Yagathai Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 No, I was just responding to SS's claim that nobody was killed by the tear gas.That's kind of a fatuous point, though. I mean, maybe it's technically accurate but in no way diminishes SS's argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Its a danger yes. And if you believe that Mubarak and his ilk will remain in power indefinitely then you will probably be happy enough with the failure of this revolt. I don't think Mubarak is so invulnerable. And it isn't extremists that have dominated things so far.No, I don't believe that. I was simply observing that a failure on the part of a successor government to address adequately the underlying concerns of the protestors could result in their anger being redirected against third parties. I didn't express an opinion one way or the other on whether I want Mubarak to stay in power.The only opinion I'll express on that is that the U.S. government has handled this poorly. First, the President comes out and says that Mubarak must allow the voices of the people to be heard. The WH then leaks that it has been pushing "for years" for Mubarak to lighten up. Then the Telegraph says that the U.S. actually supported some of the folks behidn the street revolts.But then the Vice-President comes out and says that Mubarak is not a dictator and shouldn't resign. Then the Secretary of State comes out and says that we'd like to see a peaceful transition of power, and a democracy rather than a dictatorship. Without expressing any opinion on whether Mubarak should resign.I mean, WTF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relic Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 The only opinion I'll express on that is that the U.S. government has handled this poorly. First, the President comes out and says that Mubarak must allow the voices of the people to be heard. The WH then leaks that it has been pushing "for years" for Mubarak to lighten up. Then the Telegraph says that the U.S. actually supported some of the folks behidn the street revolts.But then the Vice-President comes out and says that Mubarak is not a dictator and shouldn't resign. Then the Secretary of State comes out and says that we'd like to see a peaceful transition of power, and a democracy rather than a dictatorship. Without expressing any opinion on whether Mubarak should resign.I mean, WTF?That's a good point, and a typical response by politicians. Pretty disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexia Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Did Biden really say that Mubarak is not a dictator?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S John Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 No, I was just responding to SS's claim that nobody was killed by the tear gas.US is certainly to blame for the deaths due to their support of the Mubarak regime, among other dictatorships, but that's beside the point.I'm not saying the US is blameless, God knows we're meddlers. But at what point does US responsibility end and blame gets picked up by the man that swung the club or pulled the trigger? I mean, I think its a bit ridiculous to look at these protester deaths in Egypt and the first thought is... see what you did America? I'm just asking in general, btw. Are we ultimately responsible for the actions of every government we have ever worked with and supported? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Did Biden really say that Mubarak is not a dictator?!Asked if he would characterize Mubarak as a dictator Biden responded: “Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things. And he’s been very responsible on, relative to geopolitical interest in the region, the Middle East peace efforts; the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing relationship with – with Israel. … I would not refer to him as a dictator.”http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2011/0127/Joe-Biden-says-Egypt-s-Mubarak-no-dictator-he-shouldn-t-step-down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relic Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Did Biden really say that Mubarak is not a dictator?! Lehrer asked: "The word — the word to describe the leadership of Mubarak and Egypt... was dictator. Should Mubarak be seen as a dictator?""Look," replied Biden, "Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things and he's been very responsible on, relative to geopolitical interests in the region: Middle East peace efforts, the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing the relationship with Israel. And I think that it would be — I would not refer to him as a dictator." http://www.npr.org/2011/01/31/133368321/the-nation-biden-is-on-the-wrong-side-of-history Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relic Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Did Biden really say that Mubarak is not a dictator?!and this is probably one of the reasons why Earlier, an Israeli newspaper had reported that Israel has called on the United States and Europe to curb their criticism of President Hosni Mubarak "in a bid to preserve stability in Egypt" and the wider Middle East. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/01/201113177145613.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Nan Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I'm really beginning to worry about my friends in Egypt. Have only heard from one of them so far, and he said that shit over there has become absolutely insane. His car has been torched, and he's heard of countless incidents of murder, rape, and looting amidst the chaos.Hey, better than a dictatorship, right? Hard-working revolutionaries need to unwind sometimes, know what I mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Iceman of the North Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I'm not saying the US is blameless, God knows we're meddlers. But at what point does US responsibility end and blame gets picked up by the man that swung the club or pulled the trigger? I mean, I think its a bit ridiculous to look at these protester deaths in Egypt and the first thought is... see what you did America? Obviously the blame goes in the order of "Thug swinging the club">Officer ordering (or letting him) do so>The chain of command up to President Mubarak >> Those foreign regimes, among them primarily the US, who have made sure that Mubarak stays in powerI'm just asking in general, btw. Are we ultimately responsible for the actions of every government we have ever worked with and supported?There's a difference between "working with" and "actively hold up". But the actions of any oppressive regime that is reliant on US aid to remain in power can certainly be blamed on the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relic Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 And they shouldn't be, I would be more than a little surprised if any non-American held American interests above their own. However as an American I do hold American interests above other people's interests whenever they cannot co-exist, which is quite often, because I am American and thus American interests are my interests and otherwise I am holding others' interests above my interests and that just flies in the face of human nature.That strikes me as a great way to propagate ignorance. I am X and will agree with X because i am X. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigima Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 From a purely pragmatic perspective, doing or saying anything at all seems like a dangerous tightrope for the US to walk. If we appear to support Mubarak and the protesters win out, they'll be pretty pissed at us. The reverse is true as well, plus you have to wonder what message it sends if we seem to be stabbing one of our only policy supporters in the area in the back, and what that means for other potential supporters of our policy preferences. This analysis obviously ignores more abstract ethical concerns about supporting democracy, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigima Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Yes, of course we screwed with their right to self governance. Didn't we write their constitution for them?The question on the table is whether you're okay with that. Is that a no?Yeah, but it only works if it isn't a silly example. Thank you for giving me something better to play with.No it doesn't. That is the whole point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Iceman of the North Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 It's interesting to note that Israel is so scared shitless of a possible democracy in Egypt that they allow Mubarak to break elements of the Camp David Accord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 From a purely pragmatic perspective, doing or saying anything at all seems like a dangerous tightrope for the US to walk. If we appear to support Mubarak and the protesters win out, they'll be pretty pissed at us. The reverse is true as well, plus you have to wonder what message it sends if we seem to be stabbing one of our only policy supporters in the area in the back, and what that means for other potential supporters of our policy preferences. This analysis obviously ignores more abstract ethical concerns about supporting democracy, etc.It's more then that though. US supported revolutions aren't exactly unknown or well liked in the region. Giving the idea of US backing to the protesters in Egypt is a stupid, stupid idea for both the US and the protesters.The US is, mostly, playing this the right way. Talk about "the will of the people" and all that jazz and just stay the hell out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yagathai Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Just as pacifists can only practice and propagate their philosophy because they can hide behind non-pacifists, so Coco's... whatever is to patriotism as pacificism is to non-pacifism exists only at the sufferance of those who manipulate the system so that he and his can sit on top of the international dogpile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigima Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 It's more then that though. US supported revolutions aren't exactly unknown or well liked in the region. Giving the idea of US backing to the protesters in Egypt is a stupid, stupid idea for both the US and the protesters.The US is, mostly, playing this the right way. Talk about "the will of the people" and all that jazz and just stay the hell out of it.Yeah, even if we 100% back the protesters, it may well just delegitimize them.Besides, the US backing the insurgents has a long and storied history of creating monsters that we then try to remove at great expense in both human lives and money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 FLOW - I would agree that we have not handled this well. I saw a really nauseating interview with Clinton yesterday. And Obama gave this big speech in Cairo of all places about how we want democracy in the ME. So do we? I do understand that it's complicated and that a transition must be handled delicately, but I really don't like the thought that we are completely full of crap and have been more than happy to have Mubarak in place for stability's sake.I do think this is a very tough situation for the U.S., but we should at least figure out what our position is and then stick with it rather than looking like we have no idea what we're doing.Personally, I'd suggest maybe just being truthful. Say something along the lines that it is up to the people of Egypt to determine their future, that we would hope that the question can be resolved peaceully, and that the legitimate interests of the United States, and the rest of the world, are limited to ensuring that Egypt maintains peaceful relations with other nations. Isn't that really it, and does it really sound that bad to say so?I know "democracy trumps all" may sound more principled, but in fact, other nations do have a legitimate interest in Egypt remaining peaceful. Sort of a shot across the bow to whatever factions may be jostling for power that we don't care too much who wins as long as they don't become outwardly aggressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Raids Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Yes, of course we screwed with their right to self governance. Didn't we write their constitution for them? Coco, were you pretty much anyone but Coco, this is where I would accuse you of deliberately evading a question where you know that your own answer will not support your own position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Iceman of the North Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Just as pacifists can only practice and propagate their philosophy because they can hide behind non-pacifists, so Coco's... whatever is to patriotism as pacificism is to non-pacifism exists only at the sufferance of those who manipulate the system so that he and his can sit on top of the international dogpile.What a load of BS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.