Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 134

Thread: Egypt's ElBaradei: Liberals 'decimated' in vote

  1. #31
    A Self Important Senior Contributor troung's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    7,950
    What hasn't lasted in Turkey ? the AKP won for the first time since ages. The CHP is in opposition now. You mean to tell me the AKP is going to be a permanent fixture from now on. Get real. + The Egyptian model for now seems to give the military even more power than in Turkey. Take a look at the dynamics between the various groups expressed.
    The Turkish Army was more then simply a junta. They had Attaturk first as a leader then as a symbol, a huge victory over several nations before they set up, and a damn good message. The Turks made a solid foundation. The Egyptian Army doesn't have any of that. They will either follow the will of the people of Egypt or have to machine gun them.

    Another point to mention when comparing Iran vs Egypt. Would Khomeni have ever risen to prominence if not for '53 and a dictator installed. Thats not happened in Egypt (yet). If it does then you turn Egypt into Iran.
    The MB will win at the ballot box.

    You can say that with Gaddafi gone the sense is that the people should be empowered. Gaddafi in place threatens to destabisise the peoples movements in Tunisia & Egypt and from there the wider Arab world. That to me is the longer game being played here as opposed to getting overly worked up with short term Islamist victories which are in no way permanent. You did not install an Islamist dictatorship in these countries.
    The "peoples" movements voted in our enemies who are Islamists.

    I don't know who is right just supporting the position that maximises freedom. Anything that messes with it is to be opposed.
    And yet you are hoping the military stomps on the will of the Egyptians.

    Here's a sobering post from Sandmonkey after a two month hiatus, he was out campaigning and managing campaigns. It raises the question of whether the military will go in to the barracks or not. And whether the elections were really free & fair.
    A useful idiot saying woe is him. It is awesome to think that someone can live in a nation and seemingly have never have rolled down the window of his BMW.

    We lost a regional ally in exchange for the hopes that the Army will machine gun those protesters who ten months ago we were lied to about.
    Last edited by troung; 27 Dec 11, at 03:54.
    To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

  2. #32
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    5,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnought View Post
    All I see are two pages of threads to prove the very same point as to what most in the west dont believe in..... Allowing religion to inhibit politics as law. Once you do, you are doomed as a democracy in many cases. A religious influence in the common good?, Yes, absolutely & positively no matter which or how many that may be. But as rule of law? Not a chance. You will remain piss poor as a nation and you will never see the full potential and knowledge of your people or younger generations to come. Same old men with the same old idealisms. Women are not equal, cant drive, be seen with etc etc etc. Question their authority and you know what will happen.

    If the people agree to be led by those who execute religion in the name of fear, control, removing your individual rights, laws etc then you deserve exactly what you get.

    However at that point can you really call it your "faith" or "religion" anymore then you call it your "government"? Think about it.

    Its all about power and what better way to control then to use religion as a tool of power. Look around the past several decades and conflict are awash in it.

    Religion is a spiritual belief and a faith, no matter which you choose to follow or even if you choose to follow one. It is not civilian law nor should be used to control a population, their communication with the outside world as a whole or learning ability nor be used to either kill or torture you as a human being. We are all different, no matter which culture or hemisphere you are from.
    Applicable in Saudi Arabia and Gaddafi's Libya. Egypt & Tunisia are much more nuanced.

    Writing Constitutions in the Wake of the Arab Spring | Foreign Affairs | November 30, 2011

    November 30, 2011
    SNAPSHOT
    Writing Constitutions in the Wake of the Arab Spring

    The Challenge of Consolidating Democracy
    Anthony Billingsley
    ANTHONY BILLINGSLEY is a Lecturer at the University of New South Wales in Australia. He is the author, most recently, of Political Succession in the Arab World: Constitutions, Family Loyalties, and Islam.


    The wave of revolutions that ousted dictators in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya continues its sweep through the Middle East. In the countries that experienced upheaval first, however, the revolutionary phase has already given way to the process of democratic consolidation. One of the most important aspects of this phase will be the development of new constitutions to formalize each country's future political arrangements.

    Even before this year, the nature of constitutions in the Arab world varied widely. In Saudi Arabia and Muammar al-Qaddafi's Libya, for example, the Koran stood in as constitution, with more technical matters, including succession and the nature of consultative councils, covered by a basic law. Other countries, such as Egypt and Tunisia, developed relatively secular constitutions in the 1980s.

    All the codes, however, had two major features in common. First, they generally detailed the aspirations of the state, for example, to be part of the Arab Umma and uphold the principles of Islam. Such constitutions are in direct contrast to the U.S. one, which aims to limit the state. Second, like Western constitutions, Arab constitutions tended to be laden with strong guarantees for civil and political rights. The Jordanian and Egyptian canons, for instance, contained extensive sections outlining the rights of freedom of speech and assembly.

    Of course, the first mandate of the Arab constitutions -- to empower the state -- routinely trumped the second -- to protect the people. Arab governments often ignored their generous legal protections for human rights, generally under the cover of emergency legislation that sidelined all or part of the code in order to give governments a free hand against "dangerous" opponents. This reflected many Arab governments' zero-sum understanding of the political process.

    That said, the pre-revolutionary Arab constitutions were not empty documents. They formalized and legitimated government processes, power structures, and political understandings among factions of society. The Jordanian constitution, for example, has a long section dealing with the relationship between Jordan and the Palestinians. And even Syria recognized the importance of the constitution. In 2000, when Bashar al-Assad was tapped to succeed his father as president, the regime went through a long process of amending the constitution to make him eligible. In this case, it was important to the Syrian government that Assad's ascent to power and the formalities of the law tallied.

    As the Arab spring turned to the Arab summer and fall, moreover, many beleaguered regimes turned to constitutional reform to appease their citizens. In Morocco, King Mohammed VI amended his country's constitution to recognize Tamazight, the Berber language, as an official language of Morocco alongside Arabic. The House of Saud, too, promised to allow women to vote in the next round of municipal elections.

    It is too soon to tell exactly what forms the post-revolutionary constitutions of Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya will take. But each country's provisional codes, and the players involved in drafting new ones, offer some clues.

    Tunisia remains the great hope for those who long for a democratic Arab world. The country successfully navigated its first big democratic challenge: the elections that took place last month. The vote reflected a genuine commitment to democracy, human rights, and the protection of minorities. And the military kept out of the political process. The popular new parliament will now draft a constitution to back the country's political progress with legal substance.

    Of course, one of the major winners of the Tunisian elections was the Islamist party Al-Nahda. This should not have come as a surprise. Just as Christian Democrat parties are prevalent in Europe, parties that profess adherence to Islam are popular in overwhelmingly Muslim. Religion could well find expression in the new constitution. All this may not, however, be cause for concern; Tunisia's old regime persecuted members of Al-Nahda. That past experience might make the party more interested in formalizing -- and implementing -- human rights protections, even if only as a safeguard in the event it loses power again.

    Of greater concern is the ambiguity among elements of the political elite toward the status of women. The law regulating the October elections required parties to give women a prominent place in their candidate lists. Many parties completely ignored this mandate. Even so, female candidates performed well, winning 24 percent of the vote and 49 of the 217 seats in the new assembly. This result may strengthen the hand of those seeking to incorporate gender equality into the new constitution.

    The prospects for general human rights in the new Tunisian system also look somewhat promising. Because of the disparate nature of power in the country, no one group -- not even the armed forces -- holds enough power to be able to ignore the concerns of the others. Like Al-Nadha, each group might well promote the rule of law as a means to protect their own interests. Ultimately, however, the effectiveness of the rule of law will depend on the willingness of the country's political elite to play by the rules. An early indicator of their intention to do so will be how they deal with emergency law in the new constitution. A positive sign will be if the document requires the government or president to seek parliamentary approval before resorting to emergency measures and places a strict time limit on that approval process.

    In Egypt, the future appears less promising. The new parliament that forms after this week's elections will be torn by competing interests and hemmed in by the military. Some factions, including the young veterans of Tahrir Square, advocate a total restructuring of the political system and rewriting of the constitution. But the more powerful ones, the military, the Muslim Brotherhood, and their opponents, seek mainly to amend the charter with protections for their own interests.

    Although Egyptian protesters succeeded in driving former President Hosni Mubarak from office, the military retained its central place in the country's political system: The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces remains the ultimate power in the land. Moreover, even as concern over the military's attitude toward human rights and inter-communal relations grows outside Egypt, the institution retains considerable respect among the Egyptian people. Even the recent unrest in Egypt has been focused on the Supreme Council and its Chairman, General Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, rather than the institution of the armed forces itself. What the military wants, therefore, will have great bearing on the elections and on the country's new laws.

    Indeed, in April, the Supreme Council issued a declaration [1] that addressed some relatively uncontentious constitutional issues: the commitment to habeas corpus, a ban on torture, a guarantee of freedom of expression. The declaration also bore many features in common with the social aspects of the last few Egyptian constitutions. For example, although Egypt's earliest constitutions described Islamic law (sharia) as "a" principal source of legislation, under former President Anwar Sadat, this wording changed to "the" principal source. The Supreme Council's declaration retained Sadat's wording, possibly in recognition of the Muslim Brotherhood, which, in the guise of its Freedom and Justice Party, is expected to fare well in elections. The declaration also established Islam as the state religion, but like Mubarak was wont to do, bans parties based on religious grounds. The move made few waves, but it indicated that the military had no intention of sitting on the sidelines of the constitutional process.

    That intention became clearer in mid-November, when the Supreme Council released a set of draft constitutional provisions [2] that would give the military immunity from civilian supervision and empower the armed forces power to approve legislation proposed by the parliament. This went well beyond the "Turkish model" -- parliamentary sovereignty limited by military oversight -- that has been widely suggested, and precipitated a crisis in the military's relations with the civilian population and a new round of protests.

    The constitution that emerges over the next year will likely lay out a parliamentary system. It will be influenced by Islamic ideas but will be characterized by the need for the dominant parties to form coalitions if they are to govern. It is unlikely, and probably undesirable, that a single party will be able to secure a simple majority in the parliament. This should lead to some compromise and moderation among the most extreme parties. But while certain human rights will be codified in the new code, the parties might be forced to focus on the political status of the civilian government and religious rights. The future status of Egyptian women is thus cause for concern. The Supreme Council already set aside some Constituent Assembly seats for women, but gender is not listed in the declaration's provisions banning discrimination. Women were also excluded from the preparations for the recent elections.

    Finally, Libya's future is the least clear of all. The country has no history of the rule of law and no experience with a competitive political process. Under Qaddafi, sharia was the formal basis of law and was frequently applied to matters of family law. In questions relating to the role of government, however, the regime tended to wield power arbitrarily, with little attempt to cloak its actions in legal cover.

    Nevertheless, despite international concerns about the outsized influence of hard-line Islamist groups trying to do away with democracy, Libyans appear to be genuinely committed to an open system. Libya's draft constitutional charter, which the rebel government in Benghazi penned in early August before Qaddafi fell, is encouraging. The document prohibits discrimination on the grounds of race, religion, and political opinion. The charter also guarantees women "all opportunities" to participate in the political, economic, and social spheres.

    These are important and encouraging achievements. There is a danger, however, that they will be swept away by the eruption of tribal and regional rivalries and the struggle for power among various militia groups. If the new constitution is to succeed in providing a firm legal basis for the new government, competing groups will have to suppress their ambitions and accept the principle of a united Libya. This is the challenge that faces all Arab countries and has proven to be the biggest obstacle to constitutional rule.

    The destiny of democracy in Arab countries is tied to the rule of law and the nature of the countries' constitutions. But constitutions are political instruments, and their creation will be part of a dynamic and complicated battle to define each nation's future. Ultimately, the impact of the new constitutions will depend on the willingness of major political forces to abide by the rules of the game, as spelled out in their constitutions. It will be necessary for the different forces involved in the current revolutions to realise that their interests are best served by systems that are based on the rule of law and to accept the need for compromise if that is to work. But that is a tall order, indeed.


    Links:
    [1] http://egyptelections.carnegieendowm...l-announcement
    [2] http://www.constitutionnet.org/files...nt_english.pdf

  3. #33
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    5,509
    Quote Originally Posted by troung View Post
    The Turkish Army was more then simply a junta. They had Attaturk first as a leader then as a symbol, a huge victory over several nations before they set up, and a damn good message. The Turks made a solid foundation. The Egyptian Army doesn't have any of that. They will either follow the will of the people of Egypt or have to machine gun them.
    Ataturk was a visionary, he was a bonus to have but not an indispensable requirement to create a secular democracy. The basic minimum is for the rule of law to be established and for all concerned parties to abide by it. That's it. Next they have to work on building institutions to sustain and strengthen the system.

    Having good leaders helps but otherwise the laws & the institutions keep the system moving along.

    Quote Originally Posted by troung View Post
    The MB will win at the ballot box.
    But they won't have a landslide win, they will have to work with coalitions.

    Quote Originally Posted by troung View Post
    And yet you are hoping the military stomps on the will of the Egyptians.
    There is a big difference between moderating and stomping. The latter is what SCAF is perpetrating at the moment.

    Quote Originally Posted by troung View Post
    The "peoples" movements voted in our enemies who are Islamists.
    Time to get to know the enemy.

    Salafis and Sufis in Egypt.pdf | CEFIP | Dec 2011

    U.S. lawmakers have warned that they will not fund a government run by a “terrorist organization.”

    Such responses suggest an effort to marginalize Egypt’s new Islamist leaders. This approach will most likely prove unwise, as the democratic process, political involvement, and electoral accountability will continue to moderate Salafi views and policies over the long term. Overturning their electoral gains will reverse this trend and further empower these groups by placing them back in the seat of opposition.
    Islam plays an undeniably important role in Egyptian life, and the vast majority of Egyptians approve of it. Gallup polls have shown that 44 percent of Egyptian women and 50 percent of men believe that Sharia should be the only source of law. This might alarm observers. But, unlike Western reactions when the word “Sharia” is invoked, the overwhelming majority of Egyptians associate the term with laudable ideals like social, political, and gender justice.
    Salafism, however, has leapt into salience since the revolution as one of the most effective mobilizers. Salafi political parties have been the most energetic, albeit controversial, parties on the scene. They now have a real stake in the democratic process.

    This development has caused great alarm in Egypt and among outside observers. Salafis’ austere and uncompromising understanding of Islamic law and worship frightens many and raises palpable concerns about an Iranian-style theocracy. Such concerns might lead some to conclude that opposing or repressing Salafi political ambitions would be a prudent course.

    Political suppression of Salafis would most likely prove unwise. Echoing the experience of Islamists in Turkey, and of Salafis in Kuwait, real involvement in an open democratic system leads to significant mitigation in Salafi positions. The need to mollify public concerns, engage women in the electoral process, and centralize political messaging has resulted in both a rapid maturation and moderating discipline within Salafi ranks.

    Furthermore, the Egyptian media, and the foreign media who cite them, have demonstrated a tendency to paint Salafis inaccurately as the bęte noire of the new Egypt. As one leading former Brotherhood member observed, “The Salafis are the new ghoul that the regime and its NDP remnants are using to scare people after the Brotherhood proved not scary enough.”

    Recent announcements, however, suggest that having a stake in Egypt’s political future continues to moderate Salafi stances, including announcements by the head of the al-Nour party that it will not require women to wear headscarves, nor close the beaches.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 27 Dec 11, at 20:48.

  4. #34
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,728
    All the codes, however, had two major features in common. First, they generally detailed the aspirations of the state, for example, to be part of the Arab Umma and uphold the principles of Islam. Such constitutions are in direct contrast to the U.S. one, which aims to limit the state. Second, like Western constitutions, Arab constitutions tended to be laden with strong guarantees for civil and political rights. The Jordanian and Egyptian canons, for instance, contained extensive sections outlining the rights of freedom of speech and assembly.

    This IMO, is where they are beyond f@#ked up. "We the People" make up said state. Without the People there is no state. No state equals no government. No one to rule, in their case no one to control. Without those words "We, as in a nation" that indicates it was meant to be a dicatorship or theocracy from the very first words. In other words all else comes before those it governs.

    You can keep it!
    Last edited by Dreadnought; 27 Dec 11, at 22:03.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

  5. #35
    A Self Important Senior Contributor troung's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    7,950
    But they won't have a landslide win, they will have to work with coalitions.
    So you admit you were hopelessly wrong?

    Ataturk was a visionary, he was a bonus to have but not an indispensable requirement to create a secular democracy. The basic minimum is for the rule of law to be established and for all concerned parties to abide by it. That's it. Next they have to work on building institutions to sustain and strengthen the system.
    They wouldn't have had it without an Ataturk and without those conditions they set up shop under. The Egyptian army isn't in the same situation which spawned the Turkish system.

    Political suppression of Salafis would most likely prove unwise. Echoing the experience of Islamists in Turkey, and of Salafis in Kuwait, real involvement in an open democratic system leads to significant mitigation in Salafi positions. The need to mollify public concerns, engage women in the electoral process, and centralize political messaging has resulted in both a rapid maturation and moderating discipline within Salafi ranks.
    Wake me up when the Mullahs leave Iran.

    Recent announcements, however, suggest that having a stake in Egypt’s political future continues to moderate Salafi stances, including announcements by the head of the al-Nour party that it will not require women to wear headscarves, nor close the beaches.
    I am never in shock that people will believe everything they hear so long as it fits in with their delusions.

    There is a big difference between moderating and stomping. The latter is what SCAF is perpetrating at the moment.
    You are hoping an unelected armed body prevents the people of Egypt from exercising their rights, and yet pretend to be some big supporter of freedom...
    Last edited by troung; 27 Dec 11, at 22:18.
    To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

  6. #36
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    5,509
    Quote Originally Posted by troung View Post
    So you admit you were hopelessly wrong?
    Wrong about what ?

    Wrong in how many would win yes, already conceded.

    Which stems from being too fearful of the rise of political Islam. The correct way would have been to accept that eventuality and deal with it. This is the difficult nut to crack.

    The connundrum that if western style democracy was allowed to take hold in the Arab world it 'may' lead to anti-western govts. This is just thrown at you and its a worst case scenario. And therefore there must never be democracy in the Arab world because we will be powerless in that case.

    The first assumption adopts a confrontationalist position by thinking all Islamists are the same. They're not, the salafis & the MB have different starting points and their views diverge. This is not a good/bad taliban argument because all islamists are not taliban.

    The second assumption is that the people will willingly accept a religious autocracy . But all they want is better governance and the chances for that increase if they have a representative govt.

    There is no claiming of victory once an Islamist party comes to power. They have the same task as any other party any where else and that is whether they can improve the lot of their people. Otherwise they go.

    Quote Originally Posted by troung View Post
    They wouldn't have had it without an Ataturk and without those conditions they set up shop under. The Egyptian army isn't in the same situation which spawned the Turkish system.
    Implying what ?

    There should be no democracy in Egypt until an Ataturk materialises.

    Quote Originally Posted by troung View Post
    Wake me up when the Mullahs leave Iran.
    Show how Egypt will necessarily turn into Iran. All you've done is assert it with a couple of other possible outcomes

    Quote Originally Posted by troung View Post
    I am never in shock that people will believe everything they hear so long as it fits in with their delusions.
    What delusion ?

    That Egypt and for that matter the wider arab world should never have a representative govt.

    Quote Originally Posted by troung View Post
    You are hoping an unelected armed body prevents the people of Egypt from exercising their rights, and yet pretend to be some big supporter of freedom...
    How much power does the army in Turkey hold ?

    Do you think the turkish army can intervene if the AK party decides to push their luck. They already did so twice in the past with former islamist parties, MSP in '80 & WP in '97. And twice again even with secular parties, DP in '60 and JP in '71. Already 3 coups and one soft one.

    Does this still mean Turkey is more deserving of democracy than Egypt.

    Quote Originally Posted by troung
    We lost a regional ally in exchange for the hopes that the Army will machine gun those protesters who ten months ago we were lied to about.
    That policy shift, was made by Bush as early as 2004 in the below address.

    President Bush Discusses Importance of Democracy in Middle East | Feb 04 2004
    Last edited by Double Edge; 02 Jan 12, at 18:56.

  7. #37
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,008
    Bush at least had a grand idea.He didn't had the means to implement it,nor he did thought the consequences,but he had something.

    Deal with political Islam?Of course,Sir.Right away.Montjoie Sant Dennis.Charge. Oops,sorry,that's so retrograde on my part.We need a more modern approach.Contact,12 o'clock.Fire on my mark. .

    They can do whatever they want.We'll end killing each other until the day we leave the planet.Then we'll kill each other using spacecrafts.Until then,we,at our level,can only watch the snowball growing.Being in a position to influence things won't happen for another 2-3 decades,if ever.Mind you,I don't care if they pull an Ataturk,a Finland or just another Talibanistan.It doesn't really matters.We're back in the 700-800's.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

  8. #38
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    5,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihais View Post
    Bush at least had a grand idea.He didn't had the means to implement it,nor he did thought the consequences,but he had something.
    But is Bush's idea outdated ? the same conditions as well as outcomes still applies.

    He did have the means, US did not leave Iraq with yet another military junta in charge but facilitated elections and accepted the result.

    Facilitating Benazir's entry into Pakistan after Mushrarraf is another instance of pushing for democracy.

    And Libya is the most recent example of this policy in action.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mihais View Post
    Deal with political Islam?Of course,Sir.Right away.Montjoie Sant Dennis.Charge. Oops,sorry,that's so retrograde on my part.We need a more modern approach.Contact,12 o'clock.Fire on my mark. .

    They can do whatever they want.We'll end killing each other until the day we leave the planet
    Haha, but you had to deal with Saddam twice so supporting dictators has its limits.

    By deal with it the idea i had in mind was to weave them into a web of economic interdependency. This will work with countries that do not have enough oil to export like Egypt. Do a Nixon. China stoppped being 'red' after that.

    Instead of viewing this development as the 'new threat' rather see it as the 'new challenge'.

    There are 3 stages involved here

    Liberalisation --> Democratisation --> Democracy

    China only did the first stage upto now.

    The Egyptians have not properly implemented the first stage or their economy would not be as anorexic as it is presently. At the same time its dangerous to presuppose a linear progression from authoritarianism to liberal democracy in the middle east.

    The Strategic Implications of Political Liberalization and Democratization in the Middle East | 2005

    Quote Originally Posted by Mihais View Post
    Then we'll kill each other using spacecrafts.Until then,we,at our level,can only watch the snowball growing.Being in a position to influence things won't happen for another 2-3 decades,if ever.Mind you,I don't care if they pull an Ataturk,a Finland or just another Talibanistan.It doesn't really matters.We're back in the 700-800's.
    Assumes that the present electoral success of egyptian Islamists necessarily translates into popular support for an Islamist agenda. And that the army will allow it to happen.

    You represent the western sceptic's viewpoint. The Arab sceptic viewpoint is with Mubarak gone only the head was removed whilst his appartus remained untouched.

    Your viewpoint is the more optimist
    Last edited by Double Edge; 03 Jan 12, at 13:00.

  9. #39
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,008
    Not going to disagree just for the fun of it.They say that,indeed.
    Mankind and its history start to become boring.What the Arabs say now was said before,by others.In the 1790's,in the 1920's&30's,in the 1980's and many other times.I don't care about a particular moment and stage.I try to watch the trend.

    China wanted to show USSR the mid finger just as much as US wanted to create a second front for the USSR.There's no third actor between us and them.ME and Europe,under their various representations never walked side by side since the dawn of history.There was rider and there was a horse.Who's the rider is important and often that was long and hard to find out.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

  10. #40
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    5,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihais View Post
    Mankind and its history start to become boring.What the Arabs say now was said before,by others.In the 1790's,in the 1920's&30's,in the 1980's and many other times.I don't care about a particular moment and stage.I try to watch the trend.
    Lets see if i can catch your train of thought here

    1790 - French revolution and rise of Napoleon
    1920 - rise of communism & the Bolsheviks
    1930 - rise of fascism with Hitler and Mussolini
    1980 - rise of Khomeni and theocracy

    2011 - arab spring, after wards ? either more liberalisation or back pedalling towards the old military regime.

    So it would seem you're saying that every time there is a revolution there are high hopes only to have them dashed afterwards. Well, the egyptians already had that with Nasser in 1950 with his big promises. What's happened now is sixty years overdue.

    To follow Iran is to follow a path of economic & political isolation. In other words worse off than with Mubarak. Iran might huff & puff all it wants but its not really setting itself up as a model to be followed. Its debatable whether others could achieve the same even if they tried given how unique the Iranians are.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mihais View Post
    China wanted to show USSR the mid finger just as much as US wanted to create a second front for the USSR.There's no third actor between us and them.
    True but in the 1990s the former Soviets were bending over backwards to join the system they shunned for so long but in secret always traded with anyway. The goal of co-opting first the Chinese & then the Russians into integrating into the worlds economic system was achieved. Their fundamental objection ie choice of economic system had been removed.

    Not saying that trade will take away reasons to go to war but today they both have many more reasons not to get into conflict than in the past. Because now they are a part of the system and rather important powers at that. Their stances consequently since have moderated compared to earlier.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mihais View Post
    ME and Europe,under their various representations never walked side by side since the dawn of history.There was rider and there was a horse.Who's the rider is important and often that was long and hard to find out.
    What you're saying goes beyond religion in that its almost cultural, going back as far as roman times and carthage or pharoahs. Your're looking into the distant past to predict the future. In the olden days these were the two biggest fish in the pond, but thats not the same today is it.

    Your point is regardless of what happens in the future, S.Europe & n.africa will be in opposition because thats the way it always was. It does not even matter whether egypt is islamist or not. The threat is if egyptians (and by extension the rest of n.africa as well) better themselves, then this grouping of n.african nations will be a threat in the future to s.europe.

    Did i get you right ?

    If so you're making a broader point, namely can emerging powers continue to do so peacefully.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 04 Jan 12, at 16:09.

  11. #41
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,008
    To be honest,I didn't thought about those who had risen,but those who fell.General rule in such momentous events is that the old elite dies before a new elite rises.All the revolutions comparable with this pan-Arabic one started with the idea of liberalisation,continued with terror and internecine war and found relative stability under a charismatic leadership.This guy is the one that starts to look around.

    This one is only a year old.Rome wasn't build in a day and even God needed 6 days to make the world.If my guess on the trend is the right one(only idiots have unshakable convictions) we still have decade to chat.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post

    What you're saying goes beyond religion in that its almost cultural, going back as far as roman times and carthage or pharoahs. Your're looking into the distant past to predict the future. In the olden days these were the two biggest fish in the pond, but thats not the same today is it.

    Your point is regardless of what happens in the future, S.Europe & n.africa will be in opposition because thats the way it always was. It does not even matter whether egypt is islamist or not. The threat is if egyptians (and by extension the rest of n.africa as well) better themselves, then this grouping of n.african nations will be a threat in the future to s.europe.

    Did i get you right ?

    If so you're making a broader point, namely can emerging powers continue to do so peacefully.
    Yep.You got me.I wouldn't call it culture,though.Too ambiguous term.Geopolitics,that generate a certain strategic culture.You're right we ain't alone anymore.The more,the more merry the party.But they're the closest dance partner.

    Emerging powers and peace?For every one interested in peace there are many more that aren't .
    Mind you,I'm not arguing there's war starting on May 6th,2019,1 PM .Not even that we're bound for a repeat of WW2 .Conventional military actions are just a part of the spectrum.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

  12. #42
    A Self Important Senior Contributor troung's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    7,950
    Brotherhood: We did not promise to honor Israel peace treaty - Israel News, Ynetnews
    Brotherhood: We did not promise to honor Israel peace treaty

    Egyptian Islamist movement denies US State Department claim it had promised to honor 1979 peace deal. 'No one has the right to speak for Egyptian people,' party official says

    Roi Kais
    Published: 01.07.12, 10:53 / Israel News


    The Muslim Brotherhood denied on Saturday that it had assured Washington it would uphold the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty.


    US State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters on Thursday that the Islamist movement, the clear victor in the first round of elections for the Egyptian Parliament, pledged to honor the various treaties signed by previous Cairo governments, including the peace deal with Israel.


    Nuland insisted that the various political parties in Egypt have offered the US "good guarantees" that the peace treaty will be observed. She stressed that Washington fully expects all of Cairo's political factions to honor the previous regime's international agreements.


    According to Essam al-Erian, deputy head of the Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice party, the accords "are under the responsibility of the people and state institutions, and it would not be right for anyone to speak on behalf of the Egyptian people."


    Speaking to the London-based Arabic newspaper Al-Hayat, al-Erian said, "We are not in a position to give assurances."



    Rashad al-Bayoumi, the Brotherhood's second in command, told Al-Hayat las week that "the Muslim Brotherhood will not recognize Israel under any circumstances and might put the peace treaty with the Jewish state up to a referendum."



    The Brotherhood, he added, "did not sign the peace accords… We are allowed to ask the people or the elected parliament to express their opinion on the treaty, and (to find out) whether it compromised the people's freedom and sovereignty. We will take the proper legal steps in dealing with the peace deal. To me, it isn't binding at all. The people will express their opinion on the matter."


    The Muslim Brotherhood won more than a third of the votes in the last stage of elections for Egypt's lower house of parliament, according to partial results on Friday, showing the Islamists are set to dominate the legislature.



    Banned under deposed President Hosni Mubarak, the Brotherhood has emerged as a major winner from the uprising that toppled him, exploiting a well-organized support base in the first free legislative vote in decades.



    The Brotherhood's party list won 37.5% of the vote in the third and final stage of voting. Repeating a pattern seen in previous rounds, the hardline Islamist Nour Party list came second in most of the districts after this week's vote, results on its party website showed.



    The Islamists now look set to wield major influence over the shape of a new constitution to be drafted by a 100-strong body that the new legislature will pick, though the Brotherhood has promised that Egyptians of all persuasions will have a say.
    To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

  13. #43
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,008
    Troung,are you a devout Muslim? I'll bring the wine,you bring the popcorn while we watch the match.Pay's on DE.

    GO,GO Bigross.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

  14. #44
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,610
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihais View Post
    Troung,are you a devout Muslim? I'll bring the wine,you bring the popcorn while we watch the match.Pay's on DE.

    GO,GO Bigross.
    Can I join? I'll bring some Kosher, Halal and other food with ham an bacon
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  15. #45
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,008
    Nope.You're too much in league with BR against your foe(YF).Go and fight with him.But leave the food.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. ElBaradei Under House Arrest as Demonstrations Rock Cairo
    By Tarek Morgen in forum Arab Protests of 2010-2011
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 29 Jan 11,, 13:14
  2. ElBaradei reappointed
    By SloMax in forum International Politics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 19 Jun 05,, 21:03
  3. Those liberals
    By Major_Armstrong in forum International Politics
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 22 Dec 04,, 23:25
  4. ElBaradei For the Sack..
    By aussie in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 14 Dec 04,, 21:11

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •