Trouble in Bahrain

wes wrote: »

It is hypocritical actually, if you bang on about democracy and then go about supporting dictators, and even in some cases undermining democracy or putting in dictators yourself, then that is massively hypocritical.

Undermining democracies, or installing autocratic puppets is both wrong and hypocritical. However, dealing with the situation as one finds it is accepting reality, and the limitations on one's power.

Secondly, I disagree that actions of supporting these tyrants is in anybodies best interests. We have seen groups like Al Qaeda specifically target the West for supporting these regimes, and that is just one example of "blow back" as the American's call it. The stability that these regimes offer isn't real, and any deal made by them are worthless, as they will not necessarily be backed by the people, when the tyrant is removed, which will happen sooner or later.

Of course autocratic states aren't the most ideal partners, but you are making the mistake of assuming that withdrawing support will engender political liberalisation. History has shown that the opposite is often the result. Carter withdrew American support for the Shah for example, and his regime was replaced with an even more brutal system. Had America withdrawn all support from Mubarak, and had he managed to crush the protests anyway, America would have lost a major ally in the region.

Also, Western support can often have a moderating effect on autocratic regimes. America was able, to an extent, to influence the Egyptian army recently. The fact that it did not crack down more forcefully is due, in part, to its close relationship with the American military. Gaddaffi doesn't have to consider how his actions will be perceived on the international stage, and thus has no incentive to moderate his current crackdown, which seems to be pretty brutal. The same is true of Iran.

Also, is there any limit to what can be excused by invoking your own best interests? For example, many Western countries supported Saddam, when he was gassing the Kurds, was that acceptable? The West accepted that kind of thing, as long as Saddam sided with the West, which imho pretty much destroys any kind of moral credibility that the West could ever claim.

Yes, there is a limit I think, and I don't think any state should ever get a free ride from the West, or America, or whoever. However, the examples of Cuba, Libya, North Korea and Iran clearly shows the limits of Western influence. Western condemnation and sanctions has had no impact on those regimes. If anything, it has made them stronger. I'm not sure that a similar policy towards allied autocracies would have different results.

International relations are a dirty, messy quagmire. And one has to live, pretty much, with the reality as it exists. To alientate vital allies when one cannot possibly know the outcome of such a policy could prove to be disastarous.

Tigerbaby wrote: »

that just goes to show how all-encompassing a Muslim liberation theology is.
they seek freedom for all "Peoples of the Book".. be they Jew, Christian or Muslim.

Freedom involves being forced to adhere to Sharia Law despite not being a Muslim? That sounds very liberating indeed.

Einhard wrote: »

Carter withdrew American support for the Shah for example, and his regime was replaced with an even more brutal system.



do you honestly believe that the Islamic Republic is worse than the regime of Shah Pahlavi ?

Come on FFS.

HavingCrack wrote: »

Don't say no to murdering atheists and stoning women though....charming religion altogether.

Be fair, we don't hold up Christian Right lunatics as fine examples of christianity.
Most religions have their fundamentalist diehards.

Einhard wrote: »

Undermining democracies, or installing autocratic puppets is both wrong and hypocritical. However, dealing with the situation as one finds it is accepting reality, and the limitations on one's power.

Which is fair enough, but Western countries have sadly undermined democracy and gotten rid of it in the past. Now that the opportunity has arisen surely, supporting those who want freedom is the way to go.

Einhard wrote: »

Of course autocratic states aren't the most ideal partners, but you are making the mistake of assuming that withdrawing support will engender political liberalisation. History has shown that the opposite is often the result. Carter withdrew American support for the Shah for example, and his regime was replaced with an even more brutal system. Had America withdrawn all support from Mubarak, and had he managed to crush the protests anyway, America would have lost a major ally in the region.

One example of something going wrong, isn't exactly useful enough to draw any kind of conclusion from. The situation in Iran was unique, and Shia Islam gives clerics a lot more power, and the simple fact is that Sunni Islam simply doesn't have a Religious figure with same stature that Khomeni had, goes to show how different the 2 situations are.

Also, to point out that the Iranians regime is having protests right now, and secondly, if the US didn't get rid of Mossadegh (democratically elected leader) in the first place, then there would have been no revolution, as there would have been no dictator. The West put in a tyrant, and the situation resulted in people who hated there guts for that coming into power.

As for Mubarak, he very much depended on the US, and I am sure if he managed to stay in power, all would have been forgiven.

Einhard wrote: »

Also, Western support can often have a moderating effect on autocratic regimes. America was able, to an extent, to influence the Egyptian army recently. The fact that it did not crack down more forcefully is due, in part, to its close relationship with the American military. Gaddaffi doesn't have to consider how his actions will be perceived on the international stage, and thus has no incentive to moderate his current crackdown, which seems to be pretty brutal. The same is true of Iran.

Its just as likely that the fact the army in Egypt was made up of conscripts who didn't want to fire on there own families and friends.

In the case of Libya, they had to bring in mercenaries, and that seems to because some of the army don't like the idea of shooting at there own people. Also, btw Libya now has a lot of Western links these days, and that doesn't seem to have moderated things at all.

Finally, in the case of Iran, the US has actually be very out spoken about support for protests, when compared to elsewhere, as the Iranian regime is seen as a enemy, and to the regime, they have used this to portray the protesters as being foreign influenced, and made it easier to crack down on them. So in some cases, keeping quite is actually the best course of action.

Einhard wrote: »

Yes, there is a limit I think, and I don't think any state should ever get a free ride from the West, or America, or whoever. However, the examples of Cuba, Libya, North Korea and Iran clearly shows the limits of Western influence. Western condemnation and sanctions has had no impact on those regimes. If anything, it has made them stronger. I'm not sure that a similar policy towards allied autocracies would have different results.

Yes, and but I have yet to see any positives results for the people who are supported by the West. The only difference I can see is that they aren't quite was blatant in there abuses.

Einhard wrote: »

International relations are a dirty, messy quagmire. And one has to live, pretty much, with the reality as it exists. To alientate vital allies when one cannot possibly know the outcome of such a policy could prove to be disastarous.

I would argue that the current policies are a disaster, and create a false sense of stability and security. We have achieved some short term stability, that has come to bite people in the ass. Its better to do thing properly now, while the opportunity exists.

HavingCrack wrote: »

I'm not a Christian either .

Thank f#ck for that.:D

They've got balls the ones on the streets I'll give them that, let's hope they keep the pressure up and take down Gadaffi and co., and the gangsters in Yemen and Bahrain. Hopefully it brings something better to the people. Could be a pivotal moment in the history of the entire region.

Sisko wrote: »

Feckin hell, at 1st it looks like someone shoots him in the face with a hand gun, but re-watching the guy is just pointing at him and its another bloke whoes just behind him shoots the guy with one of those grenade launcher - tear gas firing weapons - not sure how damaging a point blank shot from one of those things to the head is but theres a small chance he survived it, hopefully.

Even a rubber bullet would probably kill you at that distance. This is getting very bad.