andygardener Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 No it's not about what I would like to see happen. The Muslim brotherhood are the main opposition party in Egypt and in free and fare elections they would win. They have the support of the people and the reason is because they are Islamic and pro palestinian. I think we can all see what the Egyptian people don't want, seeing what they do want is obviously a lot trickier. On what do you base your assertion that they would win? And how much would you be prepared to wager on them winning the first free and fair election in Egypt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 But why should the Palestinians be paying the price for the crimes of Europe? That's the way it's always been. Millions of Europeans arrived in America and the native Americans paid the price for the oppressive and despotic societies that drove these people to leave their homelands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAMALOCHA! Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Your crass naivety surfacing again. Naturally the Muslim brotherhood would support ElBardei and pay lip service to his government at the beginning. This would serve to soothe the fears of millions of Egyptians who havent taken to the streets and are fearful of what is happening. But continuing support for ElBardei and a democratic government is definitely not on their long term agenda as you will eventually find out. It will only be repressive if it doesn't play ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAMALOCHA! Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 That's the way it's always been. Millions of Europeans arrived in America and the native Americans paid the price for the oppressive and despotic societies that drove these people to leave their homelands you mean genocide Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 I'm just glad two mummies were destroyed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newboy2011 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 the nutters will burn egypt, is the end begining? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritPat Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Now I'd long thought I knew what a dictator was pretty much as that most relibale of source wikipedia puts it: "In modern usage, the term "dictator" is generally used to describe a leader who holds and/or abuses an extraordinary amount of personal power, especially the power to make laws without effective restraint by a legislative assembly[citation needed]. Dictatorships are often characterized by some of the following traits: suspension of elections and of civil liberties; proclamation of a state of emergency; rule by decree; repression of political opponents without abiding by rule of law procedures; these include single-party state, and cult of personality." Consequently I thought that President Mubarak was a dictator. But apparently it turns out that a dictator is someone who isn't an ally of the USA and who doesn't do what the US says as regards Israel. This must the the case as the deputy "leader of the Free World" (VP of the USA) said so: "JIM LEHRER: The word -- the word to describe the leadership of Mubarak and Egypt and also in Tunisia before was dictator. Should Mubarak be seen as a dictator? JOE BIDEN: Look, Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things and he's been very responsible on, relative to geopolitical interests in the region: Middle East peace efforts, the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing the relationship with Israel. And I think that it would be -- I would not refer to him as a dictator." Bet all you people who thought dictators ruled without elections, the rule of law, human rights... are feeling pretty silly now aren't you? Some of us have gone to great pains to point out that the West in general and the US in particular view client states in a favourable light that leaves the other states in shadow. The West has legitimate national interests to consider, primarily oil price and security of supply, a respectful and business like approach would suffice in this respect, unfortunately the West (US in particular) considers that acting on behalf of powerful pro-zionist lobbies is of equal importance. The conflict of interests, the former totally legitimate and the latter illegitimate, means that we have to choose an appropriate approach given that those that supply our oil are often to some extent antagonistic to Israel. We choose to back the suppliers of Jaffa oranges and olives and to antagonise the suppliers of our oil, we therefore prop up corrupt dictators and invade and murder Muslims in their own homes for and on behalf of Israel. It would appear that the 'Arab Street' has a far more enlightened view of its leaders than we have of ours. We could do with some Tunisian and Egyptian advisors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 100 dead, 4000 injured, 500 women missing, 10,000 escaped prisoners including muggers, rapists, extremists, ancient treasures damaged or stolen, the police gone, army sitting around without any clear direction, armed vigilantes and what was the purpose of jet fighters buzzing the city? Yep! The Egyptians are getting a taste of freedom alright Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I disagree. Wars nowadays are fought for the interests of those who send people to do the fightng, which is not the same thing at all. Perhaps the 'Rules and Articles of War' whould be revised? In mediaeval times, when there was a war soldiers from one side, led by their King/Emperor (whatever) faced soldiers from the other side led by theirs. There was a fight. Some people were killed. Some people were injured (and most of them probably died, too.) Then the fight ended, the winning king put the head of the losing king on a pole and everybody went home. Every country should have a 'fighting field'. In the event that the leaders of one country decided they wanted to fight another country they (the leaders of the country which started it) should go to the fighting field of the other country and fight it out. I accept that people might argue that those best equipped to lead may not be those best equipped to fight, so it would be quite acceptable for the two countries to use professional soldiers. BUT. When the fight was over, the heads of the leaders of the losing side (the politicians, not the soldiers) would go on poles. There would probably be fewer wars, They would be shorter, They would cost less and some of them would probably do some good, too. Of course, if you were to introduce such a system, then you might end up with California ruling the world. They've got Arnie. Arnie's gone. Didnt need riots to get rid of him either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 100 dead, 4000 injured, 500 women missing, 10,000 escaped prisoners including muggers, rapists, extremists, ancient treasures damaged or stolen, the police gone, army sitting around without any clear direction, armed vigilantes and what was the purpose of jet fighters buzzing the city? Yep! The Egyptians are getting a taste of freedom alright And a massive vacuum which is being filled by radicals. The Islamic Brotherhood are making a move for government and will turn the place in to a seriously hard line Islamic state. Probably won't be a tourist destination for much longer, then it'll really be all downhill from there! After that it'll be all out war on Israel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.