Egypt Mk. 3

[Lyanna Stark]

1: Much of it is. Mubarak is hated, amongst many things, because he is cozying up with the west, and because of the peace agreement with Israel. He would probably have been stronger internally had he had a more Iranian or Syrian stance (which themselves are hardly the same) towards the west.

2: For you, not for the Arab street. The Muslim brotherhood is very popular. The riots are disorganized. Even if they succeed, they do not have an organized group leading them. One will carry the flag of leadership eventually. Either the MB or another opposition groups. I worry that they are far less pragmatic than you think.

3: There was worry before the Iranian revolution. Turned out to be correct. This brings me back to my first point, that the opposition grouups in Egypt are very different than those in Eastern Europe.

So basically according to you, the Eqyptians are a bunch of extremist nutcases who will, if not oppressed by a totalitarian dictator, become 100% radicalised and become Iran mk 2.

Even though the underlying reasons for the revolt isn't Mubarak cozying up to the west unless the media sources have to got it brutally wrong all the time.

Also, as you know nothing of my political affiliations, it would be nice if you do not paste labels as "liberal heart" onto me, thank you very much.

Abdullah is a less obviously dictatorial figure than Mubarak (he was in episode of Voyager, for fucks sake)

Really? :o My word.

[The Iceman of the North]

To put a finer point on it, I take it everyone is in favor of toppling Jordan's constitutional monarchy also, and sees the firing of the government as a sham effort by a dictator to make his government look responsible to the people?

You would have a point if the people of Jordan wanted to topple the monarchy, but I've seen no evidence of that. Demonstrators demanded that the PM resign, which have happened.

[Guest Raids]

:lol: Lets just assume when people talk about democracies they actually consider the US one. But ok, the feature of the alternatives to democracies and constitutional republics (which still do fine at oppressing minorities occasionally) is the oppression of the majority.

I absolutely would not do that in this context because when we talk about the possibility of a meaningful democracy in Egypt we sure as hell are not talking about a government modeled on the United States' Constitution, and why would we? It's not like it's the perfect thing for every society or even for the United States in all cases.

There are many forms that any such democracy could take. Some could be very, very oppressive to women and Coptic Christians. We'll see. I personally think it's still worth toppling the current oppressive regime, but I don't think we should act like any democratic solution is as good as any other.

Honestly, I think you missed whatever point I was trying to make in the first place, picked my post stream up in the middle, and decided you have a problem with one particular thing I said out of context, because I have no idea what we're talking about.

You would have a point if the people of Jordan wanted to topple the monarchy, but I've seen no evidence of that. Demonstrators demanded that the PM resign, which have happened.

No, it's been put forth by many people that all forms of non-democratic government should be toppled for the simple fact that they are non-Democratic.

[Lyanna Stark]

There are many forms that any such democracy could take. Some could be very, very oppressive to women and Coptic Christians. We'll see. I personally think it's still worth toppling the current oppressive regime, but I don't think we should act like any democratic solution is as good as any other.

According to a report in the largest Swedish newspaper DN, this is already the case though. Women are getting a very, very rough deal as it is. (link http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/egyptiska-kvinnor-kraver-forandring)

It's sadly very possible this will be the same even after a democratisation of the country, but at least in a democracy there is normally movements to modernise things and to educate people better, meaning long term, things improve.

[Galactus]

Really? My word.

Yes.

[Lyanna Stark]

Weirdo double post

[Jon AS]

I approve of this argument.

Why is appearing on Voyager a point in his favour? I mean, if it had been DS9 or TNG that'd count, but Voyager?

[Yoadm]

You should. That's completely relevant. You are right that one shouldn't dismiss an article based simply on the background of the poster but one shouldn't be blind to it. My reaction to the article was simply "that seemed rather sensationalist, I wonder where he was from. Oh...there you go". Checking his background supported by assessment of where he was from.

I don't know. I saw little sensationalism there, and his opinion was backed up by facts. It was based on the lack of an organization behind the rioters, Egypt's lack of foreign exchange reserves or naturaly resources it can use to feed the masses and strengthen any future government. The political outlook of the opposition. He was pretty clear. Your first response to that was "well, he's Jewish".

I'm not sure has extremism increased to be honest. Egypt was fighting wars 40 years ago. Anyhow, if it has increased, my worry would be that it would only continue to increase given the corrupt dictatorship. (I've said this before). Then we wouldn't be arguing about who may seize power. We'd know. Mubarak has failed to turn Egypt into a secular country (not that he tried).

Egypt is far less secular than it was 30 years ago. Far less. And this extremism derives not nesseceraly from the regime but rather the failure of Arab nationalism itself (as perceived in the middle-east). Extremism, sometimes religious extremism, is seen as an alternative.

Do we know this? I'm doubtful.

It's your right to be, but the amount of people supporting the peace agreement with Israel is very small. You may not be unaware of what Israel means to the Arab world. It's a festering wound for them. A wound to their national and historical pride. True or false, we are their modern crusaders, and beyond that, we are a living testimony to their failures in the last decades. It is a very proud culture, based on a glorious history of military victories coupled with scientific achievement. None of this is evident in modern days, and after centuries of humiliation, finally Arab states achieve independence, only that most of them fail economically, cannot compete with western universities, and above all, fail in the basic aspiration to Arab unity, while they are anything but close to their former glory. And then this little country stuck in the heart of the Arab world (israel) that the whole Arab world fails to get rid of, for various reasons. Arab leaders lacking a belligerant stance towards Israel represent (true or not), the weak, bootlicking modern version of what the Arab street hates.

So basically according to you, the Eqyptians are a bunch of extremist nutcases who will, if not oppressed by a totalitarian dictator, become 100% radicalised and become Iran mk 2.

Even though the underlying reasons for the revolt isn't Mubarak cozying up to the west unless the media sources have to got it brutally wrong all the time.

Don't misrepresent me. They are far from nutcases. But they don't share your values, and democracy there is not how you see it in the west. Furthermore, the spark that launched the riots is food shortages, poverty and lack of political freedom. The fuel that built up over the decades is made up in large part as a result of Mubarak's international outlook.

[Lyanna Stark]

IDon't misrepresent me. They are far from nutcases. But they don't share your values, and democracy there is not how you see it in the west. Furthermore, the spark that launched the riots is food shortages, poverty and lack of political freedom. The fuel that built up over the decades is made up in large part as a result of Mubarak's international outlook.

So the fact that he oppresses the people, is totally corrupt and is ruling a country with possibilites but that is left to squander has nothing to do with this? It's all his international outlook? How on earth does that work? It lacks any kind of logic.

Also, I ask you AGAIN to not tell me what my values are since you don't know what they are. This is the second time I ask you to PLEASE not paste your pre-conceived notions of political alignment onto me. Thank you.

[The Iceman of the North]

No, it's been put forth by many people that all forms of non-democratic government should be toppled for the simple fact that they are non-Democratic.

How is a constitutional monarchy non-Democratic?

[Galactus]

How is a constitutional monarchy non-Democratic?

Depends on the constitution.

[Guest Raids]

I take it from the tone of this post that you don't?

Ask Chrikz about King Abdullah II. He does not have nice things to say about him.

I don't have an opinion about that, other than a vague impression that the regime in Jordan takes individual rights more seriously than many of the other countries in the region. But I'm not sure if that's true. I am wondering what other people think about Jordan and if it's consistent with their stated positions about the need for democracy in other places in the region.

How is a constitutional monarchy non-Democratic?

The executive is not elected.

ETA: And Coco, yes, you did. That is exactly what you said. If I cared more, I would go dig it out of the last thread, but I don't really care. If that's not what you think anymore, than fine. People do not have a right to self-determination if they already live under a constitutional government, even if it's not democratic. Whatever.

I, personally, am ideologically against non-democratic governments, unlike Fez. As I don't have any problem taking that position, I don't think it's a straw man to raise it. But I don't think it's a simple conclusion to come to, and I don't think you, or most of the people in this thread, have been very engaging on this subject - instead, for whatever reason, it's devolved into point-scoring and - which bothers me more - the assumption that other people are trying to point-score off your posts instead of have a discussion.

Fuck that I don't have the time or interest.

[Galactus]

I think Coco has a rather greek sense of self-determination as eleutheria and autonomia, IE: the freedom to set up whatever government you want and rule it according to your ancestral laws.

[Galactus]

The executive is not elected.

The position of the monarch in a constitutional monarchy is not neccessarily analogous to that of an executive officer of state.

[Lyanna Stark]

The executive is not elected.

The monarch in a constitutional democracy doesn't necessarily hold this power though. To say that as a rule, constitutional democracies aren't really democracies disqualifies a lot of the Western world, incl the UK (and by extension also the Commonwealth countries?), the Scandinavian countries, Spain and the Netherlands, for instance.

It looks like a very problematic stance to take.

[Datepalm]

The PA planning to move up municipal elections, apparently. Who's next? (I'm betting its back to North Africa. Algeria or Libya.) 

[Usotsuki]

I'm going with a dark horse candidate - Bahrain - I have many happy memories of sitting on my balcony drinking gin and listening to the guns

[Eyelesbarrow]

Closer to home,Thailand. They do annual coup d'etats anyway. (Not as big as the ME protests, though. They like their king.)

Linky function appears to be broken:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/01/21/business/Soaring-food-cost-hitting-Thai-homes-30146847.html

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/219340/bannawit-coup-countdown-has-begun

ETA for this:

Candidates for the next street uprising.

[Guest Raids]

In a constitutional monarchy like Jordan, where the monarch is the chief executive and commander in cheif of the army, the chief executive is not elected.

It really doesn't matter.

[Yagathai]

The executive is not elected.

I believe you may be conflating head of state with head of government. The executive in a constitutional monarchy is typically elected, though of course this may vary from constitution to constitution. In the UK or Canada, for example, the executive is definitely elected. Also, in some constitutional monarchies the monarch is elected as well.