Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
@Kasz. The international community ended up having almost no influence on Egypt or Tunisia, why should they here?
Bahrain - Yes. Because of the brutal but unsuccesful crackdown the protestors are super pissed off and have the momentum, the monarchy is likely to be toppled or made ceremonial.
Libya - Maybe. If the protests spread in a big way to Tripoli then the answer becomes yes. Currently as the protests aren't in the capital it's unlikely that they can topple Gadaffi.
Yemen - Maybe. It's a wait and see for how big this is going to get.
Jordan - Had the perfect response to the unrest. Also they weren't treating people so bad as the others and so the protestors weren't nearly as pissed.
There are a few things every revolution relies on. One is the other revolutions, the more dictators that fall the less chance the other ones have. Hosni was a big blow for all of the others. Another thing is the army, while the senior officers in each army are well entrenched in the regime all it takes is for the junior officers to say 'Sod this, we're not shooting civilians' and the protestors win.
|
That's untrue. Egypt was VERY MUCH influenced by the international community. The Egytpian Military was apparently in constant contact with the USA on a back channel, removal of the police and in general his stepping down was helped negotiated by a lot of backdoor behind the scenes dealing by Obama... apparently Obama also demanded the government to be handed over to the military in private before he stated it should happen in public... and before the Military was even know to be an option and before the military publically announced it wouldn't fire on it's own.
Without these things Mubarack would still be in power. Egypts military moved embolded by US support. It's all stuff that might be missed in the casual reading the occasional article following of it... but if you really get in and look at this stuff you'd be surprised just how much the US had to do with Egypt.
|
Mubarack wouldn't still be in power. It may have been messier if the US hadn't gotten involved but the real problem was that the junior officers would have turned on their superiors if ordered to attack the protesters, therefore the generals did the only thing to ensure their position.
The US intially and for a long time supported Mubarack staying in power, he was removed against the wishes of the USA.
|
That is completely false.
The US supported him vs a power vacuum/other dictatorship. However they're preference has aways been a Democracy. (Well since the end of the cold war.)
Hell it's been the stated preference, and the US has funded and created MANY democratic instutitions in Egypt.
Ever since the end of the Cold War the US policy has been to greatly urge their middleastern allies to make more and more democratic reforms and eventually give up power.
As soon as the protests started Obama was talking to Mubarak telling him to stand down. Before there was any indication the protests would succeed. Washington Officials were giving the army full support in their upheavel. (the second in command was actually in washinton at the time.)
This was more or less EXACTLY what the US wanted. To believe otherwise is to be completely ignorant of middle eastern foreign policy and be stuck in an outdated BS Cold War mindset.
This is basically exactly the right way to foster democracy in nations with dictators.
