BF2S Forums Egypt Unrest.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

taiwan wrote:

What is the term for the belief that Democracy will cure all of life's issues?

i don't know, but 'gharbzadegi' غربزدگی is always useful in these discussions.

I didn't know that was farsi. All the letters are identical to the Arabic alphabet except the second to last one which has slanted line over it. I like the term though.

شكرا يا طيب

Spearhead wrote:

So it's a choice : a secular mass murdering dictator or a religious nutty fascist dictator.

My point is that the entire arab world rose up all at once, to knock down these fuckers.  If that's not democracy in action, I don't know what is. 

Not that democracy itself is the solution.  It is only the means, to a more just, more modern middle east, where women have rights, individuals have freedom of speech, etc.  The cultural exchange during the digital age has evolved to the point of no return.

Wait, you think that when people rise up and overthrow an authoritarian government that a democracy rises up in its place? I can think of three times that it actually happened how you envision it: the US, France, and the Weimar Republic. I'm sure there are others, but you're way more likely to end up with another autocratic government in place of the original. The Egyptians rose up and the Muslim Brotherhood was installed, and they've gone ahead and tried to abolish the judicial system while instituting a military martial law to hold onto their power.

It's why I laugh when wingnuts in this country talk of overthrowing the current government and going back to some form of the original incarnation of the US. As Lenin proved, there's always people just waiting for a power vacuum to force their own vision of the world on others, no matter what the original intent of revolution was.

Spearhead wrote:

Where did I say that?  Where did I say that democracy would automatically take place over an autocratic regime?  I said nothing of the sort.

My point was that there is right now a cultural battle taking place within the middle east -- between one side that is "western" and "pro-democracy" and one that is autocratic, fundamentalist and stuck in the 17th century.  The world is not divided into black and white.  Would you rather have Mubarak still in power in Egypt?  No?  Then what will take his place?  That is the question, and it deserves to be answered.  All the naysayers have been unable to answer that question.  The people of the middle east are more than happy to answer it for them.  War, conflict, death, brutality, it is all leading towards a resolution, a phase which will inevitably pass, and that part of the world will be better off for it.  Mark.  My.  Words.

I don't see any real difference between Mubarak and what has replaced him, in fact it might actually be worse. Egypt is completely broke right now, to the point that they just raised tolls on the Suez canal in order to keep from sliding into bankruptcy. We're still sending them billions of dollars in aid, as well as tanks and jets and everything else we were propping up Mubarak with. The status quo has returned, with a different face, and possibly with a more brutal autocratic regime in place. Awesome.

The verdict is still out on Libya, but I don't see them being much better off than they were under Gadaffi in the long run either.

Jay -- you are viewing a two-year prologue of what will eventually be a 20-30 year transformation.  You don't see any progress in the muslim brotherhood?  How insightful of you!

Shahter wrote:

Jay wrote:

I don't see any real difference between Mubarak and what has replaced him, in fact it might actually be worse.
...
The verdict is still out on Libya, but I don't see them being much better off than they were under Gadaffi in the long run either.

and that was obvious from the very beginning of so called "arab spring".
which gets us back to the question: what the fuck do the free and the brave spend billions on in those parts of the word? because, if one would believe some of the america-fuck-yeah-ers here, there's nothing to be gained. nothing at all. the super-capitalist state throws money at brown people on the other side of the globe for... purely altruistic reasons.

We throw money around because it's easier to prop up people we personally dislike than to deal with the chaos that might come otherwise. I don't agree with the policy, but listen to pretty much any economist in the world and they will tell you that in order to conduct trade, you need stability. It's easier to predict next month when you know the guy sitting in power in Egypt isn't going to have his palace stormed and his head chopped off and the Suez Canal closed. It's about conducting business, plain and simple.

Jay wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Jay wrote:

I don't see any real difference between Mubarak and what has replaced him, in fact it might actually be worse.
...
The verdict is still out on Libya, but I don't see them being much better off than they were under Gadaffi in the long run either.

and that was obvious from the very beginning of so called "arab spring".
which gets us back to the question: what the fuck do the free and the brave spend billions on in those parts of the word? because, if one would believe some of the america-fuck-yeah-ers here, there's nothing to be gained. nothing at all. the super-capitalist state throws money at brown people on the other side of the globe for... purely altruistic reasons.

We throw money around because it's easier to prop up people we personally dislike than to deal with the chaos that might come otherwise. I don't agree with the policy, but listen to pretty much any economist in the world and they will tell you that in order to conduct trade, you need stability.

republic of congo. google it.

It's easier to predict next month when you know the guy sitting in power in Egypt isn't going to have his palace stormed and his head chopped off and the Suez Canal closed. It's about conducting business, plain and simple.

no, it is not. it is about not letting others mess up with ones interests in the region.

Jay wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Jay wrote:

We throw money around because it's easier to prop up people we personally dislike than to deal with the chaos that might come otherwise. I don't agree with the policy, but listen to pretty much any economist in the world and they will tell you that in order to conduct trade, you need stability.

republic of congo. google it.

It's easier to predict next month when you know the guy sitting in power in Egypt isn't going to have his palace stormed and his head chopped off and the Suez Canal closed. It's about conducting business, plain and simple.

no, it is not. it is about not letting others mess up with ones interests in the region.

I fail to see a difference between what I said and what you said. Yes, we want the greatest influence. Generally goes hand in hand with favorable trade agreements.

the difference between what you and i said is that the money are not spent on preventing chaos, but rather on instigating it.

Jay wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Jay wrote:

I fail to see a difference between what I said and what you said. Yes, we want the greatest influence. Generally goes hand in hand with favorable trade agreements.

the difference between what you and i said is that the money are not spent on preventing chaos, but rather on instigating it.

Nah, we didn't pick sides in the Arab Spring thing

wat

Jay wrote:

we just shower the winner with the same money we showered the loser. We spent billions propping up Mubarak, and now we spend billions propping up the Muslim Brotherhood.

I guess from your point of view we instigate chaos in places like Iran and Iraq, and you're right, but that's because those regimes wouldn't take our money and cower properly at the sight of our aircraft carriers.

Shahter wrote:

republic of congo.

Shahter wrote:

Jay wrote:

Shahter wrote:

the difference between what you and i said is that the money are not spent on preventing chaos, but rather on instigating it.

Nah, we didn't pick sides in the Arab Spring thing

wat

Jay wrote:

we just shower the winner with the same money we showered the loser. We spent billions propping up Mubarak, and now we spend billions propping up the Muslim Brotherhood.

I guess from your point of view we instigate chaos in places like Iran and Iraq, and you're right, but that's because those regimes wouldn't take our money and cower properly at the sight of our aircraft carriers.

Shahter wrote:

republic of congo.

Congo has nothing to offer us. Egypt is our navy's route to the Persian Gulf, and Europe's route to the oilfields in Saudi.

I think we could compete, and rather well, but it's not what those countries want. The people in power in those countries want to be bought

Just look at all the climate change conferences. It's Ahmadajeiajfrnehigj speaking for seven hours, and every third world country complaining about how climate change will absolutely destroy their country and spread plague and kill all the cute cuddly bunny rabbits, but if only we make a donation to their economy, the crisis will be averted. Then all the dumb fuck liberals shit themselves at the thought that they'll get their pet cause through the UN and offer all sorts of 'reparations', and 'wealth taxes' and every other sort of handout the pissant dictators demand. None of that money ever goes to the people. It goes in said pissant dictators Swiss bank account.

Last edited by Jay (2013-02-10 22:14:20)

Macbeth wrote:

Congo has rare mineral resources.

And a completely unstable government that makes any attempt at investment a roll of a twenty sided die with a critical being the only winner.

Macbeth wrote:

The UN actually does a lot of good through things like the World Health Association.

Ok, and then there is UNICEF

What about UNICEF? They actually do some good too.