@Lash,
Quote: Quote: Hopefully, whatever the outcome, it will mean a much better deal for the ordinary people of Egypt. And about time, too!
I'm not quite sure what this sentence means, but if you are going on record as saying you know that Egypt will be better off after their new regime is installed, please inform how you know this
What I mean is that, whatever the outcome of the current upheavals in Egypt (and Yemen, Tunisia & Jordan, too), I'm hoping for a much better deal for the people. Egyptians are protesting about 30 years of ruthless repression from their autocratic government. They are also protesting about entrenched poverty, government corruption, exorbitant food costs, high unemployment, lack of opportunity for ordinary citizens to improve their lot in life, the widening gap between the rich & poor & many other things as well. I support their struggle & I hope there are vast improvements in their lives, whatever the outcome of the protests. I think that's pretty straight forward?
As for how I "know" the instillation of a new "regime" will somehow automatically make them "better off", I don't know whether this will be the case or not. How could I possibly know? None of us following the events in Egypt know what the outcome will be, at this point in time. But let's hope it's not another repressive "regime", like the one they have now. The only other alternative government leader I'm aware of is ElBaradei, but it appears (going by a number of reports I've read, on the BBC & other news sources) that he does not have the support of all the various factions involved in the protests. Where things go from here is anyone's guess.
Quote:Your statements put you firmly in agreement with George Bush, who felt strongly . Nice to see you on board - even if it is a bit late.
Very funny, Lash.
I have rarely been firmly in agreement with George Bush about much at all. And am not about to start doing so now.
I guess your basing that assumption on recent commentary in articles like this one in the Washington Post?:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/28/AR2011012803144.html
Personally, at the time, I paid much more attention to his government's
actions than his foreign policy rhetoric.
I can't see how, for example, invading Iraq (using the justification of weapons of mass destruction) addressed the "freedom deficit" in that country, or did much to improve the lives of ordinary Iraqis. Thousands of civilians lost their lives as a result of that invasion, many have become refugees as a result of it. I doubt that anyone much argues that Iraqis are better off today as a result of it.
Though perhaps you disagree? If so I'd be interested to your assessment of the situation.
I have no argument that many Arab countries in the middle east are virtual dictatorships, in which the ordinary citizens experience extreme hardship & repression. (That's what these current protests in Egypt & other are motivated by, surely.) But no way can I endorse the sort of "solutions" which Bush & co propounded.
I find the notion of "regime change" imposed by force, by another powerful country (against the will of the people) a highly dubious concept. We should be listening to what the people of Egypt, Yemen, etc, want. Not imposing what
we believe is "best" for them.
As for your statement: "if we put a democracy in Iraq, the other regional countries would see it and want it".
I sincerely doubt that other countries in the region would have welcomed similar treatment. I haven't heard of any who have exactly clamoured for it.
Have you?
