A wave of middle east freedom and democracy

[e1618978]

Lybia giving up WMDs, Palistinian and Iraqi elections, Syria pulling out of Lebanon, and now plans for elections in Egypt. It looks to me like Bush's invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were the best foreign policy success since Regan forced the USSR to fold.

All we need now are elections in Syria, a real democracy in Saudi Arabia, and a change in the balance of power in Iran towards the secular government (plus getting rid of their nuclear weapons labs).

[segovius]

Naples X did this sort of thing so much better......

but then again, so does my pet gerbil.

[superkarate monkeydeathcar]

Donald Regan caused the fall of the MIGHTY SOVIET EMPIRE?

[BRussell]

We might want to be more nervous about Egyptian elections than happy.

[hardeeharhar]

Our guys lost in Iraq.

Yay Democracy when it elects the right wing fundamentalists who promptly get rid of it!

[e1618978]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Our guys lost in Iraq.

Yay Democracy when it elects the right wing fundamentalists who promptly get rid of it!

Iraq is too diverse for that to happen - the Shia know that democracy is the only thing that will hold the country together. The moment that they try to impose a theocracy, they will have civil war, and they know it.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by e1618978
Iraq is too diverse for that to happen - the Shia know that democracy is the only thing that will hold the country together. The moment that they try to impose a theocracy, they will have civil war, and they know it.

What about their history tells you that they actually care?

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by e1618978
Lybia giving up WMDs, Palistinian and Iraqi elections, Syria pulling out of Lebanon, and now plans for elections in Egypt. It looks to me like Bush's invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were the best foreign policy success since Regan forced the USSR to fold.

All we need now are elections in Syria, a real democracy in Saudi Arabia, and a change in the balance of power in Iran towards the secular government (plus getting rid of their nuclear weapons labs).
What. The. Blue. Buggering. Bollocks.

Palestinian elections? You mean America was responsible for the death of Yasser Arafat? Fuck! George Bush is truly up there with Donald Reagan!

[e1618978]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
What about their history tells you that they actually care?

The thing about their history, is that it was all controlled by other groups (British, Sunni, etc) - it has been a very long time since they had any say on how their affairs were handled. I am just going by how things seem to be unfolding this time - I just don't see any theocracy emerging.

Regarding Egypt - why should we be afraid? Do you think that the new government will attack Isreal or something? They don't have such a good track record there, and any extremism will be countered by their reliance on US foreign aid, and the love of young peole for US culture.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
What. The. Blue. Buggering. Bollocks.

Palestinian elections? You mean America was responsible for the death of Yasser Arafat? Fuck! George Bush is truly up there with Donald Reagan!

No, but we should have assassinated him years ago. That embezzeling weasel held up progress that could have saved many Israeli and Palistinian lives. I do think that the US probably played a key role in convincing them to hold elections.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by e1618978
The thing about their history, is that it was all controlled by other groups (British, Sunni, etc) - it has been a very long time since they had any say on how their affairs were handled. I am just going by how things seem to be unfolding this time - I just don't see any theocracy emerging.

Regarding Egypt - why should we be afraid? Do you think that the new government will attack Isreal or something? They don't have such a good track record there, and any extremism will be countered by their reliance on US foreign aid, and the love of young peole for US culture.

That certainly worked in Iran in 1979. What the hell are you smoking?

Re: Iraq. Um. Even the British had trouble keeping the peace between the groups.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
That certainly worked in Iran in 1979. What the hell are you smoking?

Re: Iraq. Um. Even the British had trouble keeping the peace between the groups.

The British also failed when they tried to invade Afghanistan.

It is a different world now, particularly wrt global communication and cultural influences that make everyone less different than they were then - globalisation makes it easier to find common ground.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by e1618978
The British also failed when they tried to invade Afghanistan.

It is a different world now, particularly wrt global communication and cultural influences that make everyone less different than they were then - globalisation makes it easier to find common ground.

It also makes it easier to point out major differences. You know how Christian Conservatives loathe the American Culture, well imagine that times the fact that there is a lot of Christian iconography within our culture. Yeah, you get the idea...

[superkarate monkeydeathcar]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
What. The. Blue. Buggering. Bollocks.

Palestinian elections? You mean America was responsible for the death of Yasser Arafat? Fuck! George Bush is truly up there with Donald Reagan!

donald regan was secretary of treasury during ronald reagan's 1st term.
in the 2nd term he became chief of staff. neither he or his president were in power when the soviet union fell.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by e1618978
I do think that the US probably played a key role in convincing them to hold elections.
They held an election because the President died. They didn't need 'convincing'. They had an election because they needed to replace their dead President. And unless America was responsible for Yasser Arafat's death, America had fuck all to do with these elections.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
They held an election because the President died. They didn't need 'convincing'. They had an election because they needed to replace their dead President. And unless America was responsible for Yasser Arafat's death, America had fuck all to do with these elections.


:lol: When was Arafat reelected "president"? He didn't need convincing to cancel all elections to maintain his brutal dictatorship. He also didn't need convincing to squash the political process in the west back and gaza.

Arafat's death was the greatest move forward for the arab muslim world. Too bad they didn't have the conscience to do it themselves.

[dmz]

I'll say this, if Iraq turns out to be the center of gravity of the ME equation, they should invent a Noble prize and give it to Condi.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by Scott
:lol: When was Arafat reelected "president"? He didn't need convincing to cancel all elections to maintain his brutal dictatorship. He also didn't need convincing to squash the political process in the west back and gaza.


When you DIE, you do NOT get re-elected. He was not re-elected in the recent elections, because HE DIED.

When a President like Arafat dies, someone else, according to the law, must replace him. According to Palestinian law, new elections need to be held within 60 days. They were. And Abbas won. What is not clear here?

Arafat's death was the greatest move forward for the arab muslim world. Too bad they didn't have the conscience to do it themselves.

The conscience to do what themselves? Shoot their President? For that, you need a lack of conscience. You seem to have a general idea on the latter.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by dmz
I'll say this, if Iraq turns out to be the center of gravity of the ME equation, they should invent a Noble prize and give it to Condi.


Its called Nobel and it already exists. For Peacemakers. But not for war-mongerers though. Sorry.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
When you DIE, you do NOT get re-elected. He was not re-elected in the recent elections, because HE DIED.

When a President like Arafat dies, someone else, according to the law, must replace him. According to Palestinian law, new elections need to be held within 60 days. They were. And Abbas won. What is not clear here?



The conscience to do what themselves? Shoot their President? For that, you need a lack of conscience. You seem to have a general idea on the latter.

:lol: The Brutal Dictator no matter which way you cut it Arafat was not reelected when he canceled the elections, against Palestinian law, so he couldn't be voted out. He also assured that no one could challenge him in an election or otherwise by brutally squashing the political process in his region.

What is not clear here:lol:

"President" Arafat:lol:

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by Scott
:lol: The Brutal Dictator no matter which way you cut it Arafat was not reelected when he canceled the elections, against Palestinian law, so he couldn't be voted out. He also assured that no one could challenge him in an election or otherwise by brutally squashing the political process in his region.

What is not clear here:lol:

"President" Arafat:lol:
'Brutal dictator'? 'Any way you cut it'?

Bullshit.

Flawed, less than fully competent, allegedly corrupt, yes. Brutal dictator? No, fuck off. He was genuinely loved, and he could have been a very great man, and he fought very hard for an oppressed and humiliated people who generally loved him for it. He wasn't a 'dictator', if you're trying to compare him to Saddam Hussein.

And the point of this little discussion (please go back and re-read it, perhaps two or three times) is that e-number is trying to claim American credit for the elections in Palestine. Whatever the fuck the point is that you're trying to make (something about Arafat cancelling elections) I'm saying that the elections were occasioned by Arafat's death.

America had nothing to do with those election. Make your point elsewhere. America had nothing to do with the recent elections in Palestine. That's what we're talking about here.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by Scott
:lol: The Brutal Dictator no matter which way you cut it Arafat was not reelected when he canceled the elections, against Palestinian law, so he couldn't be voted out. He also assured that no one could challenge him in an election or otherwise by brutally squashing the political process in his region.

What is not clear here:lol:

"President" Arafat:lol:


As Hassan put it:

And the point of this little discussion (please go back and re-read it, perhaps two or three times) is that e-number is trying to claim American credit for the elections in Palestine. Whatever the fuck the point is that you're trying to make (something about Arafat cancelling elections) I'm saying that the elections were occasioned by Arafat's death.

America had nothing to do with those election. Make your point elsewhere. America had nothing to do with the recent elections in Palestine. That's what we're talking about here.

[e1618978]

America had nothing to do with those election. Make your point elsewhere

Ok - sure, you have convinced me. Anyway, things are looking up in the middle east, and I think that Bush and company had something to do with that (minus the election in Palastine).

There are many other things going on in Israel and Palastine that the US is involved in, including putting pressure on Israel to let the Palistinians form an independent state.

[Gene Clean]

First of all: it's PalEstine, not Palastine. And its PalEstinians, not Palistinians.

Second: who said Israel should "let" Palestinians form a state? They are forced to give up their occupied territory, not to 'let Palestinians form a state'. There's quite a bit of difference here.

Third: the US is involved because its child, Israel, depends on US help to fight off all those UN Resolutions that require it to abandon occupied territories. Now that the US has realized how untenable this position is - they are pushing for an 'independent Palestinians state'. And Israelis must follow because Big Daddy™ say so. Not out of love for Palestinians.

[e1618978]

the US is involved because its child, Israel, depends on US help to fight off all those UN Resolutions that require it to abandon occupied territories. Now that the US has realized how untenable this position is - they are pushing for an 'independent Palestinians state'. And Israelis must follow because Big Daddy™ say so. Not out of love for Palestinians.

Why would anyone care about UN resolutions? No - I don't think that the US is doing this out of love for the palestinians, they are doing it because they want peace in the middle east - which was exactly my point (the US is making the middle east a much better place).

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by e1618978
Why would anyone care about UN resolutions? No - I don't think that the US is doing this out of love for the palestinians, they are doing it because they want peace in the middle east - which was exactly my point (the US is making the middle east a much better place).

What do you mean? I thought Iraq not respecting UN Resolutions was a big reasons why the US went to war? So, what's your point?

The US doesn't want peace in the Middle East - the US wants to Look Good™ in the eyes of Arabs, and if Israel, for once, respecting international law is the price to pay, then so be it.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
What do you mean? I thought Iraq not respecting UN Resolutions was a big reasons why the US went to war? So, what's your point?

The US doesn't want peace in the Middle East - the US wants to Look Good™ in the eyes of Arabs, and if Israel, for once, respecting international law is the price to pay, then so be it.

The US had to implement the UN resolutions because the UN lacked the will to do it itself. The UN is like UL Labs - adding a UN certification gives your action more ligitimacy, but a UN resolution without action is worthless.

I think that we have grown used to the rest of the world hating us. I don't think that we care at all how the rest of the world views us, they will hate us no matter what we do - they hated us under Clinton, and also under Bush. I don't think that "looking good" has any impact on our middle east policy.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
'Brutal dictator'? 'Any way you cut it'?

Bullshit.

Flawed, less than fully competent, allegedly corrupt, yes. Brutal dictator? No, fuck off. He was genuinely loved, and he could have been a very great man, and he fought very hard for an oppressed and humiliated people who generally loved him for it. He wasn't a 'dictator', if you're trying to compare him to Saddam Hussein.

:lol: Ignorant!

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
And the point of this little discussion (please go back and re-read it, perhaps two or three times) is that e-number is trying to claim American credit for the elections in Palestine. Whatever the fuck the point is that you're trying to make (something about Arafat cancelling elections) I'm saying that the elections were occasioned by Arafat's death.

America had nothing to do with those election. Make your point elsewhere. America had nothing to do with the recent elections in Palestine. That's what we're talking about here.


At least you stop using "President" Arafat.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by e1618978
[B]The US had to implement the UN resolutions because the UN lacked the will to do it itself. The UN is like UL Labs - adding a UN certification gives your action more ligitimacy, but a UN resolution without action is worthless.


The US does not have to implement anything. It does not have that authority. Only UN can implement UN Resolutions.


I think that we have grown used to the rest of the world hating us. I don't think that we care at all how the rest of the world views us, they will hate us no matter what we do - they hated us under Clinton, and also under Bush. I don't think that "looking good" has any impact on our middle east policy.

Where do you view the world from? Your diapers? Grow up.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by Scott
[B]:lol: Ignorant!

Who's ignorant, Hassan who tells you that he was genuinely loved by his people [as shown on his funeral day], or you, who have nothing to say, and compensate that with smilies like this --> :lol: and offensive comments like "ignorant!" while offering no other fact to support your claims?



At least you stop using "President" Arafat.

President Arafat. El Presidente. The President of Palestine Yasser Arafat. President. President. President. The President.

[e1618978]

Where do you view the world from? Your diapers? Grow up

I know that I can always count on this kind of prose from you, Gene, its just the kind of guy you are.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by e1618978
I know that I can always count on this kind of prose from you, Gene, its just the kind of guy you are.

Oh and this kind of prose from you is pure genius E.


I think that we have grown used to the rest of the world hating us. I don't think that we care at all how the rest of the world views us, they will hate us no matter what we do - they hated us under Clinton, and also under Bush. I don't think that "looking good" has any impact on our middle east policy.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Oh and this kind of prose from you is pure genius E.

Well, you haven't said anything that makes me think that it is not true - I still agree with what I said earlier.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by e1618978
Well, you haven't said anything that makes me think that it is not true - I still agree with what I said earlier.

Its good that you agree with yourself. But that doesn't make anything of what you said particularly true - furthermore, it just shows how uninformed of the world you are.

'They all hated us...' - 'They all hate us...' - these are thoughts of unsatisfied adolescents, not thoughts of rational adults. Still, you can choose to agree with yourself - yet again. I don't see why you shouldn't. Its easier.

[Mac on a Mac]

The Middle East is changing fast. I don't know if it is the result of the actions by the US or not, but I have a feeling Bush is going to go down in history in a very positive light. History will forget the insurgents and the current chaos in Iraq if the political tone of the region moves towards representative government.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40875000/jpg/_40875653_cheerap.jpg

[segovius]

Originally posted by Mac on a Mac
The Middle East is changing fast. I don't know if it is the result of the actions by the US or not, but I have a feeling Bush is going to go down in history in a very positive light.

They said that about Gorbachev and the USSR.

My question is not so much about democracy in the ME but about western civilization itself - it's so obviously on its last legs.

How long can it last ? 20 - 30 years max imo, maybe much less. Maybe much less.

[Nightcrawler]

Originally posted by segovius
They said that about Gorbachev and the USSR.

My question is not so much about democracy in the ME but about western civilization itself - it's so obviously on its last legs.

How long can it last ? 20 - 30 years max imo, maybe much less. Maybe much less.

Could you please elaborate? Sounds as if it could be interesting.

Nightcrawler

[segovius]

Originally posted by Nightcrawler
Could you please elaborate? Sounds as if it could be interesting.

Nightcrawler

Well imo, a lot of people are perceiving the situation back to front - they see terrorism and associated ills as the last vestige of backwards cultures being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century - but this is merely the old colonialist, Crusader attitude 'modernised' and updated: the 'barbarians at the gate' and the 'dark continent' rewritten in the postmodern genre.

In reality, (imo), all current forms of fundamentalism (Christian and Islamist) are symptoms of a civilization imploding. It is fairly obvious to any objective observer that there are similarities between Islamist and Xian fundies and certainly the current Islamist 'terrorism' is nothing like traditional Islamist terrorism of the 70s - it is clearly a new phenomena.

Personally, my theory is that technology has moved to fast and human evolution is struggling to assimilate it. Quantum leaps have taken place in years since the 60s whereas previously we would have had decades or centuries to adjust.

Consequently, while some embrace the new (or try to) others hark back to some 'golden age' of certainty where everything is 'as it used to be'. Some such as Xian fundies do this 'intellectually' (in their own terms) and try to re-install a reductionist, black/white, faith based 'old time' certainty - of course, being fundies they have to impose it on others to confirm it to themselves.

Others, such as al-Q (or rather genuine Islamist groups which are not the product of the US propaganda machine) try to reference back to the golden age of the caliphate in similar reductionist absolutist terms. It's the same thing.

Basically these groups would not be operating in this way if they did not inwardly sense society falling apart and thus have the psychological need to stabilise themselves - you can see it with the wingers on this board too actually. This very thread and the reasons behind its original posting is a classic example.

It's not just religious either - there are all sorts of doomsday cults springing up which people pay little attention to because they are whackos and the field of the arts etc have also clearly run out of steam. An that's before Mother Nature finishes doing her thang.

Everything's been said. We've covered all the bases and there's nowhere left to go. The fat lady is winding down the aria - all that is of interest is how different people are reacting.

[Mac on a Mac]

"western civilization itself - it's so obviously on its last legs."

Western Civilization is on its last legs?

[segovius]

Originally posted by Mac on a Mac
"western civilization itself - it's so obviously on its last legs."

Western Civilization is on its last legs?

Fraid so.

[Harald]

Of COURSE it is.

Maybe we could survive regional wars and instability over water.

Maybe we could survive disruption to food production and natural disasters caused by our changing climate.

Maybe we could survive our primary source of energy becoming increasingly less efficient and much more expensive.

Maybe we could survive the global engine of capitalist growth having an economy going to hell.

Maybe we could survive the authoritarian, illiberal use of power and the wars and death it causes.

Maybe we could survive a system that transfers wealth from all over the world to the rich.

By themselves.

Any two together and we're fucked.

Off topic, but hey. True.

[Mac on a Mac]

I am not that negative on our future.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Mac on a Mac
I am not that negative on our future.

You're young. Give it time.