The crisis in Egypt

[GWiz]

My but we are accusatory. I doubt the person you are addressing himself personally is in democracy sales. Maybe aluminum siding or roof shingles or hemmeroid ointment though. See my point? He doesn't wake up every morning engaging in what you accuse any more then you do. He didn't create the inter-connected economies. He/she is like you and me just one dot in a sea of sand so your turning him/her into a scapegoat for the failures of others is a bit absurd. He/she is no more guilty than you are unless of course you are telling me you are a pristine 3rd world virgin victim. Problem is when we get righteous and point the finger at others as whores we forget the stains on our own pants are still visible.

Your portrayal of Africans by the way is quite patronizing not that someone as liberal and tolerant as you would realize. Why didn't you just refer to them as poor wretched savages. How compassionate of you. Wait I know, you cry every time you see a World Vision commercial.

Wait don't tell me either, some of your best friends are savages and you send money to Oxfam.

Got news for you, your simplistic, patronizing depicture of Africans is bloody racist. What do you think these people are the helpless victims you portray them as? Clearly you do not know all Africans you just assume though you can write them all off as victims. There are many successful Africans who are independent and making quality lives for themselves and others.

Get real. Africa is full of may kinds of people of which some are corupt, sociopathic politicians who choose to rape and plunder their own people. Yes it is a tragedy people starve and are trapped in poverty. Yes foreign investors and financial interests tied to oil,diamonds, natural resources, have a vested financial interest but what about the stooges they find who have no problem turning on their own people? Do you care to just ignore that?

Also would you have us believe you do not put your money in a bank or buy a product from someone inter-related to an unethical business? Really now.

Oh wait you want to tell me Robert Mugabi or Moe Ghaddafi are victims?

The world is far more complex then you give it credit for with your simplistic good v.s. bad, black v. white concepts. In reality poverty, injustice is not simply the creation of some white Westerner and no the person you accuse of owning banks does not or are you suggesting he is one of those you know who's who own banks and produce Hollywood movies and hang out with Oleg Bach and other rich people? (Oleg I get you everytime! I will make you famous Oleg with my tributes!)

However we see your agenda. When you see it done by Chinese you apologize and use the double standard that if a Westerner does it, its evil, but if a Chinese communist does it, its fine, its only fair.Uh no. Either its wrong for all or its wrong for none.

The relativist arguement you try poo poo works like this-it states, if you want to hold the world to a high standard, then don't just select a scapegoat you will hold to your standard and look the other way when others commmit evil. No more no less. It doesn't mean we have a double standard and people you find acceptable can act evil because they are entitled to since you feel others do. That is precisely why the cantankerous conservatives roll their eyes at stereotype liberals like you. They find your righteousness absurd. They argue its not evil you are against, just the fact you aren't in on it.

In the real world I would contend victims are also oppressors and oppressors are also victims-the two are not conveniently divided and attached and that is what makes conflicts so difficult to resolve-the cycle of beater and beaten constantly goes back and forth the longer the conflict between the 2 or more parties is. The roles become interchangeable the longer the cycle of conflict goes on. At any given arbitrary point in time the vanquished become conquerors and vice versa often at the same time.

I have no quarrel with your post but in the interest of clarity one must remember that there are (currently) 52 separate countries in Africa somewhat demographically divided into north/south - east/west quadrants... Comparisons between these quadrants, at a minimum, is very difficult to make or understand via the singular term "Africa"...

[bush_cheney2004]

I have no quarrel with your post but in the interest of clarity one must remember that there are (currently) 52 separate countries in Africa somewhat demographically divided into north/south - east/west quadrants... Comparisons between these quadrants, at a minimum, is very difficult to make or understand via the singular term "Africa"...

Wait a minute...didn't you say "we" were all "Americans"?

[GostHacked]

Wait a minute...didn't you say "we" were all "Americans"?

We are. North Americans.

[GWiz]

Wait a minute...didn't you say "we" were all "Americans"?

Exactly!

All the same color, all the same histories, all the same languages, everything the same throughout ALL the Americas...

Or not?

BUT, are they all "American" (north, south, central) yes?

Are Hosni Mubarak and Nelson Mandela both "African" yes?

[bush_cheney2004]

Exactly!

All the same color, all the same histories, all the same languages, everything the same throughout ALL the Americas...

Or not?

Then why can't all Africans be African?

BUT, are they all "American" (north, south, central) yes?

Are Hosni Mubarak and Nelson Mandela both "African" yes?

The we will have no more silly talk about quadrants, eh?

[GWiz]

Then why can't all Africans be African?

Answering questions with questions, shame, shame...

The we will have no more silly talk about quadrants, eh?

See above...

Careful my friend... Your ignorance is showing through...

[bush_cheney2004]

Answering questions with questions, shame, shame...

It was a rhetorical question.

Careful my friend... Your ignorance is showing through...

...as are your poor chess playing skills.

[GWiz]

It was a rhetorical question.

Ahhh, you were afraid to answer, or had no answer?

...as are your poor chess playing skills.

Sorry, MATE!

[bjre]

Got news for you, your simplistic, patronizing depicture of Africans is bloody racist. What do you think these people are the helpless victims you portray them as? Clearly you do not know all Africans you just assume though you can write them all off as victims. There are many successful Africans who are independent and making quality lives for themselves and others.

The poor people there are victims of western robbers.

Get real. Africa is full of may kinds of people of which some are corupt, sociopathic politicians who choose to rape and plunder their own people. Yes it is a tragedy people starve and are trapped in poverty. Yes foreign investors and financial interests tied to oil,diamonds, natural resources, have a vested financial interest but what about the stooges they find who have no problem turning on their own people? Do you care to just ignore that?

When some politicians there rape and plunder their own people, western countries did not help them in improve their economy, they turned to make them more poor so that more such things happen, and they can blame more, actually, western politicians are so evil that they hope those ugly things happen so that they can have things to blame others.

Also would you have us believe you do not put your money in a bank or buy a product from someone inter-related to an unethical business? Really now.

African people should have their own bank system totally independent from US banks, the way to become wealthy is to get rid of western countries and do it themselves.

Oh wait you want to tell me Robert Mugabi or Moe Ghaddafi are victims?

I did not read what Ghaddafi did. But Mugabi did very well before evil western countries try to destroy the country he lives.

The world is far more complex then you give it credit for with your simplistic good v.s. bad, black v. white concepts. In reality poverty, injustice is not simply the creation of some white Westerner and no the person you accuse of owning banks does not or are you suggesting he is one of those you know who's who own banks and produce Hollywood movies and hang out with Oleg Bach and other rich people? (Oleg I get you everytime! I will make you famous Oleg with my tributes!)

I don't know all rich people, but there are greedy rich people who are powerful and evil.

However we see your agenda. When you see it done by Chinese you apologize and use the double standard that if a Westerner does it, its evil, but if a Chinese communist does it, its fine, its only fair.Uh no. Either its wrong for all or its wrong for none.

China did it good because it helps people with no condition. If there are human being there, China helps them to improve their life.

Evil western politicians try to block trading to countries who don't buy their "democracy", their agenda is to control the law-makers of the target country, even if the human beings there are in urgent need of help.

They would rather let the target country be destroyed in name of "human rights" than help the human beings there, even when the "human rights" situation in their own western countries are so poor, they just enjoy let the poor people in target country die and use that to blame the target government.

Edited February 10, 2011 by bjre

[lizo99]

> The poor people there are victims of western robbers.

I agree 100 % !!

Greetz

Lizo

http://www.dfg-espelkamp.de

[bloodyminded]

No other world powers that I'm aware of have ever tried to institute democratic regimes in areas of the world they control - nor tolerated them, for that matter. You don't see the French bothering with such niceties in the African countries they control. And you certainly don't see the Chinese worrying about it as they begin to exert their own international muscle.

So we're not in disagreement after all.

The US and other western powers concerns themselves more with ideological movements than specific little national opposition groups. If the Timorese were seen as likely to be a part of the "global communist movement" the US would have tolerated almost any abuse to resist them.

Leaving aside the notion that justifying massive state terrorism and one of the worst acts of mass slaughter by percentage of population in the postwar era based on "ideological concerns" is a troubling kind of apologetics that deserves its own thread:

where did you get the notion that the East Timorese "were seen as likley to be a part of the 'global communist movement'"?

Do you have any links to this?

Like I said, we can't rightly justify performances based on some catch-all "Cold War" excuse, one that will magically always apply. Each situation has to be looked at discretely, to try to discover what was going on.

So where is the evidence for a belief in the E. Timoreses' position in the global communist movement? I haven't heard of it.

I don't think the question arises very often. But personally, I would say a difference would be how intrussive and oppressive a regime is in the daily lives of its people, how repressive and just plain cruel it is to its political opponents, or those they see as in some way transgressing against the regime. In that light, Egypt wasn't that bad compared to Hussein, or for that matter, the Chinese or Iranians or Libyans.

But I put it to you that Saddam Hussein was as bad as Saddam Hussein. The "moderate" ally who was warned about our "hostile" news media painting him in a bad light.

Edited February 10, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Sir Bandelot]

This whole situation is now becoming kind of absurd. These people are rallying, night after night by the thousands. Yet the man will not stand down.

I wonder what President Barrack Hussein Obama thinks about that.

Because I think if Obama really wanted this guy gone, he'd a been gone already.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Because I think if Obama really wanted this guy gone, he'd a been gone already.

It's not that simple....gone and replaced with what?

Hell, at this rate, President Obama might be gone before Mubarak.

[GostHacked]

I still want to know WTF this Google Executive's role was in this whole revolt. I find him very suspicious.

[bud]

he's stepping down today, says the CIA.

[GostHacked]

he's stepping down today, says the CIA.

It's a start. I found it really funny that Mubarak wanted to stay in power to prevent his country from going into chaos. I guess he had not looked out of his window in the past few weeks.

[Sir Bandelot]

It's not that simple....gone and replaced with what?

Hell, at this rate, President Obama might be gone before Mubarak.

No because your mentor Dick Cheney says, he is our friend. That's why I say they, don't really want him gone.

[bush_cheney2004]

No because your mentor Dick Cheney says, he is our friend. That's why I say they, don't really want him gone.

It's not just about Mubarak or even Egypt. I don't know what you mean by "our" and "they", but you can't have it both ways. Mubarak didn't turn into a monster dictator over a week's time, not even for the bit player and long time supporter that is/was Canada.

[bud]

It's a start. I found it really funny that Mubarak wanted to stay in power to prevent his country from going into chaos. I guess he had not looked out of his window in the past few weeks.

as a canadian, what's really sad is harper's support for the dictator, mubarak and his contempt for the people and democracy. he even outlasted the obama administration who finally gave in and said he should go.

israel has way too much influence on harper.

Edited February 10, 2011 by bud

[GWiz]

as a canadian, what's really sad is harper's support for the dictator, mubarak and his contempt for the people and democracy. he even outlasted the obama administration who finally gave in and said he should go.

israel has way too much influence on harper.

It's all just politics... Harper style politics...

[bush_cheney2004]

It's all just politics... Harper style politics...

Compared to what....Martin or Chretien style politics?

Israel should have at least as much influence on Harper as protesters in the streets of Egypt, for whatever his influence is worth.

[bjre]

This whole situation is now becoming kind of absurd. These people are rallying, night after night by the thousands. Yet the man will not stand down.

I wonder what President Barrack Hussein Obama thinks about that.

Because I think if Obama really wanted this guy gone, he'd a been gone already.

He really wanted this guy gone before.

But after the natural gas pipe to Israel burned, his rich bosses changed mind. Now he thinks the guy maybe still useful for a while. So "democracy" and "freedom" and "human rights" becomes not so important suddenly.

[WIP]

as a canadian, what's really sad is harper's support for the dictator, mubarak and his contempt for the people and democracy. he even outlasted the obama administration who finally gave in and said he should go.

israel has way too much influence on harper.

I guess Harper was late getting the memo; from recent Wikileaks-revealed cables we are learning that the Obama Administration was trying get Mubarak out, and their man - Omar Suleiman in. On Al Jazeera English, the live coverage indicates that the crowd in Tahrir Square is pretty large, and not warm to the idea of going through all this trouble to get rid of Mubarak, and have in replaced by the man who tortures prisoners on behalf of the CIA.

A few days ago, there was a contrived series of news stories in the media that a silent majority of Egyptians was against the protesters and wanted a return to normalcy; the million+ rallies and labour strikes across Egypt have exposed most of what's reported on CNN to be lies and misinformation!

[bloodyminded]

I guess Harper was late getting the memo; from recent Wikileaks-revealed cables we are learning that the Obama Administration was trying get Mubarak out, and their man - Omar Suleiman in. On Al Jazeera English, the live coverage indicates that the crowd in Tahrir Square is pretty large, and not warm to the idea of going through all this trouble to get rid of Mubarak, and have in replaced by the man who tortures prisoners on behalf of the CIA.

A few days ago, there was a contrived series of news stories in the media that a silent majority of Egyptians was against the protesters and wanted a return to normalcy; the million+ rallies and labour strikes across Egypt have exposed most of what's reported on CNN to be lies and misinformation!

It's interesting you should mention wikileaks, because, like that situation a couple of months ago, we're watching the spectacle of people (albeit tepidly) supporting Mubarak...or Suleiman....well, it's the United States, actually, that they must defend at all costs.

I won't go into a description of the paroxysms of intellectual acrobatics I've been witness to over these subjects, or (just in the past week, but also earlier) over outright defense of massive terrorism...so long as the "right" side is allied with the terrorists.

Often these are the same people quite outraged at all the "supporters of Saddam" (those who opposed the war), and who said "freedom is messy" and all sorts of things that they simply do not believe.

Such equivocation bespeaks, I think, a pretty deeply ingrained servility.

Edited February 10, 2011 by bloodyminded

[WIP]

It's interesting you should mention wikileaks, because, like that situation a couple of months ago, we're watching the spectacle of people (albeit tepidly) supporting Mubarak...or Suleiman....well, it's the United States, actually, that they must defend at all costs.

I won't go into a description of the paroxysms of intellectual acrobatics I've been witness to over these subjects, or (just in the past week, but also earlier) over outright defense of massive terrorism...so long as the "right" side is allied with the terrorists.

Often these are the same people quite outraged at all the "supporters of Saddam" (those who opposed the war), and who said "freedom is messy" and all sorts of things that they simply do not believe.

Such equivocation bespeaks, I think, a pretty deeply ingrained servility.

There has been scant attention payed to stories like the overthrow of the democratically elected Zelaya Government in Honduras a year or so ago. Even at the time, before the Wikileaks revelations, there were strong suspicions that Zelaya had run afoul of the big agribusiness interests that own most of the land and dominate the economy of Honduras. When the U.S. refused to back sanctions against the coup-installed government, the conclusion was that the coup was directed from the CIA or some other U.S. agency. All Wikileaks did with Honduras, as well as Middle East and other foreign policy intrigues is confirm the rumours with actual documents.

Latin America has seen a series of U.S. backed military regimes. When Jimmy Carter spoke out against Brazil, Argentina, and a few other military regimes' human rights abuses, soon after assuming the Presidency, he was quickly put in place by the Pentagon and other department operatives, who set him straight about how those puppet dictators got there and how important they were for U.S. Latin American Policy. The democracy talk about bringing freedom to the Iraqis was just hot air; dictators and potentates are more reliable than a democratically elected government that may fear losing popular support.