Tunesia, Egyt and now Yemen: a domino effect in the Middle East?

@Finn dAbuzz,

From what I read, it's unclear what side the army is one. I read about many of the protesters treating the Egyptian Republican Gaurd "like rockstars." I think that should Mubarack flee, the people will stand down. I get the feeling that many trust the army to side with the people when the chips fall.

Which could be soon.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

How do Arabs think and act, there, Einstein?

Ask Ceili or the nameless Egyptian man she cited Fucknut.

1 Reply

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

If the demonstrations blossom into full revolution and neighboring states join in, could the establishment of some sort of larger multi-nation confederacy arise out of this?

I feel the more successful one revolution is, the more likely more are. I think the domino effect is quite possible here.

I doubt there will be any domino effect. Pan-Arabism has been on the table for about a century, and it hasn't caught on, despite wide-spread (although not necessarily majority) support in the Arabic-speaking world. It was tried with the United Arab Republic, which sought to create a pan-Arabic state, which during negotiatios shrank to Egypt, Syria and Iraq. Iraq pulled out before any deal was struck, and even the rump of Egypt and Syria was not a true pan-Arabic nation. The UAR withered away as each nation jealously guarded their sovereignty. The same problem can be seen in the European Union, which almost works, except that in plebecites, the people aren't willing to vote away their sovereignty. The insular attitudes which cause that result in Europe are even stronger in the middle east. Many people in the middle east probably look on Tunis and Egypt with contempt, because they are the other, language and religion notwithstanding. I doubt there will be any domino effect, and i really doubt that you'll get any pan-Arabist state.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

I was quoting your remark, toilet mouth--your remark in response to her post. You wrote, infull:

Quote:

What was the point of stating that Egyptians aren't Arabs if this wasn't intended to suggest that we should not expect the Egyptians to think or act like Arabs?

It was your idea that Arabs think and act alike, not hers.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

For someone who is fond of telling people to bite him, it's rich that you might feign offense at my use of profanity.

Read it again Einstein

It was not my idea that Arabs think and act alike.

It was my idea that the nameless Egyptian man who made a point of saying that "firstly Egyptians are not Arabs" mean't that Egyptians do not think and act like Arabs.

If you've got a better explanation of what he mean't, let's hear it.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Yeah, Einstein, it was. Ceili was simply pointing out that many Egyptians don't consider themselves Arabs. Your response to the effect that she was suggesting that we shouldn't expect them to think and act like Arabs inferentially suggests that all Arabs think and act alike. I realize that logic is not your strong suit--in fact, i'd say it's a void in your hand. Read Dys' post again.

1 Reply

@failures art,

I think the army is on the side of the army.

For the last 30 years that meant supporting the dictator Mubarak.

Now things have changed, but I doubt it's the degree of altruisim in the souls of Egyptian generals.

I've read in several places that the Egyptian military has long been respected by the Egyptian people. Why this should be considering that they have kept Mubarak in power is something of a mystery. My guess is that Mubarak used the police and "security forces" to do his dirty work, and the military was given a pass by the people.

If Mubarak were to leave tomorrow, the people would not only stand down, they would literally celebrate in the streets, but in a day or two they would get around to wondering who was going to take his place and the tension would rise again.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Wrong again.

I don't need to believe that Arabs all think and act alike to suggest that someone else does.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

If Mubarak were to leave tomorrow, the people would not only stand down, they would literally celebrate in the streets, but in a day or two they would get around to wondering who was going to take his place and the tension would rise again.

Not if the military ran the nation and called for elections at the end of the year.

Quote:

I think the army is on the side of the army.

Yes, and I would expect them to look after their best interests by ending this situation. Egypt is even in the best of times a poor and troubled country, and it is now seizing up. The only way this gets fixed is for Mubarak to go, he will not go willingly, so the Army will roust him out of his bed and put him on a plane. The people will again cheer the military, this time for supporting their freedom, and the military will hold down the fort until the people decide what to do, which will again bring the military cheers.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Nope, the nameless Egyptian said the second part of what I wrote...
I merely pointed out to the people who kept calling Egyptians Arabs they were wrong. Egypt's been around a lot longer than the arabs and don't like being smooshed into that group... history is on their side.

I'll take a nameless Egyptian stating something about his country any day over a Texan. Sorry.
If you want to discuss Texas with an Egyptian, then I'll take your view over his. I think he has more street cred when it comes to how he sees the Islamic brotherhood in his own country, rather than the armchair quarterbacks who watch Fox news.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Your suggestion was unwarranted, but as i already pointed out, logic is not your strong suit. As Ceili said nothing to suggest that all Arabs think and act alike, and you did, i'm not wrong.

0 Replies

Just talking about the last 30 years and Mubarak is a mistake. Nasser was a leading figure in the Free Officers movement, which was common throughout the Arabic speaking middle east, and grew in power and influence after the Second World War. Nasser was an army officer, as was his chief lieutenant, Anwar Sadat. Mubarak was then (1950s) a minor figure in the Free Officers movment, an air force officer, but he rose through the ranks to become Sadat's deputy. Sadat took over from Nasser in 1970, and Mubarak took over after Sadat was assassinated in 1981. Egypt has been ruled by military officers in civilian clothing since 1952.

1 Reply

@Ceili,

amen

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

Just talking about the last 30 years and Mubarak is a mistake.

You may well be perfectly correct in your assessment. But the past 30 years of Mubarak's autocratic rule has been the understandable focus of the protests in Egypt.
Simply because they want him & his "leadership" gone, as they have made abundantly clear.

2 Replies

@msolga,

I suspect that you are correct esppecially since the median age of Egypt (male and female) is 24 years old. Those Under 30 account for 64% of the population so, it is a kids revolution with all the things that kids want when they open their blackberries and read about everywhere else.
With Egypts leadership in the Mid East, I was told today to watch Iran for a re-revolution and Syria,and Jordan have already begun trying to keep em quiet.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Yes, it has been a youth-instigated "revolution", farmer.
Though, as we have seen, many other Egyptians ( from all walks of society) have joined the protest movement since ...

I just don't know how much the history which has led Egyptians to this point in time is relevant to those young people, that's all. Some of them might not even know, or even care, who Nasser was.

I'm sure that Setanta is quite correct in asserting that the seeds of the current unrest go well beyond the 30 years of Mubarak's rule. Everything leads to the point we're at.

But I'm wondering how the lessons of history (especially to the young people who have instigated this movement) are relevant to the people of Egypt who desperately want change now. I honestly don't know, but I'd suspect that changing the current circumstances which they are living with is foremost in the motivation of the protesters.

2 Replies

Quote:

"The alternative is that the military looks after its own corporate interests," Quandt continued. "Mubarak is making things difficult. As long as he refuses to go, the demonstrators won't stop. So if (they) have to choose between (their) interests and his, they would choose theirs. They would say, 'Mr. President, we can't stand up beside you and you have to go.'

"I think that's the way it's going to turn out, but it will take a few more days," Quandt said.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/02/01/egypt.military.protesters/index.html?hpt=T1

I think this is what I said.....

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

DOWD gets it right so often...

Quote:

The ire in Tahrir Square is full of ironies, not the least of which is the American president who inspired such hope in the Middle East with his Cairo speech calling around this week to leaders in the region to stanch the uncontrolled surge of democracy in the Arab world

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/opinion/02dowd.html?_r=1

0 Replies

A view from the BBC website

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12339521

Can the Saudis hold on? Overall, Al Qaida's star waning.

0 Replies

@msolga,

My point is not about the protests, it's about the death grip that the military have on power in Egypt. It's not just the presidency, military men are entrenched in every power center in the country. Before succeeding Nasser, Sadat was Foreign Minister, President of the National Assembly and Vice President. I'm trying to get people to understand that while it may be Mubarak to the people in the streets, for the military, it's a threat to the entire power structure built up over almost 60 years.

0 Replies

Tunesia, Egyt and now Yemen: a domino effect in the Middle East?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know