Mubarak is not a dictator

[MAMALOCHA!]

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

 

Its strange how you seem to think anyone apart from mubarak is the wrong choice for the country or are we too assume its the saying 'he's a b*stard, but he's our b*stard. what interest would it be for the country to start a war with israel ?

I guess the coalition of the willing wouldn't have a lackey in power.

[andygardener]

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

 

Mohamed ElBaradei would as both a high profile international figure and leader of the National Association for Change make an ideal non-partisan interim leader. I don't know what the streets view of him is but he certainly fits the bill as an ideal interim leader until free elections could take place.

[Kaimani]

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.

 

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 think it's human nature to want democracy. to feel you have a say in your own destiny. but people don't all want the English or the American form of democracy. every nation that has come to votes and democracy organically has done ok because they did it, tried it, tweaked it and on and on till it worked. the English still working on it hundreds of years later. we can't just export our version everywhere. people need to come to it themselves.

we can't assume to know for the whole world what is good for them coz it seems to work for us. this has been proven over and over again.

our intentions are pure, but not everyone is us( i say this as a born African who's also a British citizen) but the world doesn't need us to show the way.

[Harleyman]

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.

 

 

There may well be a vaccum in power if Mubarak leaves. The future of Egypt is very much in the hands of the Egyptians themselves.

America's influence in the region has diminished but no matter what the criticism of it, the peace that has existed for decades can be attributed to American efforts. What other government or leader has done anything to preside over Arab-Isareli peacs talks? Who brought about the Camp David accord? Which is the only country that keeps the Jewish-Palestinian efforts to reach an accord alive? (fruitless as it seems at the moment)

 

Let those who might gloat over American diminishing influence enjoy it but who is to fill the vacuum when America has finally gone?

Dont count of Britain or France. Their only policy has been to traditionally use the US as a crutch when it comes to the middle east.

[Kaimani]

There may well be a vaccum in power if Mubarak leaves. The future of Egypt is very much in the hands of the Egyptians themselves.

America's influence in the region has diminished but no matter what the criticism of it, the peace that has existed for decades can be attributed to American efforts. What other government or leader has done anything to preside over Arab-Isareli peacs talks? Who brought about the Camp David accord? Which is the only country that keeps the Jewish-Palestinian efforts to reach an accord alive? (fruitless as it seems at the moment)

 

Let those who might gloat over American diminishing influence enjoy it but who is to fill the vacuum when America has finally gone?

Dont count of Britain or France. Their only policy has been to traditionally use the US as a crutch when it comes to the middle east.

 

America's influence has been far from benign the world over. yes, they did OK( ish) with Egypt. but managed to take all that away with a lot more worse thing. but that's besides the point. if people revolt to change a system, let it be what they want. America and everyone else should stay out of it. whether or not a regime we don't like comes in we deal with it then. no one needs to fill America's vacuum, because America is not needed to be the 'big boy' of the world. never was. the only reason they went all over was for their own interests in the first place anyway.

[MAMALOCHA!]

There may well be a vaccum in power if Mubarak leaves. The future of Egypt is very much in the hands of the Egyptians themselves.

America's influence in the region has diminished but no matter what the criticism of it, the peace that has existed for decades can be attributed to American efforts. What other government or leader has done anything to preside over Arab-Isareli peacs talks? Who brought about the Camp David accord? Which is the only country that keeps the Jewish-Palestinian efforts to reach an accord alive? (fruitless as it seems at the moment)

 

Let those who might gloat over American diminishing influence enjoy it but who is to fill the vacuum when America has finally gone?

Dont count of Britain or France. Their only policy has been to traditionally use the US as a crutch when it comes to the middle east.

 

The $2 billion year of aid from the america to egypt helps

[Harleyman]

]Its strange how you seem to think anyone apart from mubarak is the wrong choice for the country or are we too assume its the saying 'he's a b*stard' date=' but he's our b*stard[/b']. what interest would it be for the country to start a war with israel ?

I guess the coalition of the willing wouldn't have a lackey in power.

 

Wrong in your assumption. My point was that when Mubarak quits which he may well do at any moment can it be assumed that his successor will continue to believe in the peaceful accord with Israel? If the new leader has no intention of being a "lackey of the willing" as you put it then what will his policy be? Will he strut his stuff and thumb his nose at the Americans?

He'd better steer a wise course for Egypt and not get caught up in the "destroy Israel" rantings of Iran, Syria and others in that part of the world.

Egypt plays a very influential part in the Arab world. Should it swing towards the above sentiments it will destabilize the whole region considerably. Dont forget another shooting war in the middle east may well cut off oil supplies to Europe.

[Bloomdido]

I'm watching Al Jazeera http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/

[donkey]

Unfortunately the US has inherited some of the mess and ineptude of the British colonial rulers. Palestine was under British mandate yet they were unable to administer control over Jewish refugees from Europe which resulted in a war between the Palestians and Jews resulting in the Palestinians being driven out from their holdings.

 

Kashmir..... Always a hotspot for any war between India and Pakistan. When the British partitioned off Pakistan from India they left control of Kashir to India despite the fact that the great majority of Kashmirans are Muslim.

 

Somalia, an abortion cobbled together from a former Italian colony and a British possession. Two different peoples condemned to exist together in disunity and hatred.

 

Afghanistan. Parts of which were always beyond the control of the British army created as a separate country instead of being included as part of Pakistan.

 

The Sudan. Another result of shortsightedness and bad decisons

 

As for Egypt Eden's high handed gun boat diplomacy almost led to to a war of major proportions with the possible intervention of the Soviet Union. Decades of Arab bitterness toward the west for a few decades afterwards

 

Then of course the cobbling together of a mish mash of central European peoples into a country called Yugoslavia by Lloyd George and French leader Foch. Doomed from the start and the US had to get involved in the messy and bloody conflicts in that part of the world in the 1990s

 

It's not an unreasonable conclusion that Britain's past policies did much to damage the world and leave us with the problems that exist today

 

 

 

So that's your excuse for blindly supporting US foreign policy. Most British people realised that the empire was morally bankrupt and practically unsustainable 60 years ago. You could take a leaf out of their book with regard to the increasing dangerous US foreign policy.

 

Instead you are attempting to justify the hypocrisy of going to war to bring 'democracy' in some countries while happily supporting vicious dictators in others as part of the US fanatical pro zionist policy, which benefits nobody except zionists.

[Harleyman]

America's influence has been far from benign the world over. yes, they did OK( ish) with Egypt. but managed to take all that away with a lot more worse thing. but that's besides the point. if people revolt to change a system, let it be what they want. America and everyone else should stay out of it. whether or not a regime we don't like comes in we deal with it then. no one needs to fill America's vacuum, because America is not needed to be the 'big boy' of the world. never was. the only reason they went all over was for their own interests in the first place anyway.

 

What interests? It wasn't the oil as so many in their ignorance like to claim.

The fact is the US imports very little middle east oil these days. It's Europe which has benefited from the the peace which has existed and the US which has maintained the balance of power by extending monetary aid to both Egypt and Israel.

Mubarak may be a dictator in the eyes of Egyptianss but beware of what you wish for.

Wait until some ranting anti-American replacement takes his place and see how it will rock your world down the road