any stretch of the imagination. They oppress their people and do not govern only by consent. Still, they're so far ahead of the medieval basketcase that is Saudi Arabia (and all of its allies) that they are honestly the most stable regimes in the region. They will be the last to go, if they go at all (and I hope they will - I believe in democracy everywhere.)
-
Syria: So amazingly popular, 17,000 people had to be murdered for the regime to continue.
In other terms, Syria killed more Arabs in one day than Israel had from 1982 to 2010, combined, in Lebanon, Israel, and Palestine.
Alternatively for scale, the amount of Arabs murdered by the Syrian government on that day is double the casualties of all Arab countries in the Yom Kippur War.
-
Syria: So amazingly popular, 17,000 people had to be murdered for the regime to continue.
In other terms, Syria killed more Arabs in one day than Israel had from 1982 to 2010, combined, in Lebanon, Israel, and Palestine.
Alternatively for scale, the amount of Arabs murdered by the Syrian government on that day is double the casualties of all Arab countries in the Yom Kippur War.
Yes it did - before facebook and twitter, when people could organise to respond to these sorts of things. Syria is a different country today, and Bashar is a different leader.
Iran would've off'd lots during the post 79 chaos as well. Guess what? Those days are history - we're dealing with a reality of relatively stable countries today.
-
If it's "stability" you value most, you'll find a lot of that in the annals of despotism.
The key issue isn't democracy or autocracy, it's protection of individual and minority rights. Judged on that basis, you're looking at a void.
-
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/Iranian-Lawmakers-Demand-Death-Penalty-for-Opposition-Leaders-116216749.html
http://news.oneindia.in/2011/02/03/atleast-66-execution-in-irans-death-penalty-in-januaryu-aid0127.html
Just a quick google search reveals the on going peace and love and freedom in Iran.
-
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/Iranian-Lawmakers-Demand-Death-Penalty-for-Opposition-Leaders-116216749.html
http://news.oneindia.in/2011/02/03/atleast-66-execution-in-irans-death-penalty-in-januaryu-aid0127.html
Just a quick google search reveals the on going peace and love and freedom in Iran.
Yeah, yeah, but most people have learned to keep their heads down so they aren't killing as many people as before. ERGO, it must be a just state!
-
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/Iranian-Lawmakers-Demand-Death-Penalty-for-Opposition-Leaders-116216749.html
http://news.oneindia.in/2011/02/03/atleast-66-execution-in-irans-death-penalty-in-januaryu-aid0127.html
Just a quick google search reveals the on going peace and love and freedom in Iran.
Who on this thread is saying Iran is a just state? I don't see that proposition put forth anywhere.
-
CBS News Chief Foreign Correspondent Separated From Her Crew And Brutally Assaulted on Day Mubarak Stepped Down
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/02/15/60minutes/main20032070.shtml?tag=exclsv
Depose a dictator and rape an infidel.
Yay for the new & improved rapists in Egypt!
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/312107.php
Makes sense. Depose a tyrant, why not top it off with a rape of the infidel?...
...goddamn if I am not weary of a barbaric desert nomad culture of rape and outrage while carrying around a ton of chip-on-the-shoulder arrogance-hiding-profound-insecurity about it all.
Oh right, a thousand years ago they invented algebra. So, like, they should keep doing victory laps over that.
-
Why are we tarring all Egyptians with the same brush? After all, other Egyptians intervened like good Samaritans and protected this woman. Can I call them a culture of rapist-stoppers too?
-
http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2011/02/logan-assaulted-by-goons-yelling-jew.html
It turns out that they thought she was a Jew whore/spy, so that makes it all OK.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuImyhB-Qmg
This man provides a wise summary of the events so far.
-
Micro: can we agree that different countries have different cultures, which view and value both gender and human rights differently? That being the case, why should pointing out systemic cultural mores be so offensive to you? America places a greater cultural importance on guns. /gasp how dare I broad brush all America that way!
-
Next time there is a school shooting, do not be offended to see foreign media fall over each other in the rush to depict America as horrible, hyperviolent, racist place.
-
Next time there is a school shooting, do not be offended to see foreign media fall over each other in the rush to depict America as horrible, hyperviolent, racist place.
Well, if our participants at political rallies ran off and shot up schools, our gov't's policy was explicitly pro-school-shooting, and our religious leaders promoted school shooting from the pulpit, that analogy would hold water.
-
You know the religious leaders of Egypt condemn terrorism and claim it is the Allied forces in Iraq that are blessed by Allah, right?
-
You know the religious leaders of Egypt condemn terrorism and claim it is the Allied forces in Iraq that are blessed by Allah, right?
You're assuming they will win in the ensuing power struggle.
-
Next time there is a school shooting, do not be offended to see foreign media fall over each other in the rush to depict America as horrible, hyperviolent, racist place.
Of course "foreign media" have trouble with doing that when the shooters are immigrants and/or racial minorities, don't they?
-
You know the religious leaders of Egypt condemn terrorism and claim it is the Allied forces in Iraq that are blessed by Allah, right?
All of them? Really? I guess broad brushing is fine when it seems like a compliment right?
As for foreign media blah blah, the difference there is that they would be wrong.
-
You know the religious leaders of Egypt condemn terrorism and claim it is the Allied forces in Iraq that are blessed by Allah, right?
We know that by the vigorous way they prosecute people who harm Christians and vandalize churches, and how they make it so easy for Christians to build, upgrade, and repair their churches.
-
All of them? Really? I guess broad brushing is fine when it seems like a compliment right?
The ones who actually have spots in the country's most prestigious Islamic institution.
-
We know that by the vigorous way they prosecute people who harm Christians and vandalize churches, and how they make it so easy for Christians to build, upgrade, and repair their churches.
Heh!
-
We know that by the vigorous way they prosecute people who harm Christians and vandalize churches, and how they make it so easy for Christians to build, upgrade, and repair their churches.
Clearly those Egyptians who fight against Hamas - literally fight, with guns and explosives and chemical weapons - are just terrorism supporters.
-
Clearly those Egyptians who fight against Hamas - literally fight, with guns and explosives and chemical weapons - are just terrorism supporters.
So you agree with "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"?
The ones who actually have spots in the country's most prestigious Islamic institution.
I could show you people in Britain's "most prestigious Christian institution" who think ordaining lesbians is Biblical. Hardly describes the majority Christian viewpoint on the issue.
-
This one is wandering around in the weeds.