53
   

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

 
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2011 06:04 pm
Well Ahmadinejad would say something like this, wouldn't he?
Perhaps the protests are "going nowhere" because they've been ruthlessly oppressed by the security forces?
As for the organizers who are now to be punished .. just imagine the nature of their punishment & fear for them.

Quote:
15 February 2011 Last updated at 22:54 GMT
Iran protests 'going nowhere', says Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said the opposition protests seen in Iranian cities on Monday are "going nowhere" and vowed to punish their organisers.

Mr Ahmadinejad told state television that "enemies" were trying to "tarnish the Iranian nation's brilliance".

Two people were killed and several wounded in clashes between protesters and security forces in central Tehran, officials said. ...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12475824
JTT
 
  3  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2011 08:56 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
but it always good to see moderate forces at work in the region.


Yeah, you loved it when Reagan put those moderate Contras to work in Nicaragua, didn't you, Finn?

Has anyone mentioned that you are a liar and a major hypocrite?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2011 09:02 pm
@msolga,
I'm afraid any demonstration without the sacrifice of many lives will be a failure. How many people is Ahmadinejad willing to kill?

Egyptians were willing to die for their cause.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2011 09:12 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
How many people is Ahmadinejad willing to kill?


My guess is a whole lot fewer than were killed under the Shah/US/UK but I could be wrong, CI.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2011 03:21 am
Couple of retweets from Ben @ CNN

Quote:
jrug Jonathan Rugman
by bencnn
Internet is slowing/shutting down in #Bahrain - base of US 5th fleet - just as H Clinton calls for "essential" internet freedom.
17 minutes ago

KMFlower Kevin Flower
by bencnn
RT @nickkristof: Amazing that a banking ctr like #Bahrain blocks Internet to suppress protests. Never thought I'd use a sat phone here.


Bahrain shutting down the internet because of protests?
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2011 03:41 am
Quote:
Violent protests break out in Libya

Clashes reported in eastern city of Benghazi as security forces and government supporters confront demonstrators.

Protesters have clashed with police and government supporters in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi, reports say.

Demonstrators gathered in the early hours of Wednesday morning in front of police headquarters and chanted slogans against the "corrupt rulers of the country", Al Jazeera's sources said.

Police fired tear gas and violently dispersed protesters, the sources said without providing further details.

The online edition of Libya's privately-owned Quryna newspaper, which is based in Benghazi, said the protesters were armed with petrol bombs and threw stones.

According to the newspaper, 14 people were injured in the clashes, including three demonstrators and 10 security officials.

In a telephone interview with Al Jazeera, Idris Al-Mesmari, a Libyan novelist and writer, said that security officials in civilian clothes came and dispersed protesters by using tear gas, batons and hot water.

Al-Mesmari was arrested hours after the interview, unconfirmed reports say. ...<cont>


http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/02/20112167051422444.html
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2011 04:34 am
Daily Telegraph London.

Quote:
WikiLeaks: Egypt’s new man at the top 'was against reform'
The military leader charged with transforming Egypt opposed political reform because he believed that it “eroded central government power”, according to leaked US diplomatic cables.
Field Marshal Mohamad Tantawi, 76, the man with the task of transforming Egypt is described in the cables as 'aged and change-resistant'
Field Marshal Mohamad Tantawi, 76, the man with the task of transforming Egypt is described in the cables as 'aged and change-resistant'.

Field Marshal Mohamad Tantawi, the head of the Higher Military Council that took control of Egypt last week, was also against economic reforms because they create “social instability”.

The briefings, in cables handed to the WikiLeaks website, raise questions about the field marshal’s suitability for overseeing transition to a democratically elected government.

Today The Daily Telegraph publishes on its website hundreds of leaked cables written by US diplomats in the American embassy in Cairo and sent to Washington. One, sent from Cairo to Washington in March 2008 ahead of an official visit, reports how the 76-year-old field marshal was against change.

The cable states: “Tantawi has opposed both economic and political reforms that he perceives as eroding central government power. He is supremely concerned with national unity, and has opposed policy initiatives he views as encouraging political or religious cleavages within Egyptian society.”

Field Marshal Tantawi’s role as effective interim head of state was confirmed at the weekend after President Hosni Mubarak fled from Cairo to the resort of Sharm el-Sheikh.

The communiqué also told of his opposition to economic reforms which had been pushed by President Mubarak.

The cable said: “Tantawi believes that Egypt’s economic reform plan fosters social instability by lessening GOE [government of Egypt] controls over prices and production.” He also rejected any deals regarding military equipment in return for concessions on human rights policy, the communiqué said.

Officials suggested that his age made him more conservative-minded, describing him as “aged and change-resistant”. The cable continued: “He and Mubarak are focused on regime stability and maintaining the status quo through the end of their time. They simply do not have the energy, inclination or world view to do anything differently.” Other cables show the extent to which the Egyptian armed forces have spread their influence through the country.

They claimed this power was exercised through the use of vetoes on commercial contracts due to “security concerns”.

One communiqué, sent in September 2008, said: “Contacts told us that military-owned companies, often run by retired generals, are particularly active in the water, olive oil, cement, construction, hotel and gasoline industries.” It was also suggested that “large amounts of land in the Nile Delta and on the Red Sea coast” were owned by the armed forces and seen as a “fringe benefit” in exchange for ensuring stability and security.



0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2011 04:37 am
@msolga,
Sure there's a connection.

So, Goat. What's your point?
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2011 04:45 am
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14841203,00.html
Interesting interviews.

The West: WRONG, of course. Most people would say the US and UK have meddled enough in the direction of the ME and other countries... So, we are showing them some respect and allowing them to handle their mess as they see fit....and of course, being criticised because of it.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14836906,00.html

Well, is it the best thing to leave their future to them, or are these harpies correct with their whining for US/UK intervention?

Is Obama on target or ******* up?
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2011 06:02 am
@Lash,
I saw him last night asserting that he was doing a good job.

And if we can't take the President of the United States of America's word for things where does that leave us.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2011 07:42 am
US military HQ in Mideast watching Gulf unrest


WASHINGTON – Unrest surging through the Arab world has so far taken no toll on the American military. But that could change if revolt washes over the tiny Persian Gulf kingdom of Bahrain — longtime home to the U.S. Navy's mighty 5th Fleet and arguably the Middle East anchor of U.S. defense strategy.

The discontent that has spilled into the streets of Bahrain's capital, Manama, this week features no anti-American sentiment, but the U.S. has a lot at stake in preserving its dominant naval presence in the Gulf.

In announcing that it is "very concerned" about violence linked to the protests, the State Department on Tuesday underscored Bahrain's strategic importance as a U.S. partner.

"The United States welcomes the government of Bahrain's statements that it will investigate these deaths, and that it will take legal action against any unjustified use of force by Bahraini security forces," said department spokesman P.J. Crowley. "We urge that it follow through on these statements as quickly as possible."

The 5th Fleet operates at least one aircraft carrier in the Gulf at all times, along with an "amphibious ready group" of ships with Marines aboard. Their presence is central to a longstanding U.S. commitment to ensuring the free flow of oil through the Gulf, while keeping an eye on a hostile Iran and seeking to deter piracy in the region.

Anthony Cordesman, a Mideast defense specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said Bahrain has security services capable of handling protesters and potentially backed by neighboring Saudi Arabia.

Thousands of banner-waving protesters took over a main square in Manama Tuesday in a bold attempt to copy Egypt's uprising. The demonstrations capped two days of clashes that left at least two people dead, and the king made a rare address on national television to offer condolences for the bloodshed.

"It is a serious problem, but whether it's going to flare up any more seriously this time than all the other times is hard to say," Cordesman said. "The question is whether they can shake the security structure of the state."

The implications for U.S. foreign policy and national security from the pro-democracy movements that have arisen in the Arab world — highlighted by Egypt's stunning revolution — is likely to be a topic Wednesday when Defense Secretary Robert Gates testifies before the House Armed Services Committee.

Bahrain became a more prominent partner for the Pentagon after the 1991 Gulf War with Iraq; since then it has granted U.S. forces increased access, plus permission to store wartime supplies for future crises.

In the weeks leading up to popular revolts that toppled autocratic regimes first in Tunisia and then Egypt, Obama administration officials portrayed Bahrain as being on the right track toward democracy.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, during a visit to Manama in December, called Bahrain "a model partner," not only for the United States but also for other countries in the region seeking political liberalization.

"I am impressed by the commitment that the government has to the democratic path that Bahrain is walking on," Clinton told a news conference Dec. 3, with Foreign Minister Sheik Khalid bin Ahmed Al Khalifa at her side. "It takes time; we know that from our own experience. There are obstacles and difficulties along the way. But America will continue working with you to promote a vigorous civil society and to ensure that democracy, human rights and civil liberties are protected by the rule of law."

The tiny island kingdom has been the most volatile in the Gulf. Majority Shiites have long alleged discrimination and other abuses by Sunni rulers. A wave of arrests of Shiite activists last year touched off weeks of protests and clashes — and a highly sensitive trial of 25 Shiites accused of plotting against the state.

Bahrain has seen sporadic unrest for decades as Shiites — who represent 70 percent of the nation's 530,000 citizens — press for a greater political voice and opportunities. Reforms in the past decade, including parliamentary elections, have opened more room for Shiites. But they complain the Sunni-directed system still excludes them from any key policymaking roles or top posts in the security forces.

Bahrain is one of four Gulf countries with U.S. Patriot missiles based on their soil to defend against potential attack from Iran.

revelette
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2011 07:47 am
@Lash,
Lash, do you believe that without Saddam Hussien being removed from power in Iraq, these protest would not have taken place?

You honestly can't think that the Iraqi government as it stands today has in any way been a shining beacon of light of democracy and freedom and has motivated other Arab countries to revolt against oppressive regimes?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2011 07:56 am
@revelette,
Bahrain so far as I know was not on anyone's radar, they have been doing everything right so far as the West is concerned. OOPs, guess not.

If the people were to take over this country American political strategy for the region is sunk, as we are pretty much out of land to stage from. Iraq wants us totally out, Kuwait wants us mostly out, the Saudis already threw us out...Bahrain was supposed to be the anchor.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2011 08:11 am
@hawkeye10,
From what I can tell, the protest in Bahrain are different than in the other Arab countries. For one, it looks like they have been going on for a while, maybe not with as much steam. It seems to be a Sunni--Shiite thing. Apparently those in power right now--the Sunnis have all the job opportunities even though there are some Shiites in Parliament. Kind of like a reverse of what is happening in Iraq. (unless my understanding is wrong, which is entirely possible) The US probably don't want the Shiites to get very much power even if we don't say so because of the Iran connection. I doubt it would ever happen because of Saudi Arabia is mostly Sunni (isn't it?)

(I might have it all wrong, but that is what I get from reading about it yesterday and a little today)

What is at stake for Americans in the Bahrain unrest?

revelette
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2011 08:25 am
@revelette,
'Saudi Arabia sending troops to Bahrain'
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2011 08:27 am
@revelette,
Quote:
THERE is something painfully predictable about the course of the unrest sweeping the Arab world.
In Bahrain's case, the minority Sunni Muslim leadership has watched helplessly as the protest tsunami rolled from Tunisia across Egypt and now to the warm waters of the Gulf.

The first response was to head off the unrest by offering each family $US2700 - in effect, to buy their silence. A similar tactic worked in Kuwait, but it came too late to placate Bahrain.

Members of the disgruntled Shia Muslim majority are venting decades of pent-up frustration against the regime and sense that victory is within their grasp.

When they mobilised on Monday outside the capital, Manama, the authorities turned to plan B: using force to silence the protest
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/bahrain-is-a-high-stakes-bellwether/story-e6frg6zo-1226007151099

If the Shia get the power that their numbers would suggest then Bahrain is going to kick us out. Considering that America just last year started a $480 Million expansion of the port I dont figure Obama saw this coming.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2011 08:38 am
@hawkeye10,
I read yesterday where all they want is more say so in the government and be in a position for better job opportunities, I don't think they are looking to oust the leadership like in Tunisia or Egypt.

However, with the protest gaining ground, I don't think force is the answer and so far the WH has expressed disapproval of clashes and encourages investigation. So, I am betting that concessions will be made and more Shiites will have a bigger say in Parliament and better job opportunities. Which they should. If they are not made and just force is used on the protesters, it could turn out to be a mess with Saudi Arabia getting involved. They already have it seems.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2011 08:46 am
@revelette,
Quote:
I read yesterday where all they want is more say so in the government and be in a position for better job opportunities, I don't think they are looking to oust the leadership like in Tunisia or Egypt.

from America's perspective it does not matter. Last year America got told that we could not use these assets for a attack on Iran, and if the Shia get power they will want us out completely because the major reason we are there is to challenge Iran's plan to dominate the region.

Come to think of it...worrying about Bahrain was probably a big part of the reason why Obama was so chill about the Egyptian protests....we care a great deal about this base and cant afford to lose it.
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2011 09:05 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

If the Shia get the power that their numbers would suggest then Bahrain is going to kick us out. Considering that America just last year started a $480 Million expansion of the port I dont figure Obama saw this coming.

Why do you think Shia's would kick us out? In general we seem to have very good relations with Bahrain. I don't know why Shias would be more anti US than Sunnis.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2011 09:10 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

Well, is it the best thing to leave their future to them, or are these harpies correct with their whining for US/UK intervention?

Is Obama on target or ******* up?

Hard to say. I think if I were Obama or a European leader, I would say that we support the right of the people to determine who they will be ruled. It is very rare that a lasting form of government can be imposed from outside, so the people must decide how they will be ruled. The US will negotiate with whatever government evolves.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 11/27/2024 at 02:53:13