They don't dominate the country, a US-backed dictator dominates the country - sound familiar?JohnG@lt wrote:
So you're saying the muslim extremists that dominate that country would not exist if the country were more democratic? lol.Jenspm wrote:
The Muslim Brotherhood wouldn't have to exist without Mubarak.11 Bravo wrote:
well im sure the muslim brotherhood has nothing but good intentions for everyone
It's not about condoning violence. It's about staying the fuck out of the way.Jenspm wrote:
Yupp, and that seems to be the general line of everyone. Condone the use of government violence, and then sit back and watch.
It'll be interesting to see how loyal the military is to the government. They are, after all, not in the military by choice, and would be fighting their brothers and sisters if called in to confront the rioters.
Oh, I know, I was merely pointing out what Clinton and the rest of the west's foreign ministers have been saying and doing.JohnG@lt wrote:
It's not about condoning violence. It's about staying the fuck out of the way.Jenspm wrote:
Yupp, and that seems to be the general line of everyone. Condone the use of government violence, and then sit back and watch.
It'll be interesting to see how loyal the military is to the government. They are, after all, not in the military by choice, and would be fighting their brothers and sisters if called in to confront the rioters.
Trouble is, he's perceived as a US puppet, so doing nothing is tacit approval.JohnG@lt wrote:
It's not about condoning violence. It's about staying the fuck out of the way.Jenspm wrote:
Yupp, and that seems to be the general line of everyone. Condone the use of government violence, and then sit back and watch.
It'll be interesting to see how loyal the military is to the government. They are, after all, not in the military by choice, and would be fighting their brothers and sisters if called in to confront the rioters.
And undermining by supporting the rebels loses us our allies in the region.Dilbert_X wrote:
Trouble is, he's perceived as a US puppet, so doing nothing is tacit approval.JohnG@lt wrote:
It's not about condoning violence. It's about staying the fuck out of the way.Jenspm wrote:
Yupp, and that seems to be the general line of everyone. Condone the use of government violence, and then sit back and watch.
It'll be interesting to see how loyal the military is to the government. They are, after all, not in the military by choice, and would be fighting their brothers and sisters if called in to confront the rioters.
Whatever you want to call them, same thing.Dilbert_X wrote:
Rebels or brave revolutionaries?
Yeah, US is the bad guy. Always. Fuck off.
E) Ignore the rebels and support democratic reform.JohnG@lt wrote:
Whatever you want to call them, same thing.Dilbert_X wrote:
Rebels or brave revolutionaries?
Our options:
A) Do nothing. End result everyone in the nation is mad at us.
B) Support the current leadership. End result the rebels hate us and so do rebel groups in other nations.
C) Verbally support the rebels. End result make an enemy for life in that regime if the rebels lose. Lose all of our allies because they think we would support their own rebel groups.
D) Physically support the rebels. End result is we lose our allies in the region and get accused of setting up a puppet government.
It's a no-win situation. As much as romantic people of college age wish it to be otherwise, option B is the only one that works in global diplomacy. Challenging the status quo fucks up trade and it fucks up diplomatic ties elsewhere.
There are a million scenarios. I only listed the first four that came to mind.Dilbert_X wrote:
E) Ignore the rebels and support democratic reform.JohnG@lt wrote:
Whatever you want to call them, same thing.Dilbert_X wrote:
Rebels or brave revolutionaries?
Our options:
A) Do nothing. End result everyone in the nation is mad at us.
B) Support the current leadership. End result the rebels hate us and so do rebel groups in other nations.
C) Verbally support the rebels. End result make an enemy for life in that regime if the rebels lose. Lose all of our allies because they think we would support their own rebel groups.
D) Physically support the rebels. End result is we lose our allies in the region and get accused of setting up a puppet government.
It's a no-win situation. As much as romantic people of college age wish it to be otherwise, option B is the only one that works in global diplomacy. Challenging the status quo fucks up trade and it fucks up diplomatic ties elsewhere.
hmm?JohnG@lt wrote:
Majority rule is dictatorship.
Total libertarian freedom is the answer, except when it doesn't work or leads to anything but 'free-market' capitalism.oug wrote:
hmm?JohnG@lt wrote:
Majority rule is dictatorship.
http://www.egypt.embassy.gov.au/caro/home.htmlForeign Minister Rudd’s visit to Egypt
The Hon Kevin Rudd MP, Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, visited Egypt from 10-12 December. Mr Rudd held discussions with HE Hosni Mubarak, President of Egypt, HE Ahmed Aboul Gheit, Foreign Minister, and HE Amre Moussa, Secretary General of the League of Arab States on a range of bilateral and regional issues. Mr Rudd and HE Aboul Gheit decided to establish an Egypt Australia Economic Forum to advance trade and economic ties. Mr Rudd issued joint statements with HE Aboul Gheit and HE Amre Moussa on Australia’s relations with Egypt (read the joint statement) and the Arab League respectively (read the joint statement). Mr Rudd also attended celebrations for the 60th anniversary of bilateral relations between Egypt and Australia.
The whims of the mob are just as, if not more, dangerous than that of a dictator. It's easy to incite a mob as it is based purely on emotion.oug wrote:
hmm?JohnG@lt wrote:
Majority rule is dictatorship.
Like merry old England?Dilbert_X wrote:
I do think a benevolent dictator with a fairly powerless elected executive is the best form of govt for many countries.
Pretty much. Stable govt which is interested in governing for the benefit of the country is so rare these days.JohnG@lt wrote:
Like merry old England?Dilbert_X wrote:
I do think a benevolent dictator with a fairly powerless elected executive is the best form of govt for many countries.
Benevolent dictator is an oxymoron.Dilbert_X wrote:
Pretty much. Stable govt which is interested in governing for the benefit of the country is so rare these days.JohnG@lt wrote:
Like merry old England?Dilbert_X wrote:
I do think a benevolent dictator with a fairly powerless elected executive is the best form of govt for many countries.
Well after thirty fucking years who can blame them if you catch my drift... Frankly it's about time they turned some of that emotion into burned police cars because there's no other way that sellout would ever leave.JohnG@lt wrote:
The whims of the mob are just as, if not more, dangerous than that of a dictator. It's easy to incite a mob as it is based purely on emotion.oug wrote:
hmm?JohnG@lt wrote:
Majority rule is dictatorship.
