The US right confused over Egypt

jank

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12363255

You might have thought the American right would welcome the sight of people power in Tunisia and Egypt after lecturing the Arab world on democracy for so long.

Instead it has divided them - with some calling on President Hosni Mubarak to go but some neocons preferring the status quo, even as it collapses.

One right-wing TV anchor talks of "the destruction of the Western world", portraying the protests as a covert power grab by Islamic radicals leading to a new caliphate across the Mediterranean.

Many of these critics were once vocal supporters of President George W Bush and his belief that invading Iraq would bring democracy to the region.

That was then.

Today John Bolton - one of the loudest Bush cheerleaders - says the US is "better advised to remain silent" on Egypt and calls the Obama Administration's approach "mush".

His is the "devil we know" argument.

The US may not like its longtime ally President Hosni Mubarak, he warns, but it risks far worse if Egypt's banned Muslim Brotherhood takes power instead.

Like other Republicans speaking out, Mr Bolton may be motivated by thoughts of a White House run in 2012, with the Republican primary race approaching.

No mention of democracy either from another possible candidate, Mike Huckabee, who says the US has forgotten President Mubarak's role in keeping peace between Egypt and Israel.

Different dominoes?
It is a concern Israel shares, and while saying little in public it has been making its feelings known to both Republican and Democrat lawmakers as it nervously watches events across its border.

Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote

Will our own government learn that dictatorships are never truly stable?”

Elliot Abrams
Former aide to George W Bush
Rupert Murdoch's Fox News has helped amplify worries about what comes next.

Night after night since Egypt's protests began, its presenters have raised fears of a new Islamic surge across the Middle East, threatening both US and Israeli interests.

Many on the US right used to hope the Iraq invasion would lead to regimes toppling like dominoes across the region.

This week Fox anchor Bill O'Reilly was warning of a different domino effect, where the Muslim Brotherhood takes power in Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan and Yemen with al-Qaeda following behind.

Another presenter, Glenn Beck, famous for his apocalyptic world view, called the first uprising in Tunisia "our Archduke Ferdinand moment" - a reference to how World War I broke out.

'3am phone call'
Some of Mr Bush's supporters are still with him, and say Egypt proves he was right.

Elliot Abrams, his former deputy national security adviser, criticised the Obama administration for being too soft on President Mubarak at the start.

"Will our own government learn that dictatorships are never truly stable?" he wrote in the Washington Post.

He has dismissed Israeli concerns about what or who will replace Mr Mubarak. They are right to fear the Muslim Brotherhood, he argues, but dictatorship only makes groups like this stronger.

There is still some more familiar neocon talk around.

For President Obama, Egypt is "the 3am phone call," says William Kristol in the Weekly Standard, arguing that the US has "probably engineered the ouster of too few" leaders in the Middle East.

Senator John McCain has now also called for President Mubarak to go.

But while the argument rages, many Republicans are keeping quiet on the Middle East for now - even some of those thought to be planning a presidential bid.

Foreign policy turned out to be a bit of a minefield for Sarah Palin last time around.

Well is this really a surprise? We know the US loves to preach but they will always have their own interests at heart. Should the US actually leave these countries have their own path to democracy and whatever that may bring or should it continue to support these un-democratic regimes in the fear of an Islamic taker over.

Finally will the US general public realize that this is the biggest reason why they are so unpopular in the middle east. The average Arab having to live under a regime that is back to the hilt by the US, yet they sing off a different hymn sheet.

By the way has herself tweeted anything on this?;)

Denerick

It isn't simple. America has interests in the region and popular opinion is vehemently anti American and anti Israeli. A truly fair democratic election would return an Islamist party with a large majority. The west can only hope that this Islamist party would turn out to be like the Turkish AK party (ie, the equivilent of an Islamic US Republican party)

Egypt has liberal secular voices but as ever these are often drowned out by medieval barbarism and superstitious fairy tales. I never used to be so partisanly anti theistic, but religion truly does poison everything.

That said, I have high hopes for the revolution, but unfortunately it can go one of two ways. The US has learnt from 1979, it doesn't want an Islamic revolution like in Iran. Expect a military coup to intervene if that ever happens.

jank

Denerick wrote: »

It isn't simple. America has interests in the region and popular opinion is vehemently anti American and anti Israeli. A truly fair democratic election would return an Islamist party with a large majority. The west can only hope that this Islamist party would turn out to be like the Turkish AK party (ie, the equivilent of an Islamic US Republican party)

Egypt has liberal secular voices but as ever these are often drowned out by medieval barbarism and superstitious fairy tales. I never used to be so partisanly anti theistic, but religion truly does poison everything.

That said, I have high hopes for the revolution, but unfortunately it can go one of two ways. The US has learnt from 1979, it doesn't want an Islamic revolution like in Iran. Expect a military coup to intervene if that ever happens.

Voices in the know would not expect the Muslim brotherhood to get more than 20% if a fair election was held in Egypt. But that is a catch 22. Afraid of holding election in case an Islamic party took power so install a dictator instead which breeds resentment and fuels said Islamic sentiment. How does one then break the cycle.

I suppose the question is, is the Middle East ready for democracy? Well I thought Bush answered that question!;):rolleyes:

wes

The whole things smacks of hypocrisy, and btw extremists Islamic parties have not done well in elections. They can however find wedge issues, and make a lot of noise, and sadly in some case (like in Pakistan) if they don't get there way, they will resort to violence, but I would find it incredibly unlikely they would ever win an out right majority, unless they took the path of Turkey AKP party, who as said above by another poster are essentially a Muslim version of the Republican party.

Also, if we were to follow the logic, then several European countries should get rid of democracy because of the existence of far right parties, after all you can just invoke Mussolini or Franco or other such extremists from the past, even if the chance of lets say the BNP actually getting anywhere in an election are minimal.

Denerick

wes wrote: »

The whole things smacks of hypocrisy, and btw extremists Islamic parties have not done well in elections. They can however find wedge issues, and make a lot of noise, and sadly in some case (like in Pakistan) if they don't get there way, they will resort to violence, but I would find it incredibly unlikely they would ever win an out right majority, unless they took the path of Turkey AKP party, who as said above by another poster are essentially a Muslim version of the Republican party.

I don't know where you are getting this 20% from, the Muslim Brotherhood are the most disciplined opposition group and can expect to be the largest party in any multi party democracy. And the Turkish AK Party is an Islamic aberration, it exists in a country with a profoundly secular heritage. The founder of the Turkish Republic (Kemal Ataturk) is a secular saint. A large proportion of the population is militantly secular. Its civil society is dynamic, diverse and politically liberal. Its military effects great influence over public life and has stepped in the past to reassert Turkish secularism. Turkey is an exception to the rule.

Also, if we were to follow the logic, then several European countries should get rid of democracy because of the existence of far right parties, after all you can just invoke Mussolini or Franco or other such extremists from the past, even if the chance of lets say the BNP actually getting anywhere in an election are minimal.

I never said democracy was not preferable, I basically said that the biggest danger is that democracy in Egypt may be short lived should an Islamist party win an election. This is realpolitick, I'm not making any value judgements just stating reality and explaining why this isn't black or white for the Americans.

wes

Denerick wrote: »

I don't know where you are getting this 20% from,

Well that makes both of us, as I didn't mention any figures.....

Denerick wrote: »

the Muslim Brotherhood are the most disciplined opposition group and can expect to be the largest party in any multi party democracy. And the Turkish AK Party is an Islamic aberration, it exists in a country with a profoundly secular heritage. The founder of the Turkish Republic (Kemal Ataturk) is a secular saint. A large proportion of the population is militantly secular. Its civil society is dynamic, diverse and politically liberal. Its military effects great influence over public life and has stepped in the past to reassert Turkish secularism. Turkey is an exception to the rule.

What rule? Who came up with rule? There are a number of Islamist parties, who are all over the spectrum the world over.

You are making an awful lot of assumption imho. As I said, in a lot of other countries, even a country like Pakistan, Extremist Islamic parties don't do very well.

Denerick wrote: »

I never said democracy was not preferable, I basically said that the biggest danger is that democracy in Egypt may be short lived should an Islamist party win an election. This is realpolitick, I'm not making any value judgements just stating reality and explaining why this isn't black or white for the Americans.

Realpolitick is a great excuse that is often used. If the US want things that way, then fair enough, then it shouldn't speak of values etc then, as if real polick is how they run things, then there proclaimed values are essentially worthless.

Yes, there is a danger, as there is in any revolution, and anything can happen, but I still think that what your saying is unlikely.

Denerick

wes wrote: »

Well that makes both of us, as I didn't mention any figures.....

Sorry, got confused with the other poster.

What rule? Who came up with rule? There are a number of Islamist parties, who are all over the spectrum the world over.

Except the AK is not an Islamist party and Turkey is a Muslim country that doesn't like Islamist parties. I was merely pointing out that Turkish history is quite different from most other Islamic nations.

You are making an awful lot of assumption imho. As I said, in a lot of other countries, even a country like Pakistan, Extremist Islamic parties don't do very well.

Thats because the Pakistani political class have incorporated Islamism into the mainstream. All political parties in pakistan pander to Islamists and boast strong endorsement from a variety of nutters. Again, you're the one generalising, you cannot say as a rule that extremist Islamic parties don't do well because a) Free and fair elections aren't exactly common in most Islamic countries and because individual countries have certain idiosyncracies (Such as Pakistan) Although Islamist parties do not do well, Islamists exert great influence over the political mainstream, so there isn't really a need for a specialist Islamist force in Pakistan.

Realpolitick is a great excuse that is often used. If the US want things that way, then fair enough, then it shouldn't speak of values etc then, as if real polick is how they run things, then there proclaimed values are essentially worthless.

Yes, there is a danger, as there is in any revolution, and anything can happen, but I still think that what your saying is unlikely.

I am merely expressing the American position. We can play rhetorical games any time but I'm only explaining why the world isn't black and white.

wes

Denerick wrote: »

Except the AK is not an Islamist party and Turkey is a Muslim country that doesn't like Islamist parties. I was merely pointing out that Turkish history is quite different from most other Islamic nations.

They have always been described as an Islamist party, both inside and outside Turkey.

Also, the history of every single Muslim majority nation is different, and in those that have democratic elections. Islamists parties don't do very well.

Denerick wrote: »

Thats because the Pakistani political class have incorporated Islamism into the mainstream. All political parties in pakistan pander to Islamists and boast strong endorsement from a variety of nutters.

I fail to see how this is any different to the US republican party pandering to the Religous right for example. Or Sarkozy in France pandering to the far right, by going after the Roma people for example. What there doing in Pakistan is hardly unique.

Denerick wrote: »

Again, you're the one generalising, you cannot say as a rule that extremist Islamic parties don't do well because a) Free and fair elections aren't exactly common in most Islamic countries and because individual countries have certain idiosyncracies (Such as Pakistan) Although Islamist parties do not do well, Islamists exert great influence over the political mainstream, so there isn't really a need for a specialist Islamist force in Pakistan.

Except there are dozen of parties who beg to differ in that regard. Secondly, I was pointing out that where there are free and fair elections, they don't do that great, and gave Pakistan as an example, but you can also look at Bangledesh and other countries. Yes, that is a generalisation, but at least it based on election results, in several different countries.

Also, there are several Muslim majority states, who have varying degree's od democracy btw.

Denerick wrote: »

I am merely expressing the American position. We can play rhetorical games any time but I'm only explaining why the world isn't black and white.

Yes, and I am just saying that if the US wants to live by real politick, it should shut up about democracy, and values, and as there values are essentially worthless if they choose to think that way. Personally, talking up democracy, while looking at the world through a prism of real politick, will just make people think the US are bunch of hypocrites, who words can't be trusted.

Overheal

Denerick wrote: »

It isn't simple. America has interests in the region and popular opinion is vehemently anti American and anti Israeli. A truly fair democratic election would return an Islamist party with a large majority. The west can only hope that this Islamist party would turn out to be like the Turkish AK party (ie, the equivilent of an Islamic US Republican party)

Egypt has liberal secular voices but as ever these are often drowned out by medieval barbarism and superstitious fairy tales. I never used to be so partisanly anti theistic, but religion truly does poison everything.

That said, I have high hopes for the revolution, but unfortunately it can go one of two ways. The US has learnt from 1979, it doesn't want an Islamic revolution like in Iran. Expect a military coup to intervene if that ever happens.

Thats going to be hard to sell to the US Public after we already had two foreign wars handed to us in the name of Democracy.

I'm no fool and I know exactly where the Neocons are coming from but their duplicity between 2001 and 2011 is coming to bite them in the ass. How much simpler life would have been if they had simply used the truth all along?

Ellian

Technically Iran was two revolutions and I am not sure there is an equivilent exiled, charismatic (supposedly he was although I never saw it myself) leader like the Ayatollah waiting in the wings in Egypt.

jank

Overheal wrote: »

Thats going to be hard to sell to the US Public after we already had two foreign wars handed to us in the name of Democracy.

I'm no fool and I know exactly where the Neocons are coming from but their duplicity between 2001 and 2011 is coming to bite them in the ass. How much simpler life would have been if they had simply used the truth all along?

Agree and don't forget their anger at Obama that he wasn't sending in the CIA or Chuck Norris during the green revolution in Iran last year. Now its Egypt's turn and we get funny nervous looks and tumbleweeds. I just find it amusing.

jank

The 20% figure is taken from Robert Fisk.

wes

Ellian wrote: »

Technically Iran was two revolutions and I am not sure there is an equivilent exiled, charismatic (supposedly he was although I never saw it myself) leader like the Ayatollah waiting in the wings in Egypt.

Also, just to add, there are huge differences between Sunni (majority in Egypt) and Shia Islam, when it comes to Imam's. Juan Cole wrote a good blog posting explaining the difference:

Why Egypt 2011 is not Iran 1979

EastTexas

jank wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12363255



Well is this really a surprise? We know the US loves to preach but they will always have their own interests at heart. Should the US actually leave these countries have their own path to democracy and whatever that may bring or should it continue to support these un-democratic regimes in the fear of an Islamic taker over.

Finally will the US general public realize that this is the biggest reason why they are so unpopular in the middle east. The average Arab having to live under a regime that is back to the hilt by the US, yet they sing off a different hymn sheet.

By the way has herself tweeted anything on this?;)

Actually this is what we task our elected leaders and officials with, to have America’s interest at hart.
To consider those first when making decisions.
We also make some of em swear an oath to that.

I would not base any opinion on such a poor and simplistic piece of journalism.
They are referring to Glen Beck and as a presenter.
O’Reily an Anchor?
In what alternate universe does the author of this piece reside?
Are these really his sources? Talk show hosts?
Why not the Muppets?
Honestly this is an article obsessing about Fox but features precious little reporting and understanding of the US right.
All aside that everybody in the media, thousands of people on the right and left are voicing their varied opinions and concerns on the developments in Egypt and what should happen next.

Overheal

EastTexas wrote: »

Actually this is what we task our elected leaders and officials with, to have America’s interest at hart.
To consider those first when making decisions.
We also make some of em swear an oath to that.

And they also campaign on 'freedom' 'democracy' 'transparency' 'honesty' 'truth' "facts", and all that good stuff. When was the last time you saw a candidate say "And we're gonna invade the sons of bitches and make sure they comply with giving us all their stuffs at a cheap price" ?

BluePlanet

wikipedia article says Muslim Brotherhood took 20% of the seats in 2005.
They had to run as Independents however as their party is banned.
Also there were huge irregularities and their members were being rounded up before the election.

So i'll presume they'll land more than 20% in a free and fair election.

Since the revolution in egypt they've stated they would like a "pluralist democracy".

EastTexas

Overheal wrote: »

And they also campaign on 'freedom' 'democracy' 'transparency' 'honesty' 'truth' "facts", and all that good stuff. When was the last time you saw a candidate say "And we're gonna invade the sons of bitches and make sure they comply with giving us all their stuffs at a cheap price" ?

That wouldn’t be very diplomatic, would it .

jank

EastTexas wrote: »

Actually this is what we task our elected leaders and officials with, to have America’s interest at hart.
To consider those first when making decisions.
We also make some of em swear an oath to that.
.

Agree but you cant be preaching to the world then about freedom and democracy. You also cant be surprised why a down and out 18 year old male from Yemen wants to blow himself up in a NY pizza parlor.

Why then are the US in Iraq and Afghanistan? To show them how to make beer?:)

EastTexas

jank wrote: »

Agree but you cant be preaching to the world then about freedom and democracy. You also cant be surprised why a down and out 18 year old male from Yemen wants to blow himself up in a NY pizza parlor.

Why then are the US in Iraq and Afghanistan? To show them how to make beer?:)

Freedom and democracy are universal values not just American ones.

Agreed there is much to be desired about US foreign policy, particularly within the last decade.
But do you believe, just hypothetically, a better world picture would have emerged without US foreign policy intervention and participation all together?
Would Europe even exist as we know it?

Especially during the cold war the US backed dictators and other less savory characters in favor of communist regimes or “democratically elected freedom loving” Islamic theocracies like Iran.
In the case of Egypt this did provide stability for a long time, 30 years.
And clearly this model is now outdated as the world has moved on.
But all eyes’ are on the US again like every time the **** hits the fan somewhere.
Like when people dislike the police or claim to hate layers ….until they need them.

I also would not consider a young man from Yemen to be down and out if manages to get himself to get to New York and if he still wants to blow himself up its more likely the prospect of the 72 virgins/ extremist ideology and not freedom and democracy.

BluePlanet

EastTexas wrote: »

But all eyes’ are on the US again like every time the **** hits the fan somewhere.

Mubarak is your pet dictator, you own the mess and now he's your responsiblity.

EastTexas wrote: »

Would Europe even exist as we know it?

Pfft :rolleyes:

Don't you mean: America wouldn't even exist without Europe. (unless you happen to be an indian)

EastTexas

BluePlanet wrote: »

Mubarak is your pet dictator, you own the mess and now he's your responsiblity.


Pfft :rolleyes:

Don't you mean: America wouldn't even exist without Europe. (unless you happen to be an indian)

The United States originally pursued a policy of non-intervention and isolationism before WW1 avoiding conflict while trying to broker a peace.
Until a German U-boat sank the British liner Lusitania in 1915, with 128 Americans aboard, but did not declare war on Germany until 1917.
After WW1 returned to isolationism by not joining the League of Nations

At the end of WW2 conditions were very different. The United States had now seen the inability to remain isolated in a world were relations between states were growing more complicated and weaponry and delivery systems where able to travel vast distances able to do far greater damage than ever before..
Without the US intervening and joining its allies, Europe would have been left to Stalin or Hitler, or both.
What some people refer to as American Imperialism, the US also refers to as obligations to our allies.

As I stated above, during the following cold war the US backed dictators and other less savory characters in favor of communist regimes or militant Islam as the lesser of the two evils.
Mubarak is one of those relics.
The US at least in part funded the Egyptian Military and so far they did pretty good by the people during this uprising.

Just so Mubarak is not MY personal pet dictator. I m here on this forum as a private citizen.
At the present time, what was is not near as relevant as what is going to be
I hope this turns out well in the end for all parties involved, as I would not want see WW3 erupting in this region.
It most certainly is a powder keg.

P.S.
What happened to the indigenous American Indians at the hands of early European settles a century or two before is not US foreign policy.
Totally different subject.

Overheal

What happened to the indigenous American Indians at the hands of early European settles a century or two before is not US foreign policy.
Totally different subject.

Yet we did make them three fifths of a person.

EastTexas

Overheal wrote: »

Yet we did make them three fifths of a person.

Yeap, and not just the American Indians, referring to our history with slavery and Jim crow.
But deserving to be noted is that civil rights and the idea of equality for all did not come about in the US by intervention from a foreign nation, but gained support amongst our own ranks.

Heck we fought a civil war about it, where American’s slaughtered each other wholesale.
And it wasn’t until after that, that the nation began to see it’s self as one people.
It’s been said and I very much agree, that you don’t really understand the US until you understand the civil war.

whiteonion

The hypocrisy of the neocons should be obvious to anyone who is not sleeping.

jank

One just has to listen to that fool John Bolton. However, others like William Kristal are more open to the idea of a democratic Egypt which is surprising. Maybe the CIA has the next leader lined up!:)

Amerika

Hmmm... Some think the fool over here in the whole Egypt situation is not the “Right,” but the top. And this growing viewpoint isn’t coming from the “Right.” Niall Ferguson has some hard hitting and interesting perspectives, which are hard to disagree with. The line "I'm not George Bush, Love Me!" hits the nail on the head.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/#41577220

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/02/13/wanted-a-grand-strategy-for-america.html

Overheal

came to my attention from Daily Show moment of zen:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/Vox-News/2011/0212/Why-is-Glenn-Beck-freaking-out-over-Egypt-and-a-caliphate

And in his latest monologue about “the new world order,” Beck had this to say about his critics: “You want to call me crazy? Go to hell. Call me crazy all you want."

All of this has become great fun for others in the commentariat.

“Of course, the conspiracy goes deeper than Beck has yet revealed,” writes Jeffrey Goldberg in the Atlantic. “I'm hoping that, in coming days, if the Freemasons, working in concert with Hezbollah and the Washington Redskins, don't succeed in suppressing the truth, that Beck will reveal the identities of the most pernicious players in this grotesque campaign to subvert our way of life.”

“I can't reveal too much here,” Goldberg writes. “But I think it's fair to say that Beck will be paying a lot of attention in the coming weeks to the dastardly, pro-caliphate work of Joy Behar; the makers of Little Debbie snack cakes; the 1980s hair band Def Leppard; Omar Sharif; and the Automobile Association of America. And remember, you read it here first.”

From January 2010 to last month, the number of his viewers dropped 39 percent – the steepest decline of any cable news show.

“It's entirely possible viewers are simply tiring of the chalkboard and the high rhetoric, which has been notably higher of late,” Business Insider reported earlier this month. “And needless to say Beck is not the phenom he was a year ago, merely by dint of the country becoming more familiar with him.”

Meanwhile, some 300 advertisers have asked not to be on his show – a trend that began when Beck called President Obama a “racist.”

Sand

I welcome the departure of Mubarrak, much as I welcomed the removal of Saddam Hussein. Im sure Jank - given his criticism of any reservation expressed about Mubarraks departure - will join me in agreeing that the removal of the much worse dictator Saddam by the US was an absolute good, regardless of cause or consequence.

The problem is that democracy is just majority wins, mob rule when it is absent the rule of law. The difference between the polarising politics of the US and Iraq is not fervour - its the rule of law. This is something that people seem to have difficulty grasping. Its rule of law that protects minorities and individuals, not democracy.

Its not crazy to be a bit worried about what forces will emerge from a political system which has been oppressed for 30 years. Look at Iraq - the US was forced to accelerate elections there in advance of re-establishing rule of law and the competitive nature of democracy absent rule of law led to a bitter (and heavily religiously divided, if not inspired) civil war between Kurds, Shias and Sunnis.Presuming that all the demonstrators are good and honest and liberal social-democrats is a bit naive. The best organised and most openly respected social groups will be the religious ones - opposition democratic politicians were of course being oppressed, whereas religious crazies are treated softly for fear of enraging people. The chances of the opposition being organised and able to win support on a national scale for secular social democracy in a few weeks or months is slim, though of course to be hoped for.

jank

Amerika wrote: »

Hmmm... Some think the fool over here in the whole Egypt situation is not the “Right,” but the top. And this growing viewpoint isn’t coming from the “Right.” Niall Ferguson has some hard hitting and interesting perspectives, which are hard to disagree with. The line "I'm not George Bush, Love Me!" hits the nail on the head.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/#41577220

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/02/13/wanted-a-grand-strategy-for-america.html

Well I never said Obama was stellar in this situation either. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy that the right were trumping the new found freedom of the Iraqi people not so long ago (only after a war based on false pretenses and hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of dollars wasted), now where an actual revolution takes place in Tunisia and Egypt which is relatively peaceful (early days i know!) its a complete 180 because the people there might vote for someone that may not be friendly to the US and Israel although Egypt is pretty secular by middle east standards.

Neill Ferguson is a pretty right wing guy though, compared to John Bolton though he is a communist!:)

On a side issue...

I see Neill Ferguson appeared on MSNBC, would Fox News have had a commentator with a different viewpoint? Also isnt Newsweek a "liberal" magazine:rolleyes: I welcome media that will put opposing view points into print.

I still find your sig ironic.

jank

Sand wrote: »

I welcome the departure of Mubarrak, much as I welcomed the removal of Saddam Hussein. Im sure Jank - given his criticism of any reservation expressed about Mubarraks departure - will join me in agreeing that the removal of the much worse dictator Saddam by the US was an absolute good, regardless of cause or consequence. .

Lots of hyperbole there Sand. Of course the world is better off without Saddam. No one in their right minds would think otherwise. However, the facts are that the US supported him all through his tenure, all for having a friend in a area of high strategic interest regardless of what he did to the Kurds and normal everyday Iraqi people. The US didn't seem particulary perturbed in invading Iraq when Iran was their biggest problem in that region. Realpoltick always wins out in that region despite gross violation of human rights. I am sure you will join me in accepting that fact.

Mubarack, the same and there is a little more to it than a "little" reservation. From the lunatic's like Beck to the scare mongering of [Insert Muslim Party Here] seen on the right.

Sand wrote: »

The problem is that democracy is just majority wins, mob rule when it is absent the rule of law. The difference between the polarising politics of the US and Iraq is not fervour - its the rule of law. This is something that people seem to have difficulty grasping. Its rule of law that protects minorities and individuals, not democracy.
.

I think democarcy coupled with a rule of law is what protects induviduals and minoritues.
Saddam had Iraqi under his fist and to all intents had rule of law. Did that protect minorities. No, because Saddam was a dicatator that could do as he wanted. Rule of law has to go hand in hand with democracy otherwise autoractic states are the only way forward. Europe finallylearned this leason in 1945.

Sand wrote: »

Its not crazy to be a bit worried about what forces will emerge from a political system which has been oppressed for 30 years. Look at Iraq - the US was forced to accelerate elections there in advance of re-establishing rule of law and the competitive nature of democracy absent rule of law led to a bitter (and heavily religiously divided, if not inspired) civil war between Kurds, Shias and Sunnis.Presuming that all the demonstrators are good and honest and liberal social-democrats is a bit naive. The best organised and most openly respected social groups will be the religious ones - opposition democratic politicians were of course being oppressed, whereas religious crazies are treated softly for fear of enraging people. The chances of the opposition being organised and able to win support on a national scale for secular social democracy in a few weeks or months is slim, though of course to be hoped for.

The muslim brotherhood was the only opposition allowed in Egypt therefore they attracted all types. Now the name might be scary for some but as I mentioned Islamic and Muslim forces only have minority support in Egypt and would not get a majority if elections were held.

Of course people are worried. I am not that idealistic ffs. I know everyone wants to go from (A) Dictator -> (C) Constitutional Democracy. What is missing is the (B). Should the US support Middle Eastern autocratic regimes for the fear of what (B) might entail? Should this support go on perpetually or at least on the the oil runs out? I think this is the issue that alot of people have issue with. Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain etc.. were going to happen at some stage. It just happens to be now and now the cat is out of the bag some people are like" hmmm it was so much easier when back in the 80's when we only had Iran to deal with". It reminds me of the story about the boy and the finger in the dam.

Finally, never forget where this extreme Islamofascism originated worldwide. Two hints, Shah & Iran. Something ALWAYS fills a vacuum.

jank

Amerika wrote: »

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/#41577220

Good clip but unusually harsh in my opinion. Obama may not have a "grand" strategy as others have had. Bush I think didnt have one till after 9/11 so maybe Obama will develop one and get others in to advise him and who the **** knows what was going on behind the scenes.

Describing Clinton and Gates as 2nd, 3rd rate though seems to me as he wants to be overly harsh for other reasons not entirely clear. Maybe he has a new book coming out.

Edit: Ah he is the a new reporter for newsweek. Suppose he wants to make a name for himself. Also, describing he was in Tel Aviv talking to hawkish members of the Israeli Security establishment will not have gone unnoticed.

Amerika

jank wrote: »

On a side issue...
I see Neill Ferguson appeared on MSNBC, would Fox News have had a commentator with a different viewpoint?

It did happen on the Morning Joe show after all - Joe Scarborough (R). I highly doubt such a guest would be allowed anywhere near their evening lineup. FNC begs for prominent Democrats and Liberals to appear and debate on their shows. But lets face it, most of them seem scared to death to appear on FNC.

Also isnt Newsweek a "liberal" magazine…

Exactly my point!

And what the heck... You don’t think I broaden my horizons by also viewing (in a completely objective manner) some left leaning news outlets such as Huf’n’PuffPO, Saloon, indigNation, cable news MSLSD, and the more traditional leftist news media such as The Washington comPost, The New York Slimes, and Newsweak?

I welcome media that will put opposing view points into print.

Here is a recent non-scientific study done that addresses that particular issue. It’s quite obvious after reading it that FNC wins hands down.
http://articles.philly.com/2010-11-04/news/24955027_1_countdown-with-keith-olbermann-o-reilly-factor-brit-hume
Looks like you will need to welcome Fox News.

I still find your sig ironic.

Ironic? Seems to me the recent uprisings in the Middle East more-or-less vindicates President George W. Bush's "freedom agenda." Could it be that Bush's promotion of U.S. fostered democracy in the region is just now bearing fruit (Oh the horrors of reality)?

(Don’t worry, as the mood hits, the sig will soon change to something that will just as similarly get liberal’s knickers all bunched up. )

Exile 1798

Amerika wrote: »

Ironic? Seems to me the recent uprisings in the Middle East more-or-less vindicates President George W. Bush's "freedom agenda." Could it be that Bush's promotion of U.S. fostered democracy in the region is just now bearing fruit (Oh the horrors of reality)?

Wouldn't the first step in fostering democracy in the region be to stop propping up Arab dictatorships?

Or is supporting Arab tyrants to foster democracy another ingenious move by Bush that we're yet to fully understand?

Overheal

I don't find the quote ironic, by the way. GWB was puppeted if anything, and Saddam was installed before even GHWB was able to interfere with him during the persian gulf war.

Unless im completely missing something, which isn't unheard of.

jank

Amerika wrote: »

It did happen on the Morning Joe show after all - Joe Scarborough (R). I highly doubt such a guest would be allowed anywhere near their evening lineup. FNC begs for prominent Democrats and Liberals to appear and debate on their shows. But lets face it, most of them seem scared to death to appear on FNC.

Where is the democrat on the Fox morning new program?Also, begging? Please PJ, you can do better than that. I thought the line was the democrats were "afraid" to go on Fox, not the other way around:rolleyes:
Anyway this has nothing to do with Fox or MSNBC which as far as I am concerned can tea bag each other all they want.

Amerika wrote: »

Exactly my point!

And what the heck... You don’t think I broaden my horizons by also viewing (in a completely objective manner) some left leaning news outlets such as Huf’n’PuffPO, Saloon, indigNation, cable news MSLSD, and the more traditional leftist news media such as The Washington comPost, The New York Slimes, and Newsweak?

I see your humour unlike a fine wine is not improving with age:)

Amerika wrote: »

Here is a recent non-scientific study done that addresses that particular issue. It’s quite obvious after reading it that FNC wins hands down.
http://articles.philly.com/2010-11-04/news/24955027_1_countdown-with-keith-olbermann-o-reilly-factor-brit-hume
Looks like you will need to welcome Fox News.

I should have saved myself the bother before clicking on the link when I read the words "non-scientific". Basically, Fox looks at things from a right leaning lens and MSNBC looks at things from a left leaning lens. Gee whizz, earth shattering commentary and analysis there.

Amerika wrote: »

Ironic? Seems to me the recent uprisings in the Middle East more-or-less vindicates President George W. Bush's "freedom agenda." Could it be that Bush's promotion of U.S. fostered democracy in the region is just now bearing fruit (Oh the horrors of reality)?

(Don’t worry, as the mood hits, the sig will soon change to something that will just as similarly get liberal’s knickers all bunched up. )

Well first of all this dismisses completely the Bush Doctrine of unilateral action against would be hostile nations. This has nothing to do with Bush and he didn't do ANYTHING to foster democracy in Egypt, Tunisia or elsewhere.

Secondly, why are all his buds like John Bolton and Charles Krauthammer totally against this uprising for the fear of instability in the region. This was the grand plan all along...right?:p

Thirdly why did Bush unquestionably support these regimes throughout his entire presidency?

Amerika

jank wrote: »

Anyway this has nothing to do with Fox or MSNBC which as far as I am concerned can tea bag each other all they want.

Criminy... It was you who brought up Fox and MSNBC in the first place. What is it about me that brings out the uglies in you?

jank

Amerika wrote: »

Criminy... It was you who brought up Fox and MSNBC in the first place. What is it about me that brings out the uglies in you?

Just surprised that you would post a vid clip of MSNBC to advocate your point of view. Seems that MSNBC may not be as unbalanced after all Welcome to the dark side.

Amerika

jank wrote: »

Welcome to the dark side.

LOL! Ahhhh... That explains it.