72 replies to this topic

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

I don't know how we've managed to miss this.  Too wrapped up in end-of-summer stuff perhaps.  But the situation in Egypt has deteriorated badly.  According to Reuters, 525 people are now dead in the government crackdown on ousted president Mohammed Morsi's supporters.  A crowd of thousands has stormed a government building in Cairo and set it on fire.  What had been a more or less peaceful protest has turned into a bloodbath.

 

This is a potentially explosive situation.  Egypt is one of the US's closest allies in the region, not to mention the first Arab state to sign a peace treaty with Israel.  If it went Islamist it would be a disaster for American foreign policy and stability in the region.  Not that gunning down a bunch of unarmed civilians is particularly good for stability...

 

It's a tough situation, because on the one hand the Egyptian government is perpetrating violence on its own people, in my view an unforgivable act.  On the other hand, the people against whom it's perpetrating violence are not exactly paragons of goodness either.  If Morsi had been less ham-fisted and more patient, it's not inconceivable that he could have moved the country in a more Islamist direction.  And now that the government is conveniently providing them with martyrs, not to mention painting themselves as the villains, they have made it that much easier for them to find support.  

 

The last thing we need is another theocracy in the Middle East.  Or anywhere, for that matter.

[Haflinger]

Yeah, the Egyptian situation as well as the Syrian situation is pretty depressing.

[Manoka]

To my knowledge the majority of the protestors killed were armed, although tear gas was used that may have effected near by unarmed protestors and such.

[Haflinger]

It's Egypt, most men are armed most of the time. (With knives, not guns.)

 

Imagine if there was a protest in Texas or Arizona, most of the protestors would be armed too.

[Manoka]

Well in Texas most protestors would probably be wise enough to not have firearms drawn, although not a lot of protestors in Texas are the gun bearing type.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

I've lived in the Middle East.  Guns are everywhere.  It seems like every man above a certain age owns two things:

1. A white Toyota pickup truck.
2. An AK-47.

[Manoka]

But, taking it to a protest, building camps, then attacking people would probs be a bad idea.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

The US has canceled joint military exercises with Egypt.  But that's mostly for show.  No way the United States government will allow Egypt to fall to Islamists.  Which is exactly the same position they had on Iran in 1979.

[King Biscuit]

 Which is exactly the same position they had on Iran in 1979.

 

That worked amazingly too btw.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

 Which is exactly the same position they had on Iran in 1979.

 

That worked amazingly too btw.

 

Well, on the bright side, maybe they'll start printing "Ayatollah Assahollah" shirts again.

[Manoka]

Islamists really aren't so bad, so much as the extremists.

 

Some of the suicide bombers have even been atheist! O_O

[Justavictim82]

Which is exactly the same position they had on Iran in 1979.

That worked amazingly too btw.

This. The US needs to step butting its head on sovergn countries' revolutions. This is how fundamentalist Islam came to hate us more than anyone outside of Israel (some even hate us more). We are not the world police so we need to stop acting like it. Short of mass genocide, we should never intervene in anything. We are stretched out thinly right now as it is. Here is to hoping we let this play its course and stay the fuck out.

[Manoka]

 

 Which is exactly the same position they had on Iran in 1979.

 

That worked amazingly too btw.

 

Well, on the bright side, maybe they'll start printing "Ayatollah Assahollah" shirts again.

 

The irony is that things got bad as soon as we pulled out.

[Lord Draculea]

I was in Egypt on a business trip just 1 or 2 days before President Mubarak was thrown out of power. The main streets in Cairo were blocked, and at some point we had to get out of the car and walk through the anti-Mubarak protesters grouped in the Tahrir Square and then through the police forces (wearing helmets, shields and sticks and looking quite scary) to get to the hotel. I was with a friend (working for the same company), and you can imagine us, wearing Western suits in a sea of Arabic clothes and military uniforms, vaguely smiling and excusing ourselves, while walking through the two opposed groups, who were looking forward to destroy each other.    They let us go through with no incident, although our hearts were frozen and we were waiting for the sky to fall upon us at any moment. I had seen similar scenes in the Romanian revolution (back in 1989), but I can imagine my Slovak colleague's mood during the scene. 

Later that evening, at the hotel, we were wondering if we're going to make it to the airport and back home, or if we're going to get trapped in a bloody revolution in the middle of nowhere. To "encourage" myself (and my colleague) I was being mean and made jokes about things that might happen to innocent people like us, getting caught in such events.  Fortunately, we were able to get out of there in one piece (and alive).   An unforgettable experience, especially for my friend. 

[Haflinger]

Wait, Manoka: you think that just keeping the Shah in place would have worked long term?

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

The US needs to step butting its head on sovergn countries' revolutions. This is how fundamentalist Islam came to hate us more than anyone outside of Israel (some even hate us more). We are not the world police so we need to stop acting like it. Short of mass genocide, we should never intervene in anything. We are stretched out thinly right now as it is. Here is to hoping we let this play its course and stay the fuck out.

The problem is the the US is a great power, and great powers have national interests all over the world.  If Egypt falls to an Islamic revolution it would be disastrous.  This is why we prop up dictators like Mubarak.  We're caught between a rock and a hard place.  We give a lot of lip service to promoting democracy, and I think deep down that is what we really want.  Or at least we think it is.  But democracy cannot be forced upon a people who are not ready.  It took hundreds of years for Western civilization to develop a tradition of democratic government, and it was not always a smooth process.  Hell, women only got the vote in 1920!  So why do we think we can overthrow dictators, hold an election, and everything will be hunky dory?

[Manoka]

Wait, Manoka: you think that just keeping the Shah in place would have worked long term?

 

I think from where they stood then it was better than where they stand now; I think, given time, they could have made a much more reasonable transition to a decent democracy, that then could have gotten better over time, instead of like it is now, with the previous guy denying the holocaust and starting and a U.N. denied inspection nuclear program, designed to use 20% U-235 uranium or more.

 

 

I mean 20%. American reactors use 3%. Canadian reactors use .7%. He wants to use 20%! By itself that could become the core of a dirty bomb. Dafuq does that do? In fact I think it will waste power since it should start reacting way faster than they can even contain or get energy from it, before it's even in a reactor. How do they expect the centrifuges to not overheat on their already 1 million RPM cycle?

Edited by Manoka, 15 August 2013 - 01:30 PM.

[Haflinger]

The Shah's regime was a masterwork of corruption. If they had succeeded in propping it up longterm the best possible result would have been Palermo-style politics.

[Manoka]

Let's say that's the case.

 

Woman's rights were greatly increased during the time, including going to school, being allowed to work in factories, and do things without a Husband, as well as vote. Education programs were increased, and were intended to educate people. The economy improved, with an increasing urban working class, and educated white collar group. Land ownership was fragmented, and previous rich land owners had their land broken up so smaller farmers and previous workers, largely treated as serfs, could make individual profits. Water was more heavily focused on, particularly in the desert climate, and deprivatized. Profit Sharing for industrial workers in private sector enterprises, giving the factory workers and employees 20% share of the net profits of the places where they worked and securing bonuses based on higher productivity or reductions in costs. Free food programs for new mothers (age of children below 2) and children going to school; an actual functioning social security and healthcare system.

 

 

 

Despite all this, the rising middle class essentially resented the Shah; he was a symbol of the dictatorial style ruling of the past, despite voting and democracy. As well as with the growing strength of the clergy, and thus the acceptance of an Islam based party instead of the secularly ran one, and despite the supposed complete removal of the Tudah party, they had nearly as much strength as an underground unit who in just 2 years, after 20 years of being oppressed, took over and established their rule.

 

In the end, the same party that had been dismantled before, an Islam based communist party, took over. We merely kept them suppressed for about 20 years; up to this point, there was almost no successful violent acts by the Tudah party, and yet they managed to overthrow the shah almost immediately after American forces left.

 

 

Had we had stayed to ensure say, the Shah turned into the equivalent of the Queen of England, yes, I think things would have turned out for the better. It was only through constant military occupation we had kept the party which currently rules suppressed. They were only backed by an angry middle class, who wanted to overthrow the previous monarchy. Had we stayed to keep that peaceful, I think it would have been a much more successful revolution.

Edited by Manoka, 15 August 2013 - 02:25 PM.

[Lord Draculea]

I think, given time, they could have made a much more reasonable transition to a decent democracy

In my view, there is no such thing as a "reasonable transition to a decent democracy" under foreign occupation, it's a contradiction in terms. Democracy implies people's sovereignty, and it can be achieved (given enough time) through a national endeavor or not at all. Building up a democracy can be a rough process, particularly in its early stages, and I totally agree with Jorost that democracy cannot be forced upon a people who are not ready for it. In the case of Muslim nations, the process is further hampered by the fact that religion still plays a dominant role in society and that it has always been traditionally associated with political power, which is why those nations find it hard to imagine a legal system separated from the Islamic law (the Sharia).