1979 or 1989?

#1
Rasputin_Vol

Rasputin_Vol

"Slava Ukraina"
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Messages
72,056
Likes
39,845
#1
Are the wide spread revolts in these Arab countries a flash back to the independence movement in Eastern Europe or is this simply a replay of Iran and the overthrow of The Shah?
 
#3
#3
This is a very interesting question. My hope is that the dynamics of world economics has changed since 1979 to bring quicker opportunity for those freed from oppression. They didn't know it at the time but the Iranians were simply trading one tyranny for another. Hopefully the dissidents in Egypt, Libia, ect. learned from their mistakes.

Additonally, in an ideal world, taking the 'America is backing our oppressor' out of the equation may lead to a safer world. Whatever the outcome I want to be optimistic. Increased individual liberties combined with broadening economic opportunities are a powerful mix and can be used for good.
 
#4
#4
I hope for the best in this situation but expect the worst.
 
#5
#5
Looks like 1979... :crazy:

AFP: Hardline Islamist surge in Egypt polls


CAIRO — Egypt is awaiting results on Thursday from its first election since its February revolution which are set to confirm moderate Islamists as the dominant force, but with a strong showing from hardliners.

The Muslim Brotherhood, a moderate Islamist movement banned for decades by Hosni Mubarak, has emerged from the shadows since the fall of the autocrat and has forecast its party will take at least 40 percent of the vote.
Click to expand...

weirdlook.gif
 
#6
#6
I find it odd when individuals esteem the merits of democracy and then show disapproval/disgust when someone is elected of whom the individual who esteemed the merits of democracy does not agree with on principle.

The only persons who should concern themselves with who is running Egypt or Palestine are the Egyptians and the Palestinians, respectively. If we want someone who pleases us, then why don't we just colonize these places and install our own colonial governments?
 
#7
#7
therealUT said:
I find it odd when individuals esteem the merits of democracy and then show disapproval/disgust when someone is elected of whom the individual who esteemed the merits of democracy does not agree with on principle.

The only persons who should concern themselves with who is running Egypt or Palestine are the Egyptians and the Palestinians, respectively. If we want someone who pleases us, then why don't we just colonize these places and install our own colonial governments?
Click to expand...

I see what you did there...

However, I am not advocating that we intervene in the elections or place a puppet in power over there. I still have a right to comment on what is happening.
 
#9
#9
And if a major lobbyist doesn't like it, then we bomb your Presidential Palace and install a junta for 20+ years, ala Salvadore Allende.
 
#10
#10
therealUT said:
The problem with democracy is that you get what the majority want.
Click to expand...

Agree in principle - in practice, I'm guessing these democracies may not have truly democratic processes to elect leaders. The other sticking point is that a democracy may elect poor leadership and said leadership erodes democracy and prevents its own ouster.
 
#12
#12
Why Islamists Are Better Democrats - TIME

And to argue that voters were hoodwinked by the Islamists is to suggest that the majority of the electorate are gullible fools. This tells you something about the attitude of liberal politicians toward their constituency. And that in turn may hold the key to why they fared so badly.

The Islamists, it turns out, understand democracy much better than the liberals do. The Ennahda and the FJP were not just better organized, they also campaigned harder and smarter. Anticipating allegations that they would seek to impose an Iranian-style theocracy in North Africa, the Islamists formed alliances with some secular and leftist parties and very early on announced they would not be seeking the presidency in either country. Like smart retail politicians everywhere, they played to their strengths, capitalizing on goodwill generated by years of providing social services — free hospitals and clinics, soup kitchens — in poor neighborhoods. And they used their piety to assure voters that they would provide clean government, no small consideration for a population fed up with decades of corrupt rule. Even the Salafis, who openly pursue an irredentist agenda and seek a return to Islam's earliest days, benefited from the perception that they are scrupulously honest.
Click to expand...
 
#13
#13
therealUT said:
I find it odd when individuals esteem the merits of democracy and then show disapproval/disgust when someone is elected of whom the individual who esteemed the merits of democracy does not agree with on principle.

The only persons who should concern themselves with who is running Egypt or Palestine are the Egyptians and the Palestinians, respectively. If we want someone who pleases us, then why don't we just colonize these places and install our own colonial governments?
Click to expand...

Slavery with a suggestion box.
 
#14
#14
therealUT said:
Ala, America.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because we moved from a good Republican/Democratic (governmental style, not to be confused with party politics) balance to leaning more and more toward pure democracy. Republicanism is rule of law. Democracy is rule of the masses. The masses are stupid, and without rule of law to balance it out, we are completely ******.
 
#15
#15
nbakerld said:
Yeah, because we moved from a good Republican/Democratic (governmental style, not to be confused with party politics) balance to leaning more and more toward pure democracy. Republicanism is rule of law. Democracy is rule of the masses. The masses are stupid, and without rule of law to balance it out, we are completely ******.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting checks and balances work
 
#16
#16
nbakerld said:
Yeah, because we moved from a good Republican/Democratic (governmental style, not to be confused with party politics) balance to leaning more and more toward pure democracy. Republicanism is rule of law. Democracy is rule of the masses. The masses are stupid, and without rule of law to balance it out, we are completely ******.
Click to expand...

In a true democracy, you're lucky if you only experience wild pendulum swings in government policy.
 
#23
#23
theFallGuy said:
Agreed but I find it equally odd that people place islam with democracy and expect the 2 to go together. Doesn't work, never will.
Click to expand...

Any culture/society will be ready for democracy when they are willing to sacrifice for it. When a nation is hand-delivered democracy they aren't likely to be ready for it. They don't value it as much. Then they turn into India.
 
#24
#24
nbakerld said:
Any culture/society will be ready for democracy when they are willing to sacrifice for it. When a nation is hand-delivered democracy they aren't likely to be ready for it. They don't value it as much. Then they turn into India.
Click to expand...

India is an interesting example
 
#25
#25
PKT_VOL said:
Very ignorant statement.
Click to expand...

The statement is not at all ignorant.





PKT_VOL said:
Agreed.
Click to expand...

Now that's an ignorant statement, as it relates to this day and time.

The first round of voting at the end of November is officially in.

Islamists won nearly 70% of the seats.

The muslim brotherhood aka 'freedom won 47% of the seats in the "peoples' assembly" of 498.

An even more radical islamist group, al-Nour, a salifist group very close in belief to the ultra strict wahabis of Saudi Arabia and not unlike the taliban of Afghanistan and Pakistan, won 21% of the seats.

The last round of voting was yesterday and it appears that the present 68% will only increase to something like 75 or 80% of the seats.

This coming from the AP who doesn't mention whether the Christian minority won any seats at all or if they were even allowed to vote.

I do know the Christians were denied representation in the meetings they held to set up the elections.

I always call the AP the 'Arab Press' because I was once in a position to read their raw wire and what is on there and what you see in the newspapers is somewhat different to say the least.

Al-Nour must be the only fathonable reason the muslim brotherhood could possibly be called 'moderate.'

Remember the muslim brotherhood was aligned with Adolph Hitler and the nazi party before and during WWII and have never renounced that ideology, as a matter of fact they say he didn't go far enough and remember, Hitler gained power by the democrattic process.

The muslim brotherhood has spawned a myriad of terrorist organization, all the major ones.

You can bet your bottom dollar that sharia will be written into the new constitution that will be decided by the people's assembly and this doesn't bode all that well for the Christians and secularists down the road.

Al-nour says the first thing to go will be the bikinis at the beaches and with that the tourist trade, which keeps Egypt afloat but not to fear, John Kerry is calling for us to send the muslim brotherhood more money.

It seems more like 1989 to me and why anyone would hope it would be more like 89 that 79 has to be crazier than a loon. :crazy:
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top