Egyptian Democracy!

Dixie said:
Then you and your left-wing radical cabal can construct all kinds of 'explanations' for why the shitstorm is the fault of REPUBLICANS and their policies... like you always do.
Click to expand...

More Dix predictions?
 
Dixie said:
Well... this situation would have certainly never developed, that's for sure. Way back in time, when Liberals completely ignored all of Egypt's political problems, I would have sent my Secretary of State over, and had a talk with Mubarak. I would have explained to him exactly HOW he would be able to remain in power, by adopting and supporting a true democratic election process. Then I would have used the upheaval as an opportunity to establish true constitutional democracy in Egypt.

Liberals stood by and did nothing, and allowed Mubarak to be overthrown, and replaced with radical Islamists. Now what we have, is a government that claims to be "democratic" but isn't, and isn't going to ever be. Liberals, being radicals themselves, are dancing in the streets over their form of "democracy" which is actually radicalism. You've allowed one of the most important allies we had over there, to become radicalized. Now we shall see what that brings... I predict it ain't gonna be pretty.
Click to expand...
all presidents have warned Mubarak of the need for political reform - not out of Egyptian interests, but our own to keep him in power. In other words, let some political reform instead of building up presures for reform.
I don't know if it would made a difference, but ny not doing so Mubarak sealed his fate that one day he'd be overthrown. Ironically by Sadat's murderers;
http://middleeast.about.com/od/egypt/a/me081006a.htm
Sadat's Attackers
The attackers included four enlisted men, an army major and a lieutenant. The major and two enlisted men were killed in the swarm around the reviewing stand, once other members of the military realized what was taking place. The rest were arrested. The attackers would eventually come to be identified as Islamist nationalists associated with the Muslim Brotherhood under the name of Islamic Jihad.

The group was subsequently found to have hatched the assassination plot with Al Gamaa al-Islamiyya, a Brotherhood offshoot that would , in the mid-1990s, develop ties with al-Qaeda and be chiefly responsible for the 1997 terrorist attack in Luxor on Nov. 17, 1997, when six men dressed in black attacked tourists visiting the famous site in Upper Egypt. Sixty-two men, women and children were killed.

Among the group’s leaders: Ayman al-Zawahiri, subsequently al-Qaeda’s Number 2. Zawahiri was tried and imprisoned for three years for his role ion the plot, then expelled from Egypt
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
It is more democratic than before when they tried to exclude some candidates. This is only the first stage hopefully the parliament will have some real power and not just be a talking shop.
Click to expand...

you're right. my point is, the election was not a democratic election according to the various definitions i could find and what my understanding of what democratic elections are.
 
Onceler said:
You didn't even know what democratic elections were when you ridiculed me for saying they had democratic elections? You had to look it up?

Man, is that embarassing.
Click to expand...

did i say i didn't know what they are? no. i looked up definitions to see if i was right or wrong. you once again have to lie about what people say in order to cowardly hide behind your faux intelligence. you have not given a definition or even tried to debate what democratic elections are.

all you are is a whiny, sniveling crybaby who can't debate himself out of a wet paper bag. see tom's posts for the difference between you and an actual discussion.
 
annata said:
all presidents have warned Mubarak of the need for political reform -
Click to expand...

Clean the peanut butter out of your ears! Where did I ever say I would "warn Mubarak of the need for political reform?" I know you are a liberal, and it may be out of your realm of comprehension, but I said I would send my Secretary of State over to "have a talk" with Mubarak, to tell him how things were going to be, and then reinforced that by admitting, it may require persuasion. Another way of putting it, is I would give him an unconditional ultimatum. An even better way for a liberal to comprehend, I would ram it down his throat and mandate it against his will without any bipartisan support.

Here's how Dixie Diplomacy would work in the middle east:

1. We have a talk about what you are going to do.
2. If you are reluctant, one of your palaces is vaporized by a stealth-delivered MOAB.
3. We continue this process until you agree to reform.

Really simple, and guaranteed to work every time.
 
Here is where I have to laugh. For years people have been saying that egypt needed political reform, that they needed free elections and to govern themselves. It's an article of faith in the US that only dictators hate us and will enact policies that don't favor us. Everybody said that the egyptians were going to get free elections now and the world would be great and happy and we would get a new friend, suddenly they seem to be leaning Muslim Brotherhood way..... Wait hold it, that's not right, they're electing the wrong people. But they have free elections, but they elected the wrong people, CRISIS OF FAITH. Americans don't know what to do, and now we have this split between "Hey it's ok to put the military in power, like a military dictatorship which we say we are against." and "hey maybe it was a Fake election" and the MB set it up. Both sides are rather sad and demonstrate a failing in americans, sometimes guys the people we don't like get elected, you know the people that said Mubarak was crazy? And that he Oppressed?


This is how democracy works, you put the people who got elected into power, otherwise it's not a democracy it's Putin. Leave the MB in power, make them accountable for their actions, either it'll be good for egypt in which case, hey greatest good for greatest number of people, that's Aristotelian level good, or it'll be bad and they'll get voted out. Freaking out because they elected a muslim, in a primarily muslim country, is both silly and infantile. We always claim that we support the people, again it's an article of faith for us. Now, stop freaking out and stop trying to think of ways to interfere in another country's elections.
 
apple0154 said:
Some folks just don't get it. It's not about separation of church and state or mosque and state. It's not even about democracy. It's about letting the people decide what they want.

How can anyone who believes in democracy attend church? Millions of people living their life by rules laid down 2000+ years ago. Rules they never voted on and rules they'll never vote on.

There's that old saying, "Don't just talk the talk, walk the walk." If one wants to talk about hypocrisy maybe it's time to take a closer look at those who claim to support democracy while publicly claiming their faith plays an important part in decision making. Maybe it's time to take a closer look at those who support churches and faith organizations when they and democracy are diametrical opposites. Maybe it's time to question those religious institution attending, right wing Republicans to determine if they have any concept of individual rights. Or maybe it's unsettling for them to realize the Egyptians are a bit too similar to them when it comes to choosing how they want to live and the rest of the world be damned.

Why wouldn't Liberals and everyone else appreciate the fact the Egyptians got the chance to choose how to live?

This is the crux of the problem. Some folks think if a society/culture has the chance to experience democracy they will choose our way of life. How many times do they have to be shown such is not the case; be it the Palestinians or the Venezuelans or the Egyptians or.....? Is the goal to bring democracy to the world or is the goal to bring our way of life to the world using the word "freedom" as a proverbial Trojan Horse?
Click to expand...

For one thing, the secularists have unfortunately largely discredited themselves by decades of association with the Mubarak regime. This lead to the Islamists being one of the few forces there who could prove that they had decades of organizing for democracy. This inevitably lead to the victory of the islamists.

The problem with opposing the will of the people for the sake of some higher goal is that it will eventually lead to social unrest which will inevitably require illiberal repression if your regime is to stay in power. There is no such thing as a liberal dictatorship. Give democracy to a liberal peoples, and they will support liberal policies even without any constitutional restrictions (see the UK). Give democracy to an illiberal people, and they will eventually find ways around even the most elaborate constitution imaginable. Take democracy away from them, and you will eventually have to resort to illiberalism. I think the best way forward is simply to let the Egyptians work this out for themselves.
 
Disillusioned said:
Here is where I have to laugh. For years people have been saying that egypt needed political reform, that they needed free elections and to govern themselves. It's an article of faith in the US that only dictators hate us and will enact policies that don't favor us. Everybody said that the egyptians were going to get free elections now and the world would be great and happy and we would get a new friend, suddenly they seem to be leaning Muslim Brotherhood way..... Wait hold it, that's not right, they're electing the wrong people. But they have free elections, but they elected the wrong people, CRISIS OF FAITH. Americans don't know what to do, and now we have this split between "Hey it's ok to put the military in power, like a military dictatorship which we say we are against." and "hey maybe it was a Fake election" and the MB set it up. Both sides are rather sad and demonstrate a failing in americans, sometimes guys the people we don't like get elected, you know the people that said Mubarak was crazy? And that he Oppressed?


This is how democracy works, you put the people who got elected into power, otherwise it's not a democracy it's Putin. Leave the MB in power, make them accountable for their actions, either it'll be good for egypt in which case, hey greatest good for greatest number of people, that's Aristotelian level good, or it'll be bad and they'll get voted out. Freaking out because they elected a muslim, in a primarily muslim country, is both silly and infantile. We always claim that we support the people, again it's an article of faith for us. Now, stop freaking out and stop trying to think of ways to interfere in another country's elections.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's controversial that Putin is generally popular in Russia.
 
Disillusioned said:
Here is where I have to laugh. For years people have been saying that egypt needed political reform, that they needed free elections and to govern themselves. It's an article of faith in the US that only dictators hate us and will enact policies that don't favor us. Everybody said that the egyptians were going to get free elections now and the world would be great and happy and we would get a new friend, suddenly they seem to be leaning Muslim Brotherhood way..... Wait hold it, that's not right, they're electing the wrong people. But they have free elections, but they elected the wrong people, CRISIS OF FAITH. Americans don't know what to do, and now we have this split between "Hey it's ok to put the military in power, like a military dictatorship which we say we are against." and "hey maybe it was a Fake election" and the MB set it up. Both sides are rather sad and demonstrate a failing in americans, sometimes guys the people we don't like get elected, you know the people that said Mubarak was crazy? And that he Oppressed?


This is how democracy works, you put the people who got elected into power, otherwise it's not a democracy it's Putin. Leave the MB in power, make them accountable for their actions, either it'll be good for egypt in which case, hey greatest good for greatest number of people, that's Aristotelian level good, or it'll be bad and they'll get voted out. Freaking out because they elected a muslim, in a primarily muslim country, is both silly and infantile. We always claim that we support the people, again it's an article of faith for us. Now, stop freaking out and stop trying to think of ways to interfere in another country's elections.
Click to expand...

Ahh.. the exact same philosophy we followed when the Shah of Iran was toppled, and an Ayatollah replaced him. That worked out well, eh?
 
Dixie said:
Ahh.. the exact same philosophy we followed when the Shah of Iran was toppled, and an Ayatollah replaced him. That worked out well, eh?
Click to expand...
It was the policy we didn't follow when we installed the Shah of Iran too. Over the popular government remember? You know the dictator who we funded and helped intimidate and repress and pretty much put together all the anti-american feeling?

Go one back from your example and it still supports my position.
 
Disillusioned said:
It was the policy we didn't follow when we installed the Shah of Iran too. Over the popular government remember? You know the dictator who we funded and helped intimidate and repress and pretty much put together all the anti-american feeling?

Go one back from your example and it still supports my position.
Click to expand...

No, I don't remember it that way. I recall the Shah bringing Iran into the current century from third-world status, by westernization. While he was no angel, and had his faults (like Mubarak) he was also a strong ally (like Mubarak) and when he was deposed (like Mubarak) we were told, just as we are being told now (about Mubarak) that it's BETTER for us to stay out of it and mind our own business, and allow the radicals to take over the government. The point is, we've followed this philosophy before, and the result was radical jihad, which culminated in them flying planes into our buildings.

Your position is mindless ignorance and denial of the enemy we are facing, who have declared war on us.
 
Dixie said:
No, I don't remember it that way. I recall the Shah bringing Iran into the current century from third-world status, by westernization. While he was no angel, and had his faults (like Mubarak) he was also a strong ally (like Mubarak) and when he was deposed (like Mubarak) we were told, just as we are being told now (about Mubarak) that it's BETTER for us to stay out of it and mind our own business, and allow the radicals to take over the government. The point is, we've followed this philosophy before, and the result was radical jihad, which culminated in them flying planes into our buildings.

Your position is mindless ignorance and denial of the enemy we are facing, who have declared war on us.
Click to expand...

So should we have a good talk to Assad?
 
Dixie said:
Ahh.. the exact same philosophy we followed when the Shah of Iran was toppled, and an Ayatollah replaced him. That worked out well, eh?
Click to expand...

You do realise that he is only the interim president, don't you? the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) has already made it clear that after a new constitution is drafted new presidential elections will take place. The temporary new head of state will not be able to nominate the Minister of Defence, Minister of the Interior and will have no say over the military budget.

http://www.stirringtroubleinternati...-muslim-brotherhood-had-better-not-forget-it/
 
Last edited:
Dixie said:
No, I don't remember it that way. I recall the Shah bringing Iran into the current century from third-world status, by westernization. While he was no angel, and had his faults (like Mubarak) he was also a strong ally (like Mubarak) and when he was deposed (like Mubarak) we were told, just as we are being told now (about Mubarak) that it's BETTER for us to stay out of it and mind our own business, and allow the radicals to take over the government. The point is, we've followed this philosophy before, and the result was radical jihad, which culminated in them flying planes into our buildings.

Your position is mindless ignorance and denial of the enemy we are facing, who have declared war on us.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand what the Shah was. He was an imposed king/dictator that we dropped on Iran, we funded his army and his secret police to root out anybody who disagreed with him and in return he played ball with us. The Shah could best be described as Saudi Mark II without the British influence.

Dixie I don't know where you got this idea that dictators are cool as long as they do things our way, but it's rather, I don't know how to say this, unamerican.
 
Dixie said:
Clean the peanut butter out of your ears! Where did I ever say I would "warn Mubarak of the need for political reform?" I know you are a liberal, and it may be out of your realm of comprehension, but I said I would send my Secretary of State over to "have a talk" with Mubarak, to tell him how things were going to be, and then reinforced that by admitting, it may require persuasion. Another way of putting it, is I would give him an unconditional ultimatum. An even better way for a liberal to comprehend, I would ram it down his throat and mandate it against his will without any bipartisan support.

Here's how Dixie Diplomacy would work in the middle east:

1. We have a talk about what you are going to do.
2. If you are reluctant, one of your palaces is vaporized by a stealth-delivered MOAB.
3. We continue this process until you agree to reform.

Really simple, and guaranteed to work every time.
Click to expand...

What a deplorable view of foreign policy. America as the bully, forcing other countries to adopt policies & regimes that are favorable to us, against the will of the people.

A far cry from your arguments about "Operation Iraqi Freedom," and a very insightful window to how your mind really works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top