53
   

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

 
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 02:24 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

That of course was part of the motivation for our intervention in Iraq.


Bullshit and you know it. Laughable Laughing

Cycloptichorn


It is simply a fact that this was indeed one of the expressed reasons for our intervention. Perhaps you believe our government was lying and had no interests in creating a reasonably democratic government in Iraq to replace Saddam's tyranny. Given the fact that we have invested considerable effort in doing exactly that, it seems to me that you have a certain burden of proof here that you have not addressed at all.

In effect waving your arms and crying "bullshit" is not persuasive proof.

I'm not suggesting that the enterprise, all thiungs considered, was a good idea; rather that this was a part of our motivation for doing so.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 02:27 pm
@Ceili,
Ceili wrote:

Well, I supposed if you want to re-write history we all should be allowed to. Seriously, you are now going to say the US went into Iraq on shining horses to protect the citizenship from a civil war? Puh leaze... The USA, protecting the people of the world from Massacres.. what next George? ha ha ha


You may recall the ethnic cleansing and organized murders going on a few years ago in Bosnia, Croatia and later Kosovo, and the nearly complete hypocrisy and inaction of the European powers to these rather horrible crimes going on in their midst in the heart of Europe. It was the United States that forced their hand and intervened to stop the widespread massacres.

I believe this merits more than your rather stupid laughter and scorn.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 02:29 pm
@georgeob1,
George--you have slipped rather easily from "one of the expressed reasons for our intervention to "this was a part of our motivation for doing so".
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 02:31 pm
Al Jezeera reports: "Egypt army wants protests ended"

http://english.aljazeera.net/mritems/imagecache/318/480/mritems/Images/2011/2/2/20112210356189112_20.jpg
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 02:33 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

George--you have slipped rather easily from "one of the expressed reasons for our intervention to "this was a part of our motivation for doing so".


It was one of the expressed reasons and I believe it was part of their motivation - just as I wrote. Cyclo & Ceili find that laughable, but have offered no objective reason for us to believe the government was lying and that no part of their motivation involved ending Saddam's tyranny. Again the considerable effort actually expended in establishing a republican government in Iraq strongly suggests my assertion is true.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 02:36 pm
@georgeob1,
And it was.

Either Rumsford wasn't all that keen on it or he just scotched in up to fair-thee-well.

The Bush Administration made a big mistake focusing so much on WMDs. I'm afraid they just didn't trust the American people to appreciate the larger strategic reasons for the invasion, and stuck with the old standby of fear.

Of course they had plenty of help from Dems who were tripping all over each other, when Clinton was in office, to condemn Saddam and warn of WMDs.

It was a fine moment in American history when they all changed their tune when a Republican president took office.

Now comes the revisionist howls.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 02:40 pm
It was raining Molotov Cocktails in Cairo for a while there. People on top of buildings throwing them down on the crowds below.

Must be horrific.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 02:41 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

George, what the hell are you on about? You're delusional. When the Turks ruled the middle east, everybody, but everybody hated them. They are no leadership figure for the nations of the middle east. You been smokin' that whacky weed again?


As I said I was speculating on PM Erdogan's potential motivations with respect to the obvious steps he has taken to realign Turkey with international Islam and his recent expressions that Mubarak should leave office. That he chose to address the Egyptian crisis at all is interesting.

I recognize the flaws in the Ottoman legacy all across North Africa. At the same time, as we are contemplating the possibility of a "new" coalition of political forces in the Muslim world, it is worth considering just what might be Erdogan's intent with respect to it - if indeed it exists at all.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 02:46 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

That of course was part of the motivation for our intervention in Iraq.


Bullshit and you know it. Laughable Laughing

Cycloptichorn


It is simply a fact that this was indeed one of the expressed reasons for our intervention. Perhaps you believe our government was lying and had no interests in creating a reasonably democratic government in Iraq to replace Saddam's tyranny.


I think it would be far more accurate to say that our leaders saw Iraq as a place that could be easily defeated and looted.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/09/0080197


Quote:
Given the fact that we have invested considerable effort in doing exactly that, it seems to me that you have a certain burden of proof here that you have not addressed at all.

In effect waving your arms and crying "bullshit" is not persuasive proof.


I don't have anything to prove to you on this issue. You lived through the period just like I did; but you refuse to challenge the propaganda because it's more comfortable than looking at deeper motivations.

Quote:
I'm not suggesting that the enterprise, all thiungs considered, was a good idea; rather that this was a part of our motivation for doing so.


I do not believe it was a material part of the decision to attack Iraq. A minor note at best, an afterthought.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  6  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 02:46 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Millions of us tried desperately to talk us out of invading Iraq. People all over the USA and the rest of the world knew the war was un-necessary. The Democrats that voted to support the war were no better than GW Bush.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 02:49 pm
It is a chimera that there will ever be a pan-Islamic or pan-Arabist coalition of that sort--at least based on their history. Even when Islam ruled a swath of the earth from southern Spain to Indonesia, there was no unity. Saladin was a Kurd. His uncle, Ayyub (also a Kurd, obviously) had been the chief field commander of a Seljuk Turk who was fighting other Seljuk Turks for control of Baghdad. When his master died, Ayyub set himself up to overrun the Turkish controlled middle east, something at which he nearly succeeded. He sent his nephew Yusuf (known by the honorific salah' al din--"brings peace to the faithful," and hence, Saladin) to Egypt. Saladin overran Egypt, and then his uncle Ayyub ordered him to return to Baghdad. Yusuf/Saladin dragged his heels, temporized, "lost" the correspondence, and finally just ignored the messages. When Ayyub died, Yusuf took over. Let that stand as an example, and an example of Islam at its most militarily powerful.

There is no ethnic unity, no religious unity and no political unity within Islam. It is the most simplistic view that there ever were or ever would be. Among all the Islamic nations, Turkey is the last one to which others will look for leadership.

Apart from that, Islam spreads right across the globe. The most populous Muslim nation is Indonesia. Do you think they'll follow the lead of Turkey just because the PM pays lip service to Islamic purity?
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 02:51 pm
(All times are local in Egypt, GMT+2)

10:45pm Clashes in Tahrir Square being described as medieval. Anti-government supporters are moving makeshift metal barricades slowly forward, one by one.

10:37pm Anti-Mubarak protesters still in Tahrir Square where they are being attacked by groups believed to be supporters of Mubarak. Al Jazeera showing them holding up a sign "World says time to go Mubarak".

10:27pm Nouraddin Adbulsamad, Egyptian Minister of Antiquities, is live on Al Jazeera. He has called for Mubarak to step down, accusing him of wanting to "burn down all of Egypt".

10:01pm Black smoke billowing up from somewhere very close to the eastern wall of the Egyptian Museum, among pro-Mubarak crowd.

9:31pm A moment ago, Al Jazeera's web producer heard several bursts of automatic gunfire from just west of Tahrir Square.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 02:57 pm


0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 02:59 pm
@edgarblythe,
I don't want to derail this thread with a debate on Iraq. Whether or not the war was necessary has been and can again be debated elsewhere.

There were multiple reasons for the war.

Some people (including those in the Bush Administration) favored some over others.

George
 
  2  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 03:01 pm
I'm surprised the Egyptian military's top brass haven't gotten together, picked
a successor, and told Mubarak that the time has come to wake up and smell the
Arabica.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 03:02 pm
The BBC has an interview with Kamal El-Helbawy, one-time spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood. 2 and a half minutes long.
On the BBC home page, scroll down the right side to Programmes. It is on HARD TALK.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 03:03 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Apart from that, Islam spreads right across the globe. The most populous Muslim nation is Indonesia. Do you think they'll follow the lead of Turkey just the PM pays lip service to Islamic purity?


No not at all. To a large degree historical Islam was organized in three competing Empires, Mogul, Persian, and Bagdad/Ottoman. I doubt that anyone contemplates anything more far-reaching than any of those.

The ongoing, and still unresolved, collision of the Muslim world with the modern world evolved from the West, opens the door to several possibilities going forward. Certainly we all hope for something beyond the largely stagnant secular and theocratic authoritarian nation states based on borders drawn by their former colonial masters.

What will develop in the future is something about which we can only speculate. Certainly for those persuaded that the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt represent a lasting part of the future trajectory, the behavior and intentions of the "new generation" of Islamic political leaders, of whom Erdogan is a prime example, is relevant.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 03:03 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
No derailing from me.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 03:04 pm
10:55pm Latest from Al Jazeera Web Producer in Cairo's Tahrir Square:

The pro-Mubarak crowd suddenly retreated, and the pro-democracy protesters advanced a moveable wall of metal shields to a new front line much further up.

A side battle erupted down a street behind the pro-Mubarak lines, with rock throwing and molotov cocktails.

An armored personnel carrier opened fire into the air, shooting red tracers up over Cairo, in an apparent effort to disperse/frighten the pro-Mubarak crowd, who contracted again.

The pro-democracy protesters are now advancing their line of staggered metal shields farther and farther and seem to have gained decisive momentum.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 03:16 pm
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/02/02/egypt.pro.mubarak/

Quote:
The morning after Mubarak dramatically announced he would not run for re-election in September, his supporters waded into Tahrir Square by the thousands and suddenly, serious, prolonged violence reigned in central Cairo.

There were immediate suspicions that the pro-Mubarak demonstrators were not simply average citizens standing up for the man who has led Egypt for three decades -- suspicions that proved at least partly founded.

As battles raged between the two sides, some pro-Mubarak protesters were captured by his opponents. Some were terrified to be caught and begged for their lives, screaming that the government had paid them to come out and protest. Others turned out to be carrying what seemed to be police identification, though they were dressed in plain clothes.

Shadi Hamid, a Brookings Institution analyst based in Qatar, told CNN that the use of hired muscle to break up demonstrations "is a longtime regime strategy."

"There are usually a line of thugs outside a protest who are waiting there," he said. "They're dressed in plain clothes, and then they'll usually go and attack the protesters. Egyptians have seen this for quite some time, and that's why they were able to recognize what was going on fairly quickly."

The global rights group Amnesty International said it has documented the use of unsavory forces by Egyptian authorities to disperse political gatherings in election years.

"It looks like much of this violence is being orchestrated by the Egyptian authorities in order to force an end to the anti-government protests, restore their control and cling onto power in the face of unprecedented public demands for them to go," said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, the deputy director for the Middle East and North Africa at Amnesty International.

An Interior Ministry spokesman denied on state-run television that police identification cards had been confiscated from demonstrators. He said if they had been, they were were stolen or fake. But state television reporting Wednesday did not always match CNN's own observations of what was happening in Tahrir Square.

Several CNN journalists heard from pro-Mubarak demonstrators that they worked for the government. Staff from the national petrochemical company said they had been ordered to come and protest.

Amnesty International researchers said witnesses told them of "lorry loads" of pro-Mubarak supporters leaving Wednesday morning from Mahalla, north of Cairo.


"These (pro-Mubarak) protests were organized by the government and the ruling National Democratic Party," analyst Kamal Zakher told CNN. The government mustered government workers and lawmakers whose seats are threatened, he said.

"They were ordered to go out today. They are well organized and that is suspicious -- especially the use of camels and horses. These are abnormal techniques to demonstrate," he said, referring to the shocking charge of about 50 or 60 mounted men through Tahrir in the middle of the afternoon.


And Emad Shahin, a Mideast analyst at the University of Notre Dame, said "reliable contacts in Egypt" told him the counter-protesters were organized "by Mubarak himself," with the aid of businessmen who support him.

"The whole objective is actually to give the impression that there is still support for Mubarak and to force the demonstrators out of Tahrir Square," Shahin said. He said the embattled president "is presenting a very difficult choice before the Egyptian people -- either liberty or security -- and he is hoping that they will choose security at the expense of liberty."

...

State television called the pro-Mubarak demonstrators tourism workers. At least some Egyptians working in the tourism industry are known to be genuinely upset at the anti-Mubarak demonstrators, accusing them of hurting their business by bringing instability.

Zakher also said it was suspicious that security forces did not intervene to break up the violence.

"There were no police or military to separate the two crowds at the beginning and that's also suspicious enough to implicate the security agencies," Zakher said.

Journalist and protestor Reham Saeed told CNN she saw men with police uniforms go into hotels on the way to Tahrir Square and then come out wearing civilian clothes, joining the pro-Mubarak protesters. She called that an act of "betrayal."

State TV interviewed several people at the demonstration who said they backed the president because he had provided stability and independence.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/17/2019 at 06:30:28