GWiz Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 So has Canada. The Harper government has endorsed the go-slow transition plan set out by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s regime, signalling that Mideast stability and peace with Israel are its paramount concerns while other Western nations push for faster change. link Correct.... I think it's just about time to change that possition... The Egyptian protesters are watching and they aren't impressed by what they've seen coming out of certain "western" countries (yours and mine) so far... Sitting on a metal picket fence for too long can have serious consequences... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 Obama and his British and French allies have called for an "orderly transition"...broadly accepting Mubarak's proposal to wait several months, so that he can suppress dissent, and help his paymasters install They have very cleary enunciated their desire for him to leave NOW, and are putting enormous pressure on him through a variety of channels to do so. So again, where is your argument? This sort of hatred for democratic principles is nothing new, unfortunately. Your characterization of the way the U.S and U.K. feel about democracy has very little acquaintance with reality. You still haven't drawn up the bizarre distinctions for me--why the support for Western overhrows of tyrants, and not the support for the overthrows of tyrants who are friendly to the West? On whose part? What is "about as shallow as political discourse gets" is drawing an equivalence--as you explicitly did--between the supporters of a brutal dictator oppressing his people with American made weapons, and the citizens who object to this. I said, that, if people were going to say that democracy as the will of the people ought to be respected regardless of what we think of the choices then we ought to respect those who wish Mubarak to stay just as much as those who think he should leave. I don't consider that to be particularly bizarre. One could, in Egypt, assess the likelihood of what will befall him and his people in a possibly chaotic aftermath of Mubarak leaving and make the choice that you'd rather have him stay. We might not think that choice was correct but it is THEIR choice. And what on earth do "American made weapons" have to do with that? If they were Chinese made weapons would that have some bearing? As if a murderous dictator is a "moderate"!! Some people are terming the Muslim Brotherhood moderates because they don't advocate violence. "Moderate" is code for "obedient to Washington." I think 'moderate' in terms of autocrats is that if you bitch about the president in a restaurant the secret police don't show up and drag you and your family off to prison to torture you all to death - as was the case in Iraq under Hussein, or the case in places like North Korea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 an interim government, just like in tunisia. i'm sure mubarak is already packing his suitcases and will be on his private jet to england soon. The problem with 'interim governments' in that part of the world is they tend to stck around a while, or else simply prepare the ground for their friends to take over. And in any event, what legitimacy does the 'opposition' have, when you get right down to it? Who exactly do they represent? Who are they? What experience do they have? What are their motivations? Who is behind them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 Correct.... I think it's just about time to change that possition... The Egyptian protesters are watching and they aren't impressed by what they've seen coming out of certain "western" countries (yours and mine) so far... There are tens of thousands of protestors but tens of millions of Egyptions, most of whom are not out protesting anything. Who is to say what they want or think or feel? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 Yes he asked.. there's no question about it. And then he kept giving egyptian dictator money and arms with which to suppress that same democracy. So here's the question: which of the two acts speaks the true intention: the talk or the walk? And when are we finally going to attend to that highly contageous obtusion in separating of word from actual deed? The U.S. has an interest in the stability of that region. Withdrawing support and allowing Mubarak to be overthrown by - let's face facts here - someone VERY unlikely to have democracy and human rights in mind - is not going to be in either American interests or the interest of stability in the region. They encouraged South Korea to transition, and that worked out quite well. Mubarak simply ignored them, and the US didn't feel it could force the issue given the nature of the local turmoil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 There are tens of thousands of protestors but tens of millions of Egyptions, most of whom are not out protesting anything. Who is to say what they want or think or feel? You ever do a poll? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 Just so. Harper views a dictator oppressing his people with the help of Western weapons to be "stability." Compared to what happened in Iran it IS stability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 You ever do a poll? No one has, to my knowledge. That was my point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 We cannot continue supporting dictators in the ME while ignoring political opposition parties, even if they are Islamists. Why? We ignore opposition parties in democracies all the time. We deal with whomever is in office, not the pretendrs to the thrones. Do we adjust our policies with the US according to what the Republicans want when Obama is in power? Do we consult with the Labour party about our relations with the U.K.? And what about those nations which don't even HAVE opposition parties of any kind, such as China? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 They have very cleary enunciated their desire for him to leave NOW, and are putting enormous pressure on him through a variety of channels to do so. It's never been said that they want him to "leave NOW;" it's been said that changes and an orderly transition must begin now. Two different things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 if a child rapist is abusing his children, you don't wait to separate them until a proper guardian is found. If you want to use that for an analogy you are in a part of the world where virtually ALL parents are child rapists, as are virtually all the foster parents laying in wait, eager to get their hands on some kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 Bottom line: When you have an annual income coming in of about $1.5 BILLION you're not likely to be too anxious to give it up... Mubarak family assets: $40 BILLION Hosni's personal wealth: $17 BILLION + There would be no reason to give anything up....US foreign military aid comes in the form of hardware and services, not gold bars. Intentions, inshemsions, who cares, I'm just happy right now that the Egyptian military, mainly because they KNOW which side is gonna be around to keep them well fed, isn't putting the rebellion down... That's fine...many Egyptian military officers have studied at American war college(s). When Mubarak leaves is the time to make sure as little as possible changes when it comes to Egypt's finances... I'm hoping that's your country and MINE along with other "western" countries and not the alternative... Wars can be awfully expensive, a LOT more than shelling out a few Billion a year to keep the peace... My country has shelled out a lot more than yours! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 Compared to what happened in Iran it IS stability. Good point, I haven't seen anyone in Egypt attacking any Embassies etc., and prior to the PRO forces hitting the streets everything was pretty peaceful and looking good for "the west"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 There would be no reason to give anything up....US foreign military aid comes in the form of hardware and services, not gold bars. That's fine...many Egyptian military officers have studied at American war college(s). My country has shelled out a lot more than yours! What, at least 10x as much I hope, just to keep things EVEN... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 No one has, to my knowledge. That was my point. The people in the streets ARE the poll, a much more extensive poll of a population than is usually done... That was MY point... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 It's never been said that they want him to "leave NOW;" it's been said that changes and an orderly transition must begin now. Two different things. I totally agree... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 The problem with 'interim governments' in that part of the world is they tend to stck around a while, or else simply prepare the ground for their friends to take over. And in any event, what legitimacy does the 'opposition' have, when you get right down to it? Who exactly do they represent? Who are they? What experience do they have? What are their motivations? Who is behind them? Hmmm, 'ol Hosni wants his Son and/or Brother to head up an interim Government... Think that pig will fly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 Where is Dumbya these days? He's flitting about, marketing a book he didn't write, about a fantasy Presidentship that has little to do with the ghost-written assertions. But $7000 000! It's worth a few lies for that kind of cash, not to mention revising his shitty legacy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 (edited) They have very cleary enunciated their desire for him to leave NOW, and are putting enormous pressure on him through a variety of channels to do so. So again, where is your argument? You know full well that they would rather have a pliant dictator there than an irritating democrat. And they will fight for this "right" to keep the globe running as they see fit. Your characterization of the way the U.S and U.K. feel about democracy has very little acquaintance with reality. Oh...so they don't prop up dictators, even to the point of sometimes supporting them over democratic movements? And when did this 180 degree turnaround in historical policy occur? With the elections of the US President and the new UK PM? Is Harper involved with this radical change in foreign relations? Where did you come by this information? They supported Pinochet over Allende; they supported Suharto over the unaligned democrats of East Timor (killed with our help) and the secular leftist democrats of Indonesia (killed with our help); they suported tyrants and torturers over democrats in Haiti, El Salvador, guatemala, Brazil, and Argentina; in Iran. And so on. I have difficulty believing you're unaware of any of this. I said, that, if people were going to say that democracy as the will of the people ought to be respected regardless of what we think of the choices then we ought to respect those who wish Mubarak to stay just as much as those who think he should leave. I don't consider that to be particularly bizarre. One could, in Egypt, assess the likelihood of what will befall him and his people in a possibly chaotic aftermath of Mubarak leaving and make the choice that you'd rather have him stay. We might not think that choice was correct but it is THEIR choice. We won't know without elections; but Mubarack says he's not going to run. Even Mubarack is more honest about his unpopularity than you are, which is astonishing. I think 'moderate' in terms of autocrats is that if you bitch about the president in a restaurant the secret police don't show up and drag you and your family off to prison to torture you all to death - as was the case in Iraq under Hussein, or the case in places like North Korea. No...because, as you must know (or else you wouldn't be trying to debate the matter) Saddam Hussein was considered a "moderate"--this was back in the '80s, during the height of some of his worst atrocities. "Moderate" means "friendly to the West." Period. Edited February 5, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 You may have a point given how the "South" feels about Obama and the Democrats... Civil war round 2? Canada? Just don't touch Canada's health care or pensions or you'll find out what "Grey Power" really means... Indeed.. Outside of North Carolina and Virginia (probably because of those damn Yankee Carpet Baggers!),the Confederacy voted staunchly along Confederacy lines... Edmund Ruffin would be proud! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 Good point, I haven't seen anyone in Egypt attacking any Embassies etc., and prior to the PRO forces hitting the streets everything was pretty peaceful and looking good for "the west"... The Ayatolah's did not take over right after the Shah left. There was an uhm, interim government which was largely secular and made up of various elements of the opposition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 Hmmm, 'ol Hosni wants his Son and/or Brother to head up an interim Government... Think that pig will fly? Erm... No... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 You know full well that they would rather have a pliant dictator there than an irritating democrat. And they will fight for this "right" to keep the globe running as they see fit. They do not seem to be doing a lot of fighting for his rights at the moment. The US can be painfully naive at times, else they wouldn't have spent so much time and effort on running elections in Iraq or Afghanistan. Or are you under any illusion the Chinese would have bothered? Oh...so they don't prop up dictators, even to the point of sometimes supporting them over democratic movements? I never suggested any such thing. I merely said your characterization that they "hate" democratic values was way off base. That's not to say they won't and haven't supported autocrats over democratic movements they thought were hostile and dangerous to their interests. But if we accepted your characterization the US should have spent the last fifty years trying to elminate democratic governments throughout the world, including in Europe, in favor of autocrats, and there's no evidence of that. We won't know without elections; but Mubarack says he's not going to run.Even Mubarack is more honest about his unpopularity than you are, which is astonishing .You misunderstood me. I never said that there was a majority who wanted him to stay. I said that a lot of Egyptians did not, from what the article I cited suggested, want him to be pushed aside immediately. They felt it was fine for him to stay to the election. I think, too, that you are failing to understand what it is probably like to grow up and have him as the absolute authority in your country for your entire life. And remember, unless you were politically active you didn't worry overmuch about things like secret police and prisons. A lot of people are probably feeling quite threatened and uncertain at the prospect of the old order crumbling and a great unknown coming in to take over. No...because, as you must know (or else you wouldn't be trying to debate the matter) Saddam Hussein was considered a "moderate"--this was back in the '80s, during the height of some of his worst atrocities. "Moderate" means "friendly to the West." Period. I think moderate can mean different things. Moderate, insofar as a dictator is concerned, would clearly mean how repressive his government is. But there could be a sense of 'moderate' in terms of their international behaviour, I suppose. Ie, Egypt is far more moderate than Iran. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 You know full well that they would rather have a pliant dictator there than an irritating democrat. And they will fight for this "right" to keep the globe running as they see fit.************* "Moderate" means "friendly to the West." Period. Does what's going on in the streets look like it's about to produce a merely "irritating democrat"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 Does what's going on in the streets look like it's about to produce a merely "irritating democrat"? Well,yesterday I had a very bad feling about the potential nature of what might happen... There was a real possibility that Mubarak might set his guns on his own people and simply massacre as many as he could. Thnakfully,that did not happen... I'm more cynical about this than most because I feel,given the full course of time,that an Islamofascist regime on Israel's Western flank is the most likely outcome.That would be the worst possible scenario,but I feel it's a very real one. However,if some sort of representative democracy was to take form in Egypt,it could have the exact opposit effect of an Islamofascist regime.It could very well change things dramatically for the better in the region... I suppose it could go either way,at the moment...It's clear to me that there is no turning back now... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.