Mubarak is not a dictator

[pinner]

You missed out Belgium

Yes- why does it exist? About time that it was parcelled-up between France and Netherlands.

[pinner]

It's their coUntry.

Yes.

 

Their choice.

Hardly! No democracy= no choice, you see.

[Rupert_Baehr]

Why should France or the Netherlands be stuck with it?

 

The Netherlands are quite happy to have Flanders as a neighbour. The Dutch won't have nuclear power plants on their land (but they're quite happy to buy electricity from the nuclear plant just over the border in Belgium.)

 

The French seem to enjoy laughing at the Belgians, but I'm not so sure they would wish to annexe Wallonia.

 

Belgium is a mixture of 3 separate groups (if you discount the immigrants and there are many many different ethnicities amongst those.)

 

The Flemish in the North don't like the Walloons - "You're lazy, you spend all your lives partying, we're fed up with supporting you, you should develop a work ethic." (Yet when coal and steel played an important part in the Belgian economy, they were more than happy to accept a steady flow of money from the South.)

 

The Wallonians don't like the Flemish. "You're a miserable bunch, always moaning about something. Learn to smile and get a life."

 

Then there are the Germans down in the South East. They're Belgians because somebody somewhere said so. They don't seem to pay any attention to anybody. They just get on with life.

 

Brussels likes to call itself 'The Capital of the European Union.' Perhaps it might be a good idea if they could start with a bit of unity amongst the Belgos.:hihi:

 

I do like Belgium, though. It's an amazingly disorganised place where things seem to work in spite of the government/authorities/police etc.

[Rupert_Baehr]

Yes.

 

 

Hardly! No democracy= no choice, you see.

 

Democracy is not the only way of bringing about political change.

[MAMALOCHA!]

More likely to be eventually taken over by Iranian style Islamic extremists.

Compared to them Mubarak is a pussycat.

Prepare for a great big war in the middle east, Israel vs the rest if some fanatic gets into power in Egypt.

 

 

Torture and stifling freedom by locking them up. thats well soft.

[Kaimani]

Why democracy? Most of those countries have never been democracies. Why should they start niow? (And do you really think they will?)

 

If there are uprisings and the current dictators are booted out (or more likely strung up) then the dictators will probably be replaced with different dictators.

 

It's their contry. Their choice.

 

Those countries which rely on tourism may have to look for something to replace it, however.

 

good point. just because we want 'democracy', or, at least, our version of democracy, doesn't mean the whole world wants it. they don't want the people in power now, but might one people in power that we don't. it's their choice.

[Harleyman]

OK- so why aren't there any democratic opposition parties/movements there?

 

That question could be best answered by the Egyptians themselves. If Mubarak does quit who will replace him in the immediate future? Until elections can be held to bring in a new leader and government which could take months and months the army more than likely will replace the government. The army seems to be popular enough with the demonstrators at the moment but that could change after a few months if demonstrations or civil disorder continue to any extent.

Armies anywhere are not known for their patience or tolerance in those kind of situations

[Harleyman]

Torture and stifling freedom by locking them up. thats well soft.

 

What makes you think that a future leader might not do the same?

The Muslim brotherhood might try to exploit the situation but that group are not popular with the military establishment. Who knows what other groups. Can Al Qaeda be ruled out? It's a very bad scenario all round

 

Already groups of demonstators are shouting "Israel is the real enemy"

Be prepared for another middle east war sometime down the road

[Kaimani]

That question could be best answered by the Egyptians themselves. If Mubarak does quit who will replace him in the immediate future? Until elections can be held to bring in a new leader and government which could take months and months the army more than likely will replace the government. The army seems to be popular enough with the demonstrators at the moment but that could change after a few months if demonstrations or civil disorder continue to any extent.

Armies anywhere are not known for their patience or tolerance in those kind of situations

 

near enough every country with an army regime in power came about because of that vacuum in power that allows them to 'hold the keys' and then they stay.

[andygardener]

good point. just because we want 'democracy', or, at least, our version of democracy, doesn't mean the whole world wants it. they don't want the people in power now, but might one people in power that we don't. it's their choice.

 

I agree that imposing democracy as we have done in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't work, democracy can only work if people actually want it and are prepared to fight for it, as we are seeing in some arab countries at the moment. But I think we need to be carefull about assuming that certain people don't want democracy (ie a bloodless way of periodically changing their government) by their nature.

 

I'm sure the vast majority of North Koreans want nothing more than to serve the dear leader and the idea of elections would cause them great genuine horror. That's not because they are genetically defective, it's because a repressive regime has cut of all outside information and systematically brainwashed the population and tortured and killed those who it could not brainwash. Most non democratic regimes have a wide range of subtle and not so subtle methods of ensuring the populace don't "want democracy" and that needs to be taken into account.

 

Democracy has it's failings for sure, but it's saving grace is that no matter how it does not guarentee good governance, it does guarentee that appalling governance can be got rid of without having to resort to revolution and the inevitable bloodshed that results.