dib8rman said:
Badassbab said:
dib8rman said:
=/ I really can't see why anyone would want Mubarak out of power.
If the people's party wins it wil be an Islamic Nationalism or a Islamic "democratic" autocracy.
The people of Egypt just aren't ready for a Democracy at all, it's just another Arabian in struggle only this time they can't blame the US... nevermind.
A brief history on Mubarak though: Mubarak is a Egyptian nationalist, and used to be a very lax guy until his boss was killed in front of him by members of the Islamic Brotherhood. Since then he only helped Egypt on a secular path in the same way his boss did. At some point though his issues became Egypts issues and thus the Mubarak we have today. He litterally see's the welfare of Egypt as his own. If anyone here follows his interviews you would know he's stubborn as hell so he has the make shift parts of a dictator.
Egypts economical issues were not his fault either, the place is filled with very ignorant folk who... first off Egypt is heavily bent on it's agricultural sector and so it doesn't help when you kill off your live stock at a whim of some virus, especially when you've just gone through 3 famines.
What I think is Mubaraks fault though is his issue with pigs. =/ If it weren't for his idiotic decision with the pigs Cairo would be a nice place to live still... live poor but still live.
|
What a pathetic argument you've put forward. It is not up to you to decide whether Mubarak stays or goes. It's up to the Egyptian people and you should be supporting democratic forces. He's an oppressive dictator and a lackey of the US so the Egyptian people can blame the US who provide over $1 billion in mostly military aid annually for the past 30 odd years. The Mubarek family may have an estimated value of $70 billion and I doubt they acquired this vast wealth through transparent means. But hey he's our guy so as long as he controls his population it's ok (even though a lot of them live in poverty).
And don't forget our some of our major allies are Saudi Arabia and Pakistan both hot beds of Islamic extremsim especally during the 80's when we turned a blind eye to their spreading of Islamic fundamentalism (and in the process Pakistan was acquiring the knowledge to build nukes). So your argument about Islamic extremists gaining power and how it's a problem just doesn't hold water. All we care about is controlling the region whether the Governemnt is secular or a theocracy it doesn't matter. Egypt under Nasser was secular, Syria is secular etc and both deemed enemies of the US.
As for the economy...maybe if the people had a say they would be better off. As it stands it was a one party dictatorship so Mubarek has to take the blame. And I really don't get your argument about pig culls are you saying it made Cairo a worse place to live?!
|
I have to wonder if you even know what my argument is.
At this point it's a wait and see issue for what happens with Egypt.
But in another post I've given some of the facts your clearly divorced from.
------
People make the mistake of thinking that the past was better than the present, I mean anyone on the main stream media would give me the impression that before US involvement in the middle east that they were all dancing through rose pedals, swimming in wine and singing time away over there.
The area has been in civil unrest for at least the last 130 years, Blame it on the Empire or the Caliphate if you'd like but we Brits left the American's in a position to fix everything.
As for all the dictators some placed by America... Winston Churchill said it the best when reffering to America's foreign policy:
"...is the country that will always do the right thing but only after trying everything else."
We put Saddam in power to create stability, no one had a hint that he was a Megalomaniac until Kuwait we should have removed him from 1992 but we didn't that was the US's mistake.
Put it like this if the US never sent aide to the Egyptian Army, would the Army they have today be the same? We sent them aide for defensive purposes; according to NY times in a effort to block radicalisms and protect the nations sovereignty.
I can't even address your issue with Abdel Nasser only because it would take me too long to type all of the achievements he made for Egypt. He modernized Egypt in a way most of the Arab world wouldn’t come to know for another 20 years or so. Millions turned up to mourn his passing - I've never heard a negative argument about him really.
-----
As far as what is up to me and what isn't, sir or mam your jumping the gun, I never said Egyptians should do anything, I said "I couldn't see why having him removed would be a good thing."
-----
Secularism is part of the point, if you add god to politics you've already shot democracy in the foot. Clearly Nasser didn't impose a democracy or maybe he did but kept winning. =P
A common mistake about how the American democracy formed is to assume that the Pilgrims are the founders, I assure you if the Pilgrims who landed on Plymouth Rock crafted the American constitution America would be very different.
-----
As for Pakistan and nukes your going into Cold War here, they share a border with India who have been combating them for quite some time now and I'm honestly not sure for how long. I know the US has been supplying Pakistan with weapons in order to prevent them from going Nuclear it was in fact a Indian scientists who sold the workings to the Pakistanis.
Your only error here is to assume that I'm saying that if Egypt goes any other way than secular democracy that they will end up warring with the world, that's not what I'm saying, saying that would foolishly be saying that secular democracies don't fight.
If that's what you understood then that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying the condition of living won't have a chance of change unless the people put the will of the people first. Mubarak though he was many things was not against Egypt.
Now if the will of the Egyptian people should be to put Allah first or not, then that is their own issue, I've already said hat's off to them.
----
Yes, the pig culling was sheer stupidity.
Edit - Maybe I seem a bit detatched but it's actually for Egyptian well-fare that I'm arguing. All Egyptians, men and women.
-----
|
You need to stop thinking as if everything we do is for the right reasons and for the benefit of world wide peace and stability. It's only purpose is to serve the agenda of the worlds wealthy business elite which make up a tiny fraction of the worlds population. They are all in bed together, set out to create a worldwide corporate plutocracy, with countries in the 3rd world mainly acting as service sectors such as to oil the industrialised nations. In fact what the worlds business elites do is very harmful to the US and indeed worlds population, they do not have our interests at heart at all. A few examples include terrible environmental degradation, the main contributers to the rise in Global Warming temperatures (a far greater threat than terrorism), massive increase of terrorism around the world due to our savage and holier than thou attitude with regards to foreign policy etc etc.
Look at all the terrible things we've done around the world all in the of either peace or stablity or fighting enemy A or warding off enemy B. It's resulted in greed, massive poverty, millions of deaths, instability, oppression you name it. So your quote about Winston Churchill does not bear fruit in the real world. Instead of looking through the eyes of some pampered millionaire politician (who wishes he was born an American), try and see it through the eyes of the average man, women and child who struggle everyday to make ends meet, who've lost a loved during war time, who can't get their voices heard because it's forbidden and can land them in jail, torture or worse death. This is the reality facing billions in this so called 'globalised' world we live in and this has to stop. The REAL democratic forces such as we've seen in Egypt are fighting for this and we've seen it happen before where a favoured dictator is overthrown (mass murderer Indonesian dictator Suharto anyone) and then suddenly when it seems impossible to support the favoured tyrant usually praised for stability and introducing neo economic liberal reform we abandon him (probably because the Military has- no dictator can survive without his military).The same horror stories we hear about Egypt was conjored up in Indonesia too (worlds largest muslim population now have a democratic say, shock horror!).
As for Nasser- not sure why your talking about him, I only broght him up to make a point that is it doesn't matter whether the Government is secular or a theocracy, what matters is whether its obidient. Nasser was a disobedient secular Arab nationlist so he wasn't our kind of guy. Saddam was our kind of guy during the 80's when the US took Iraq off the State Sponsors of Terrorism list (shows you how much that list means) and vetoed UN resolutions against him. And unsurprisingly Saddam committed his VERY worst atrocities when he was 'our kind of guy'. Didn't give a shit then, suddenly gave a shit in 2003.
About US military aid to Egypt....where US military aid goes...violence is usually increased tenfold. Israel, Yemen, Columbia, Pakistan...it's a nasty correlation. And exactly why does Egypt need $1 billion a year? To defend it's territory from the Muslim Brotherhood? Or to buy US fighter jets, tanks and IFVs (a kind of subsidy to US defence firms who are one of the most subsidised companies in the world)? A sort of bribe to keep peace with Israel and shut the hell up? I doubt there are any noble intentions. No point talking about what the Army would've been like if they had aid or no aid. Probably less well equipped and not as well trained, that's about it.
I agree the middle east has been in turmoil ever since the collapse of the Ottamon Empire and European Empires share a large responsibility. And did we have to overthrow Mosaddegh when he was democratically elected? Later on we would see Khomeinei....blowbacks a bitch.
Read the last paragraph and now read the below which you quoted.
"...is the country that will always do the right thing but only after trying everything else."
Do you still agree with it? Is it even true? ('will try everything else').
