REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Protests in the Middle East

POSTED BY: PIZMOBEACH
UPDATED: Thursday, February 3, 2011 10:49
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3637
PAGE 1 of 2

Thursday, January 27, 2011 2:47 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


I'm a little surprised this isn't getting more attention on this board. This seems extraordinary to me at least at first glance, a possible turning of the tide for out-dated and backward, top down governance in the region. If it were only Tunisia it would be a good sign. The fact that it's spreading, that makes it seem even more hopeful.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 27, 2011 3:49 PM

CANTTAKESKY


You got a link?

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 27, 2011 4:04 PM

MINCINGBEAST


Democracy is meaningless unless it applies to all people. You can't favor it in America, disfavor it in the Middle East. I am not in favor of democracy, but rather America. Devil take the rest of this worthless world--most especially Australia. And England, too.

And also Canada.

Democracy in the Middle East is not consistent with American interests. When the regimes in Yemen and Egypt fall, people will vote. They will vote in Islamists. See generally Hamas.


I do not suggest that everyone who wants to change Egypt for the better is blood thirsty Islamist, but Iran provides a blue print for how a popular revolt against a despised dictator can be co-opted by religious fanatics.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 27, 2011 5:50 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Here is a link.

http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/27/5936053-watching-egypt
s-protests



-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 27, 2011 6:22 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Isn't the main push of the people in Egypt that their government isn't sufficiently anti-Israel and anti-America? Isn't any democracy over there going to be dominated by pro-Iran groups?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 27, 2011 7:25 PM

DREAMTROVE


Not sure what Egypt has to do with Iran, different language, culture, religion, ethnic group and continent. Unless you know something I don't.

The Egyptian govt. has been relatively pro-Israel for a muslim govt, of course that's relative.

But I think that's pretty far from the target. The democracy has been a dictatorship for years, there have been endless voter fraud complains for years, but I think this is a chain reaction of recent events: Police brutality, crack downs on bloggers, and IIRC didn't this all start a few weeks ago with the Christians? The govt. cracked down on the Christians and there were huge protests from muslims wearing united islam-christian logos to show sympathy.

I see it's rapidly becoming a mess.

The only Israel element I can see is that the Egyptian govt's participation in the Gaza blockage was bound to irk some of the citizenry.

Mubarak takes in about 70% of the vote typically, which meets the UN criteria for a failed democracy. No serious contenders are allowed into the arena. The basis here is logic: If you are a 30% minority, you have everything to gain by upping your %. If you have 70%, you have nothing to gain. If the minority can pander heavily to any 5% voting block, the majority has no reason to make those concessions, because they'll win the election anyway, without having to concede anything. So, consistent 70%+ results like you see is Egypt, Russia, South Africa are a red flag.

All that said, I don't know what is going on, but I doubt it's connected to the moron who set himself on fire.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 27, 2011 7:36 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Isn't the main push of the people in Egypt that their government isn't sufficiently anti-Israel and anti-America?

Violent anti-govt protests like this are usually about food and water and survival, which are related to tyrannical policies that the people have no way of changing.

It isn't always about *us,* you know? We're annoying, but not THAT important.

I mean, can you see Americans rioting against their govt because their govt is not hateful enough against Russia, or Saudi Arabia, or China? No, if they fight against the govt, it will be about survival.


-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 27, 2011 11:34 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Meh, people are sick as hell of neo-feudal bullshit, is what it is.

Remember, y'all at just seeing the bubbles poppin at the top of the kettle - I been watchin the heat rise at the bottom for a long time now...

Which is pretty bloody obvious once you realize I happen to be one of the morlocks stoking the fires producing that heat, every damn chance I get.

Remember my previous mentions of hundred-monkey-point and social tide factors - the point at which a society has a "sea change" of opinion.

That can be as gentle as a moon tide, or as extreme as a tidal bore, but once in motion it is inevitable and implacable as nature itself.

Hell, I been waiting for this - and it's not JUST a few countries, it's prettymuch worldwide, with bubbles poppin everywhere, and soon enough, you'll see the Black Banner held aloft once more.

Not that it'll WORK, mind you - we still ain't socially, emotionally or pyschologically "ready" for that just yet, we need to grow up as a species before Anarchism is viable on a wider scale than single communities, not to mention the necessity of significant military resources to fend off prettymuch every government remaining in existence...

But you never do know, perhaps folk are sick and tired of fighting each OTHER at some politicians behest, maybe we ARE ready to be done with that shit.

I sincerely hope so.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 27, 2011 11:58 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
You got a link?



Friday looks like it's going to be the largest protest so far in Egypt. Seem more like revolts than protests.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/29/world/middleeast/29unrest.html?partn
er=rss&emc=rss


"After days of protests that have toppled one president and shaken many others, governments across the Middle East braced on Friday for new outbursts of rage and discontent directed at entrenched regimes confronting an exceptional clamor for democracy."

I'm not sure where they're getting "clamor for democracy," but they aren't alone:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/articles/39/Democratic-Tunisia!-Can-we-d
are-to-hope-.html


"Similarly just over two years ago a survey conducted by Gallup Poll found that support for democracy in Muslim countries like Iran, Egypt and Indonesia was over 90%. Even though I have long advocated democracy in Muslim societies and have advanced theoretical arguments to support the compatibility of Islam and democracy, I found these statistics frustrating. So if so many cared about democracy, why was it that only a few did anything about it?"

This is a live blog:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2011/jan/28/egypt-protests-live-up
dates


"The report, based on phone calls from activists last night, is by Stephen McInerney, director of advocacy for the Project on Middle East Democracy. In a Facebook post he writes:

Currently, we're being told that large numbers of plainsclothes police officers and security officers are going through the streets covering parked cars with gasoline. The activists expect that the govt plans to light all the cars on fire, claim that the protesters were burning everything, and use that as a pretext to use severe violence to repress the protests, and eliminating all means for the people to relay the truth out of the country.

They are being told by sources within the regime that very large groups of govt-organized thugs, calling themselves "ikhwan al-Haq" [a group never heard of, roughly translated as "brotherhood of truth"], are going to be in the streets with knives, swords, etc..., attacking and killing protesters in the streets tomorrow [Friday]; they don't know whether this may be deliberately and falsely leaked to discourage demonstrators; but they do see evidence that these groups are being organized. they may also claim that these violent groups are the demonstrators as a pretext to use violence on the real demonstrators."

Meh, given some time to reflect, it's the Middle East, why be hopeful? They'll never give up fighting and oppressing each other.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 28, 2011 4:06 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


This is probably the best feed:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2011/jan/28/egypt-protests-live-up
dates


More protests, internet shut down sort of, some police joining protestors... a good recap:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2011/0128/Egypt-shuts-inte
rnet-rounds-up-opposition-leaders-as-protests-start


"I think we have to be a little bit cautious, repression does sometimes work, and we saw that in Iran with the Green Movement... if a regime is determined there's a lot they can do to destroy the opposition," Shadi Hamid of the Brookings Doha Centre told Al Jazeera English shortly after 7 AM EST. "This is beyond historic.. even if a revolution doesn't happen, even if there's no structural change in the regime... the legitimacy of the regime is completely gone. It's not a question of if, but when."

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 28, 2011 4:58 AM

DREAMTROVE


Pizmo

Iran is a democracy. Ahmadinejad's not *really* a dictator, that's just us. They voted for him, and re-elected him, because they like him. The Ayatollah holds no more power than the pope does in a Catholic country.

Sorry, just a skeet flying by.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 28, 2011 6:17 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

Cuba is also a democracy. Castro is voted in time and again, by popular acclaim.

Or possibly things are more complicated than that.

-Anthony


Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 28, 2011 6:35 AM

JONGSSTRAW


In all the interviews I've seen from Tunisia to Cairo it's the same explanations given. The people want freedom and an end to tyranny. Gee, wonder where they got a crazy idea like that. Iraq? .... Nah!








NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 28, 2011 6:48 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
In all the interviews I've seen from Tunisia to Cairo it's the same explanations given. The people want freedom and an end to tyranny. Gee, wonder where they got a crazy idea like that. Iraq? .... Nah!














Hello,

Possibly France? ;-)

Keep in mind that when people say words like freedom and tyranny, it doesn't always mean the same thing.

Freedom... to do what?

An End to the Tyranny... of what?

However, if the people get the government they want, I suppose we ought to be satisfied by it, in whatever form it takes.

--Anthony



Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 28, 2011 6:56 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Freedom... to do what?


Freedom of speech
Freedom of assembly
Freedom of religion
Freedom of political dissent
Freedom of better standard of living

Quote:

An End to the Tyranny... of what?

Repressive regimes
Religion police
Dictators for decades
Internet bans
Entertainment bans
Govt.-controlled media

etc.
etc.
etc.









NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 28, 2011 7:00 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

I hope that's the case.

Though it should be noted there are people who fight for the freedom to oppress members of their population, and want an end to the tyranny of secular law.

--Anthony



Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 28, 2011 7:05 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Only the insane or evil want tyranny and repression. Freedom is a natural state of being and a natural human right (ask Spartacus), and I think these Arabs (Muslims & Christians alike) are beginning to wake up to the fact that they have a real chance now to change their lives for the better.







NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 28, 2011 7:13 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

Well, in our own country there have been substantial numbers of people who would fight for the freedom to oppress members of their population, and an end to the tyranny of secular law.

I prefer Freedom, but I am not sure it is 'natural.'

I think Liberty, and governance based on its principles, is the noblest and best synthetic construct of the human race.

But natural? I don't know. Not even in the heart of democracy do I find people who don't chafe against it.

--Anthony



Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 28, 2011 7:15 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Possibly France? ;-)


When they ended the French Imperial regime you mean.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 28, 2011 7:24 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Pizmo

Iran is a democracy. Ahmadinejad's not *really* a dictator, that's just us. They voted for him, and re-elected him, because they like him. The Ayatollah holds no more power than the pope does in a Catholic country.

Sorry, just a skeet flying by.



*skeet flies by safely* I really knew that - not sure why you are assuming I did not. I DID NOT know that the 90% of the Muslim world - according to the writer I quoted - was clamoring for democracy. pa-ting!

I think there might be a question of misperceiving what Democracy means, maybe. Some of the men and women protesting don't want the kind of democracy they have, they want what they think is Western Democracy, you know, the kind that they are certain is better and will make them happier and freer, 'cuz what they have can't be what they've been hearing about.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 28, 2011 2:42 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Iran is a democracy.

Was this a serious comment or was it tongue in cheek?


-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 28, 2011 3:39 PM

DMAANLILEILTT


Quote:

Originally posted by mincingbeast:
Devil take the rest of this worthless world--most especially Australia.



Why you gotta hate, mate?

Apparently the protestors in Egypt and Yemen are a mix of Islamist parties and Socialist parties. So I suppose you could think of it as their right and left wing groups uniting in the common goal of having the choice of the type of government for their country.

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 28, 2011 3:57 PM

MINCINGBEAST


dearest dmaanlileiltt,

I do not have to hate. I choose to hate.

It would be nice if the protests were the birthing pains of modernity--if they lead to the sort of political freedom that Bush thought he could impose at the end of the gun. But I have faith in the power of small numbers of assholes to co-opt a movements of popular liberation.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 28, 2011 9:39 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Round one seems to be over.

Mubarak is still in power. Fired his cabinet, and is now making promises to do better.




" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 29, 2011 4:19 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
But natural? I don't know. Not even in the heart of democracy do I find people who don't chafe against it.

In my view and experience, most people prefer security/comfort over freedom: a reasonable living (food, wages), reasonable assurance that their living won't be taken away (crime), reasonable hope for their children's futures (education).

I have traveled a lot and talked to people in dictatorships. Most people like the security they have under dictatorships, as long as "disappearances" don't happen to them. They don't mind giving up the freedom of speech or assembly or of changing govt policy, as long as govt policy grants them reasonable security and comfort. I hear things like,

"Pinochet (military dictator, Chile, 1973 - 1990) was great, cause he stabilized our economy and improved our standard of living."

"Stroessner (military dictator, Paraguay, 1954 - 1989) was great, cause he freed the country of crime. You can walk the streets now without fear."

"The Shah (dictator, Iran, 1941—1979) was great. Our industries are modernized, jobs were created."

"Lee Kuan Yew ("benevolent dictator," Singapore, 1959 - 1990) was great, cause he took a small island country with no natural resources and turned it into a clean, educated, and developed country."

Etc.

People are completely ok with being serfs as long as they are comfortable serfs.

It is when you mess with their comfort zone, when they start having a hard time feeding their families, or when too many people are losing their livelihoods from *govt* attacks (as opposed to criminal attacks), or when their children have no hope for security, that they protest about wanting freedom.

The longest lasting dictators (see examples above) know not to mess with the comfort zone, at least, not of too many people.

Mubarack got lazy and messed with his people's comfort zone just a bit too much.

When I was in Egypt some years back, a kid at a restaurant asked to take away my plate. Assuming he was the busboy, so I told him I wasn't finished. He came back two more times before I finished (I was brought up to clean my plate). When he took my plate, he took it to a corner and gnawed on the chicken bones I had left on the plate. He wasn't a busboy. He was hungry.

I'd been to a good number of very poor countries. I had never seen someone eat the leftover bones at a restaurant before. Leftover food, yes. But not bones. That's a new low.

I have no doubt all revolutions are ultimately about food/living. If they talk about freedom, they mean freedom to have food/living.




-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 29, 2011 4:27 AM

FREMDFIRMA



Well, that's the problem here in the States that is gonna bite em on the ass, you see - cause despite every possible advantage they could possibly have from a fully compliant media to full sprectrum technological domination/manipulation, they've grown lazy and complacent, taking big bites instead of small nibbles, and here's the rub.

When you offer the bread and circuses, you don't forget the fuckin BREAD - starving people don't give a fuck how entertained they are.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 29, 2011 7:12 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
But natural? I don't know. Not even in the heart of democracy do I find people who don't chafe against it.

In my view and experience, most people prefer security/comfort over freedom: a reasonable living (food, wages), reasonable assurance that their living won't be taken away (crime), reasonable hope for their children's futures (education).

I have traveled a lot and talked to people in dictatorships. Most people like the security they have under dictatorships, as long as "disappearances" don't happen to them. They don't mind giving up the freedom of speech or assembly or of changing govt policy, as long as govt policy grants them reasonable security and comfort. I hear things like,

"Pinochet (military dictator, Chile, 1973 - 1990) was great, cause he stabilized our economy and improved our standard of living."

"Stroessner (military dictator, Paraguay, 1954 - 1989) was great, cause he freed the country of crime. You can walk the streets now without fear."

"The Shah (dictator, Iran, 1941—1979) was great. Our industries are modernized, jobs were created."

"Lee Kuan Yew ("benevolent dictator," Singapore, 1959 - 1990) was great, cause he took a small island country with no natural resources and turned it into a clean, educated, and developed country."

Etc.

People are completely ok with being serfs as long as they are comfortable serfs.



I don't disagree, but I think those days are over. Once people taste or see something else they won't go back to that kind of rule. It started with TV - catching a glimpse of how others lived - and then went past the point of no return with the Internet. It's much more of a global community now and pushing toward that more and more every day.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 30, 2011 10:26 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I, too, was surprised not to find this first and foremost topic. It seems like the kind of REAL real world event we here would have jumped on. came after a couple of days away expecting this to be the hot-and-heavy topic. Huh.

It’s also interesting coming into this after a couple of days away, some of that time spent following what’s going on in Egypt. Interesting to see all the supposition, explanation, etc., but us, who actually (most of us) don’t know that much about it all. Nothing wrong with it, just interesting...to come In after several days of people tossing it back and forth, trying to make sense of it, understand it, when a lot of those questions have been answered by now.
Quote:

Violent anti-govt protests like this are usually about food and water and survival, which are related to tyrannical policies that the people have no way of changing.
From what I’ve been able to learn, it seems this is more about getting rid of more than any single other thing. As in “freedom”, doing away with tyranny and the people having a real voice. It’s not about food and water, from the look of it; it’s exactly BECAUSE their standard of living has improved to the point where the young, educated middle class can come out in force to demand change. They having started it, it sounds like people from all classes and of all ages, etc., have joined in.

CTTS,
Quote:

In my view and experience, most people prefer security/comfort over freedom: a reasonable living (food, wages), reasonable assurance that their living won't be taken away (crime), reasonable hope for their children's futures (education).
That appears to be the opposite of what’s happening in Egypt. They HAVE for the most part a reasonable living, food, wages, somewhat lack of crime (unless you count the thug cops themselves!), and expectations that things will continue. What they appear to be demanding IS freedom; as in (what they perceive as) fair elections, an end to Mobarak’s “dynasty” and corruption, etc. So it’s not about the basics, it’s about the intangibles. I more agree with Pizmo; the world is changing, standards of living in many countries are going up, the internet, etc., informs people all over the world of how other countries have it, and people start realizing there IS something else, then begin demanding it. Just my opinion.

So what do you guys think now? From what I've seen:

Mobarak has gotten rid of his government (which wasn't what the people were complaining about) and added a vice president (first in Egypt's history).

I haven't seen the news today, so I'll have to check. As of yesterday afternoon, things had slowed down somewhat. But today would be the telling point, for me, whether people turned out as they did on Friday.

I'm not sure everyone knows about the weekends in Muslim countries. Their "Saturday" is Friday--in Afghanistan they called it "Juma". So they work Monday through Thursday, take Friday off, work Saturday and take Sunday off. We hated it (never two days off in a row!). This means more people were free to demonstrate on Friday who had to go to work Saturday and now have another day off in which to choose whether to demonstrate or not. I think it will be telling to see what's happening today--er, what HAPPENED today, given it's mid-afternoon so nighttime there.

I've heard pundits tossing it back and forth endlessly. Some are afraid if they topple Mubarak there could be an anti-American rule come to power, like in Iran; the argument against that has been that Iran had a charismatic leader who took everyone by storm, while in Egypt no leader has emerged, but it's still possible. The worry is we could end up losing one of our only two allies in the region.

Obama's statement, while viewed by many pundits here was scolding of Mubarak and backing the people's right to free election, is seen in Egypt as more wishy-washy support of Mubarak and little, if any, support for the people.

The thug-police were pushed aside and the army is now in there in Cairo and other major cities, but they'll apparently be useless if real problems ensue. The police were unilaterally hated; the army is virtually adored, so they've been greeted like heroes by the demonstrators. BUT, they have no experience in crowd handling and apparently have only been implemented in small numbers.

In other, smaller cities, apparently looting has taken over big time and the more well off are barracading their homes...some are positing that Mubarak may be BEHIND this, in order to form opinion and frighten people into following him.

I gotta go run some errands and then work on my tendon, which means I’ll be planted in front of the TV and can catch up. Would be interested in what anyone else knows, and what opinions are now that things have progressed somewhat, some of the questions have been answered, and what people think is coming, now we’re “further down the road”.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 30, 2011 11:13 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Weird double post. Which never ever happens on RWED. I think someone is out to get me.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 30, 2011 11:16 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
It’s not about food and water, from the look of it;...They HAVE for the most part a reasonable living, food, wages, somewhat lack of crime (unless you count the thug cops themselves!), and expectations that things will continue.



I disagree. I was in Egypt in 2005. Did you read my chicken bone story? I saw kilometers and kilometers of shacks that were worse than anything I'd ever seen before. There were a LOT of people who didn't have enough food or shelter. Millions and millions and millions.

Egyptian population: roughly 83 million. 20 - 30 % poverty rate = 16.6 million to 24.9 million living in poverty.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2014070735_egyptmuba
rak29.html


Quote:

"Egyptians are sick and tired of being corrupted, and when you live on 300 pounds a month [about $51], you have one of two options, you either become a beggar or a thief," said Ghada Shabandar, a longtime human-rights activist. "The people sent a message: 'We are not beggars, and we do not want to become thieves.'...

As Egypt's economy enjoyed record growth in recent years, the number of people living in poverty grew.

"I graduated from the university about 16 years ago, and the only jobs open to me were cleaning other people's houses," Ali Suleiman said last week, offering a common lament.

..."I am lucky I was able to start selling newspapers. I have three daughters, and I make about 20 pounds," or $3.50, a day.

That is Mubarak's Egypt, where about half the population lives on $2 a day or less, and walled compounds with green lawns and swimming pools and names like Swan Lake spring up outside cities. It is a place where those with money have built a parallel world of private schools and exclusive clubs, leaving the rundown cities to the poor."



http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Africa/Egypt-POVERTY-AND-
WEALTH.html#ixzz1CYPXa088


Quote:

Living standards in Egypt are low by international standards, and have declined consistently since 1990. According to United Nations figures, some 20 to 30 percent of the population live below the poverty line. Despite widespread poverty, however, uneven development has led to the emergence of an affluent class that controls most of the country's wealth and enjoys an elevated standard of living that includes shopping at centers that feature the best imported goods. Living in such Cairo suburbs as Garden City, al-Zamalek, and Nasr New City, the wealthy send their children to private schools and to universities abroad. Yet not far from these affluent neighborhoods, a significant number of poor Egyptians live in squalor, with poor and overcrowded housing, limited food supply, and inadequate access to clean water, good quality health care, or education. The extremes are reflected in the country's distribution of income: in 1996, the wealthiest 20 percent of Egyptians controlled 39 percent of the country's wealth, while the poorest 20 percent controlled only 9.8 percent of wealth.


http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/news/tackling-egypts-poverty-problem

Quote:

The increase in poverty, at a time when GDP continues to grow, opens the door to a discussion on a number of policies. The two largest question marks, according to experts, are the subsidy system and education. Since poverty has increased, the policies may not be working.

...For example, the government subsidizes 270 million loaves of baladi bread per day at 19 piasters a piece, yet 29 percent of children in the country are malnourished, according to Sholkamy.

“Subsidies are very, very important but if you look at the actual income and expenditures you'll find that the very poor are unable to get the subsidized goods,” she says.

...The CIA World Factbook says that 17 percent of men and 40.6 percent of women in Egypt are illiterate.






-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 30, 2011 12:19 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


I saw this opposition leader Mohamed ElBaradei on cnn's GPS 360 today -first chance to get any sense of him.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/crisis-in-egypt/egypt-cannot
-go-back-opposition-leader-elbaradei-tells-crowds-in-cairo/article1887830
/

He seemed measured and sensible, not a reactionary, not a revolutionary, just a modern Egyptian who is tired of Egypt behaving like it did 30 years ago when Mubarak took over.
Now? Seems like Mubarak can go easy or go hard - his choice.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 30, 2011 12:24 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

The country's youth are the latest to lead a national fight for freedom.

MY BIRTH at the end of July 1967 makes me a child of the naksa, or setback, as the Arab defeat during the June 1967 war with Israel is euphemistically known in Arabic. My parents' generation grew up high on the Arab nationalism that Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser brandished in the 1950s. But we ''Children of the Naksa'', hemmed in by humiliation, have spent so much of our lives uncomfortably stepping into pride's large, empty shoes.

But here now finally are our children - Generation Facebook - kicking aside the burden of history, determined to show us just how easy it is to tell the dictator it's time to go.
Advertisement: Story continues below

To understand the importance of what's going in Egypt, take the barricades of 1968, throw them into a mixer with 1989 and blend to produce the potent brew that the popular uprising in Egypt is preparing to offer the entire region. It's the most exciting time of my life.

I struggle with the magnitude of my feelings as my country revolts and I cry when I hear my father's accent in the English of Egyptian men screaming at TV cameras through tear gas: ''I'm doing this for my children. What life is this?''

And Arabs from the Mashreq to the Maghreb are watching, egging on those protesters to topple Hosni Mubarak, who has ruled Egypt for 30 years, because they know if he goes, all the other old men will follow, those who have smothered their countries with one hand and robbed them blind with the other. Mubarak is the Berlin Wall. ''Down, down with Hosni Mubarak,'' resonates through the whole region.

My Twitter feed explodes with messages of support and congratulations from Saudis, Palestinians, Moroccans and Sudanese. The real Arab League; not those men who have ruled and claimed to speak in our names and who now claim to feel our pain but only because they know the rage that emerged in Tunisia will soon be felt across the region.

Brave little Tunisia, resuscitator of the Arab imagination. Tunisia, homeland of the father of Arab revolution: Mohammed Bouazizi, a 26-year-old who set himself on fire to protest at a desperation at unemployment and repression that covers the region. He set into motion Tunisian protests that in just 29 days toppled Zine El Abidine Ben Ali's 23-year dictatorship. We watched, we said wow and we thought: that's it? It's that easy?

It took Mubarak just four days into Egypt's revolt to call the army. He unleashed the brutality of his security forces and their riot police, but they couldn't stem the determination of the thousands who continued to demand his ousting. He put Egypt under information lock-down by shutting down the internet but still they came.

Ben Ali's fall killed the fear in Egypt. So imagine what Mubarak's fall could do to liberate the region. Too many have rushed in to explain the Arab world to itself. ''You like your strongman leader,'' we're told. ''You're passive, and apathetic.''

But a group of young online dissidents dissolved those myths. For at least five years now, their blogs and Facebook updates and notes and, more recently, tweets offered a self-expression that may have at times been narcissistic but for many Arab youths signalled the triumph of ''I''. I count, they said again and again.

Most people in the Arab world are aged 25 or are younger. They have known no leaders but those dictators who grew older and richer as the young saw their opportunities - political and economic - dwindle. The internet didn't invent courage; activists in Egypt have exposed Mubarak's police state of torture and jailings for years. But we've seen that even when the dictator shuts the internet down protesters can still organise, can connect with ordinary people and form the kind of alliances that we're seeing on the streets of Egypt where protesters come from every age and background. Youth kickstarted the revolt, but they've been joined by old and young.

I know that each Arab watching this revolution does so with the hope that Egypt will mean something again. Thirty years of Mubarak rule have shrivelled the country that once led the Arab world. But those youthful protesters, leapfrogging our dead-in-the-water opposition figures to confront the dictator, are liberating all Egyptians from the burden of history. Or reclaiming the good bits.

In cracking down on protesters, Mubarak immediately inspired resistance reminiscent of the Arab collective response to the tripartite aggression of the 1956 Suez crisis.

Meanwhile, the uprisings are curing the Arab world of its obsession with Israel. Successive Arab dictators have tried to keep discontent at bay by distracting people with the Israeli-Arab conflict. Israel's bombardment of Gaza in 2009 increased global sympathy for Palestinians. Enough with dictators hijacking sympathy for Palestinians and enough with putting our lives on hold for that conflict.

Arabs are watching as tens of thousands of Egyptians turn Tahrir (or Liberation) Square into the symbol of their revolt. This is the square Egypt uses to remember the ending of the monarchy in 1952, as well as of British occupation. The group of young army officers who staged that coup claimed it as a revolution, heralding an era of rule by military men who turned Egypt into a police state.

Today, the army is out in Tahrir Square again, this time facing down a mass of youthful protesters determined to pull off Egypt's first genuine post-colonial revolution.



http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/all-egyptians-are-being-libe
rated-from-the-burden-of-history-20110130-1a9qi.html

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 30, 2011 1:20 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Iran is a democracy.

Was this a serious comment or was it tongue in cheek?



CTS

Serious. Do you think a third party candidate could be elected president in 2005 if it was a dictatorship? I've followed this one a lot. Its a more sound democracy than our own, by a solid margin. Its not an ideal state, but in terms of elections, sure. The only country to claim that the last election was stolen was us. Even *Israel* said they thought Ahmadinejad had it in the bag. Ahmadinjad won a fair re-election, easily. Part of the problem was that Mousavi had already been in power and had been a disaster, that's where his unpopularity was coming from. Green revolutionaries were just hoping for outside help from the US.

Anyway, Egypt. The Mubarak govt. Has been listed as a de facto dictatorship for decades. Can we get a list of international suspects?

I'm guessing it ain't Israel, because ElBaradei wicked the IAEA dogs on them for their nuclear program. Can't imagine that the US is unhappy with Mubarak. Just trying to figure this one out.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 30, 2011 2:12 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
Do you think a third party candidate could be elected president in 2005 if it was a dictatorship?

Speaking of the 2005 election....

Iran's Sham Democracy
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/opinion/17iht-ediran.html

There are a lot of Iranians who believe the theocracy is totalitarian.
http://iran.whyweprotest.net/pictures/23313-torture-basij-agent.html

Torture and rape of protesters
http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/08/22/iran-testimonies-of-torture-a
nd-rape
/

HRW on Iranian brutality
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/06/23/iran-violent-crackdown-protester
s-widens


Yeah Mousavi is an atrocity-committing asshole. Every single candidate was probably an asshole. But that doesn't mean automatically mean Ahmadinejab won fair and square. It sure as shit doesn't mean you torture, kill, and rape dissenters who question the election. And a regime that does that?

Not a democracy.


-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 30, 2011 5:23 PM

DREAMTROVE


CTS

On point one, Khatami was rigging elections, by barring candidates, or rather, challenging their ballots (happens here too, but its still election fraud) and he got in big trouble for it, and it cost his party the election. In fact, Reform was slated to win that election because of the Conservative Party's involvement in the plan. After the scandal broke, conservatives were beaten way down in the polls to like 30 ish. But then, our torture scandals etc. Broke, we destroyed the city of fallujah, and the pro-us, and US supported Reform was looking even worse, because it's association with the US.

As a result of that, the fringe third party Islamic Engineers was able to win the election. You think Khatami or Khameni *wanted* that result? I can guarantee you they didn't.

Khameni has mixed support, I know some iranians who like him, and some who don't, but all of them would be pro-reform, hence, they're here in the US. The best analysis I got was from a friend who said "Khameni is our best chance for sanity. By representing the religious right he keeps them in line, behind him, while presenting a relatively Moderate position that they can endorse, while not screwing over the country."

The reconciliation between Ahmadinejad and Iranian right did not come easy, but it came in part because of the constant threat of war coming from the United States.

The re-election was not even in question. Heretz granted him a 30 point lead in their own polls... Iran allowed every international media outlet to come in and do polls, and Haretz gave him the lowest score, and it was still a 30 point advantage, and you gotta know that Israel is certainly not a big fan of Ahmadinejad.

Another Iranian, on the subject of why he voted for Ahmadinejad said

"he's a national hero, he has brought us energy independence, a space program, the Reza Love Fund and has kept the west from getting it's war. I'd have to be stupid not to vote for him."

Sure, he's not the ideal leader, and its not an ideal govt, but they *did* vote for him. And there was not a credible third party candidate. The only other candidate withdrew because he said he could not come to an agreement with Reform leaders on a platform, and he'd rather lose than compromise that much. So, Reform was desperate, and went with Mousavi, who is a loser of a candidate, and he lost. Big surprise.

Also, last I checked, they get to vote for their Justices directly. We don't. Ours are appointed for life. Isnt that kind of theocratic of us? I'm not saying that i want the Iranian system or their govt, what I am saying is this:

Look at the democracies of the world.

In south arfrica, people vote their ethnic group, or socioeconomic group, and the ANC has been able to lock down a 70% majority. Is that democracy?

What about Great Britain? The arrangement of districts allows for a majority to be security in 36% of the actual vote, and even less for a minority govt. Is that democracy?

What bout the USA. We have voter intimidation, voter fraud, and electronic voting machines which are completely unaccountable. Most of our officeholders in this country run unopposed, most national ones have no credible opposition with any chance of winning because the districts have been gerrymandered into blue and red districts. Is that democracy?

What the hell is democracy? And who are we to say when someone else doesn't have it?

Here's my definition: if the govt. That is in power can be not in power as a direct result of its unpopularity through a means of a measure of that disapproval of people at the voting booth, then that's democracy. If that cannot and does not happen, then it is not.

There has been some pretty fantastic sparring in the Iranian parliament, between the president and members of his new party, because he did get conservative backing in his re-election (the cons. Consider running against him, but some polls showed the three way split handing victory to reform, before reform had settled on a candidate, and they didn't want to risk it) and between Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah. He has their tentative support now for one reason:he has the support of two thirds of the country.

He got there be because the ruling Cons, party was unpopular. Hence, a change in govt. Now he is popular. And he is there until he is not. That sounds democratic.

And, I'm sorry, we, as a nation, have zero credibility left when it comes to democracy. President Obama endorsed the election of Hamid Karzai who at the time was polling 27% nationally. We ran military operations that were *timed* specifically to lower voter turn out at the time of the election in areas that didn't favor him, and even then, the results were considered overwhelmingly to be fraudulent.

So, Britain is a democracy not because its fair, but because it was in fact possible for Labour to be removed from power by a popular vote, even though there was massive cheating, and even though there is no run off system. Fraud happens, but govt. Changes hands, democracy is still alive.

Egypt, which Ive used as an example several times over my five year here, is a failed democracy, because the vote is rigged. Mubarak manipulates data to give himself a locked majority of the vote, and has ever since taking office. A popular vote cannot remove Mubarak from office. That's not democracy, and thats why there's a revolution, because there's no other way to get him out of office.

No matter how much the US has funded and fueled efforts in Iran during the last 30 years, with many changes of administration, none of them really pro-US, we have aided and abetted revolution to no avail, because of the majority of iranians dislike their leadership, they can vote it out of office.

By voting for justices, they can even remove the ayatollah if they want to, indirectly, the same way that we indirectly vote for justices by voting for people who would nominate one justice or another. What they can do that we can't is remove a justice from office.

So, sure, it might not be the democracy you would want, but its democracy. Compared with the other central asian Muslim republics, turkmenistan? Uzbekistan, Pakistan, aghanistan, hell, its a shining star of democracy. What do you think is more democratic in the middle eastern muslim world, Dubai? Saudi Arabia? How about Lybia? I could list every single one, and I think iran would be looking pretty democratic.

I think this is a warmongering talking point, perpetuated by our own propaganda. I know people who fought a war against this govt, and now they vote for a losing party, but they still think that their country is a democracy.

And democracy isn't perfect. Its not my personal favorite form of govt. Hell, the US has secret torture prisons. That doesn't have a lot to do with democracy. I just don't want people to get away with this line that because we happen to dislike their choice of govt. That it is automatically a dictatorship and not a democracy.

Also, I refer you back to the WTO membership map to understand what's really going on.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 30, 2011 5:41 PM

DREAMTROVE


Why we fight

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/World_Trade_Organiz
ation_negotiations.svg


Member states are in green.


I'm not saying that no atrocities ever happened, I'm saying they happen daily in Detroit Michigan, to say nothing of Iraq and Afghanistan, under bit our leadership and those of the democracies we installed (afgh, democracy I would call a fraud, but I'm less sure about Iraq)

Also, I'd add that all of these stories, I read them about iraq before we invaded, now I know what those stories were all about: propaganda.

Cops in LA capture and beat and kill black suspects. Isn't that torture, and genocide, surely that makes California a totalitarian dictatorship.

Just do a little comparison to other Muslim democracies of the middle east, and to us, and take a look at the map.

When you get the point of subjectively deciding who is and isn't a democracy based on who you like, then there is no democracy anymore, you're just dictating to the world.

This goes for Anthony too. Don't be too quick to judge other peoples democracies. Take a damn good look at the competition, including your own.


ETA:
(green revolution. They lost an election, so they tried to take control of the govt. I didn't like the iranian govts. Response any more than anyone else did, but I certainly would not have expected the US govt. To react any different if the losing party were to have tried to seize power in 2004 or 2008. Hey, even in a primary. Anyone remember the 1968 democracy primary? Did the thought occur to anyone in 2008 that Ron Paul supporters might try to pull something? I'll bet a lot of people here thought that was a possibility, and I'll bet a lot of people thought that one through to the point where they knew that someone would send in the rit police and someone would get killed.)

Commenting on the Hamas victory in Gaza "that's democracy for you, sometimes the guys you like don't win."George W. Bush.

If this guy get the concept...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 30, 2011 6:02 PM

DREAMTROVE


My apologies. I got off topic.

Back to Egypt.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 30, 2011 6:04 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Here's my definition: if the govt. That is in power can be not in power as a direct result of its unpopularity through a means of a measure of that disapproval of people at the voting booth, then that's democracy. If that cannot and does not happen, then it is not.

Why did Iranians risk death, torture, and rape to protest a government which they could have simply ousted through votes?

Trying to vote the govt out didn't work. So they had no choice but to take to the streets. Just like the Egyptians now.

The question is, did these protesters represent the majority of Iranians or a minority?

You believe minority, and I believe majority. But neither of us has any hard proof, do we?




-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 31, 2011 1:42 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Why did Iranians risk death, torture, and rape to protest a government which they could have simply ousted through votes?


The fact Iran isn't some perfect democracy, doesn't prove it isn't a democracy. I'd expect better reasoning of you.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 31, 2011 5:36 AM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Why did Iranians risk death, torture, and rape to protest a government which they could have simply ousted through votes?


The fact Iran isn't some perfect democracy, doesn't prove it isn't a democracy. I'd expect better reasoning of you.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.



Citizen, thank you. This nails it, nice and simple.


CTS

It's not really up to debate. Every news agency in the world polled the population and found them to be a minority.

Even Mousavi didn't claim that He had majority support. He said "there was fraud." meaning that some conservatives in parliament had stolen votes. Maybe not even enough to win, but they had stolen some. Similar allegations were made of Mousavi, so, that's democracy: both sides cheat. That's common.

The snag is that Mousavi is lie Dick Cheney. He says one thing, leading his followers to infer something else. That way, when he is cornered by the iranian election officials he can say "no, I didn't say I won, I said there was fraud," yes, there's always fraud, but Mousavi was , IMHO, secretly hoping that his green revolution would overthrow the govt. And install him. That is *not* democracy.

What do you think the people who every nation's media on earth said *did* vote for, the people who supported re-election, how would they have reacted to that? It would've been a mess, like Haiti, or possibly the Ukraine.

Remember, the Iranians *did* vote the hardliners out of office in 2005, they just didn't vote Reform. At was because Reform is tainted with US connections. What they got was a more moderate govt, but not moderate enough for the US, or for some Iranians. The US was hell bent on war anyway, so nothing would have satisfied them.

Even if it hadn't been Mousavi, in the final runoff, I don't think that Khatami would have won, and even if he had, you think a former ayatollah as reformer would have really been reform? I think if I were an Iranian, I would have needed to really think about this one, I'd probably end up voting for a fringe candidate, as I do in the US, its a pretty complex process, but it's still democracy, because they can remove people from office. The only thug that didn't happen is that Mousavi could not remove Ahmadinejad from office, and that was predicted by basically everyone. Mousavi wanted a revolution.

IMHO, this doesn't compare with Mubarak. Mubarak is like Mugabe. He's been in power for 30 years, and there have been many attempts to get rid of them by the majority, in both cases. Even the Ayatollah in Iran doesn't have that kind of staying power. I mean, Khatami is still alive, but got voted out by the court and replace with the more moderate Khameni. Khatami still wants power, Mousavi still wants power, but they try to get this power by stirring up their electoral base And negotiating with political powers.

Incidentally, the US promised Mousavi backing if he started a revolution, but we failed to follow through. Perhaps because we were unable to.

It's a complicated situation, no doubt about it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 31, 2011 7:32 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
It's not really up to debate.

I'll tell you, in a discussion, there is very little that I find more offensive than the words "not debatable" or "impossible." It preemptively dismisses everything the other side is going to say.
Quote:

Every news agency in the world polled the population and found them to be a minority.
I'd like to see those polls.

Let me try another approach. You gave your definition of democracy. Let me give mine.

A democracy doesn't exist simply because there is voting. Plenty of totalitarian states go through the charade of holding elections.

There has to be:

1. Authentic opposition which is not punished for dissenting (Free speech without fear of reprisal is essential to a democracy. Without this, there is no democracy, because the opposition would never attempt #2.)
2. A genuine opportunity for the opposition to become elected (No vote rigging of any kind.)
3. An established mechanism for independent or popular audit of voting results (You can't just take their word for it that there was no vote rigging.)

In Iran, #1 is extremely limited. They tolerate only certain kinds of dissenting speech, and then, only so much. When protesters challenged #2, they got tortured and raped, which underscores the severe limitations of #1. #3 doesn't exist at all, so we just got to take their word that #2 exists.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2010/0318/Iran-protests-Is-
Supreme-Leader-Ali-Khamenei-winning

Quote:

The three top opposition leaders have all been branded “heads of sedition” and traitors, ....
Now in an atmosphere where the opposition is labeled traitors, if you trust their votes were NOT rigged without any investigation at all into it, you are a much more trusting person than I am.

All in all, Iran presents a picture of a controlling theocracy allowing very limited democratic processes.

That does not a democracy make, not in my book.




-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 31, 2011 11:20 AM

DREAMTROVE


CTS,

My tip off terms are "agree to disagree" a refusal to argue or debate, and targeting the opposition argument as offensive. I figure this means they don't have a case, but I'll abandon the topic if you will concede that under your definition the United States is also not a democracy on the grounds that the party in power hand picks its opposition candidate, and outside challengers are removed from serious contention (Take the Bush admin using influence to push for the selection of his personal friend John Kerry as democratic challenger, and the removal of outsider Howard Dean through the use of media manipulation, eg, the "howard dean scream", just a "Hyah!" amplified and replayed 683 times over a one week period by the MSM, etc.)

ETA: I have those poll results somewhere, but you can also look and find them, and if you're being fail and balanced, you will.

Here's far more than I know about the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_presidential_election,_2009
I agree with Citizen on this one: Iranian democracy isn't perfect, but then again, who is?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 31, 2011 12:49 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
a refusal to argue or debate

How is this different from "this is not up to debate"?
Quote:

and targeting the opposition argument as offensive.
I didn't say your entire argument was offensive. I simply find that saying something was "not up to debate" was offensive--to me. And if you find my offense offensive, that is fine. Eh.

Quote:

under your definition the United States is also not a democracy
The USA started out as a democracy and has had a strong history of democratic structures. In the last few decades, this process has eroded to a point that it is barely a democracy. Just a few more steps, such as the govt labeling serious contenders as "traitors," and I'll say it is no longer a democracy.

1. There is still free speech, or I wouldn't be posting on this board. It is eroding, but it is still there.

2. There are increasing unreasonable obstacles for an opposition to get elected, but those obstacles are not insurmountable, yet. Voting rigging is, I believe, in its infancy.

3. There are still recourses for independent audits of voting results.

My opinion? USA: barely a democracy. Iran: NOT a democracy.

And I'm not going to say, that's not up to debate.

ETA: I looked for those polls before I even responded to your last post. I couldn't find them. Maybe my Google skills are simply not up to snuff.


-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 31, 2011 1:13 PM

DREAMTROVE


Some of them are in the wikipedia entry.

I think it's easier for an outsider to get elected in the US. Last time a third party candidate got elected in this country was arguably Lincoln, but it's also very dubious that he was a third party. The new republicans were just the old ones remerged, and the whigs were just the old republicans minus the non-whigs, and the democrats and republicans are just a split of the democratic-republican party, aka, the federalist party, which has, arguably, never been out of power in the US.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 31, 2011 3:43 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I'll accept what you said in response to my last post, CTTS. I have my reservations, and it's five years since you had your experience, so while I FREELY admit there is a ton of inequality, poverty and suffering in Egypt, I still believe it is the midle class, students and such who BEGAN this protest and are for the msot part behind it.

Okay, DT. Putting the last first, because it pertains to everything you've said, in my opinion: It's ironic as hell that you cited the Wikipedia article as proving two of your points. First, you stated
Quote:

Every news agency in the world polled the population and found them to be a minority.
In the Wikipedia article YOU CITED, it states that the polls taken by Western organizations were almost unilaterally in favor of Ahmadinejad, while of polls taken by Iranian organizations, 11 of them favored Ahmadinejad, while 12 of them favored Mousavi. Ergo, your statement is flatly wrong; of the IRANIAN polls, more found for Mousavi than Ahmadinejad, and far from "every" news agency found what you claimed.

Secondly, your statement that
Quote:

The only country to claim that the last election was stolen was us.
is incorrect in that it’s not “only us” who questioned the validity of the election. NUMEROUS COUNTRIES questioning the potentially fraudulent outcome of the voting, an indication that they, too, question whether he is the legally-elected head of a democracy:
Quote:

On 16 June, Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith called for a fast, thorough and transparent investigation of the vote-rigging allegations.

Canadian Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon told Parliament: "We have called for a full and transparent investigation into electoral fraud and discrepancies. The security force's brutal treatment of peaceful demonstrators is unacceptable."

The charge d'affaires for the Czech Republic has called for an inquiry on the election results.

Finnish Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb summoned the Iranian Ambassador Reza Nazarahari and stated Finland’s unreserved condemnation concerning the use of violence by the authorities. Subb made an appeal for a peaceful settlement of the situation and the implementation of freedom of speech and opinion. In addition, he urged Iran to free the imprisoned opposition leaders and recount the votes cast in the Presidential elections

French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner expressed worries with the election results. On 15 June, his office summoned the Iranian Ambassador to France to talk about the vote-tampering allegations. On 16 June, President Nicolas Sarkozy branded Iran's election result a "fraud," saying the subsequent unrest was a direct result of Ahmadinejad's failings in his first term.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced that "the German government is very concerned about the current situation." The chancellor demanded more information from Iranian authorities on the elections. , saying the allegations of election fraud called for a "transparent investigation."

According to a statement issued by Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen's office after the meeting, the minister asked Iran to probe complaints of election fraud as the Netherlands had "serious question marks" over the reliability of the results.

On 16 June, Foreign Minister of New Zealand Murray McCully said: “New Zealand shares the view of United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, and several European Union leaders, that the election process needs to be carefully explained."

Wikipedia

As to his being a dictator, that’s definitely not “just us”. That’s what the IRANIANS chanted when the protested. The man himself threw the word back at them a few times with regard to the West:
Quote:

In response to the students' slogans, the president said: "We have been standing up to dictatorship so that no one will dare to establish dictatorship in a millennium even in the name of freedom. Given the scars inflicted on the Iranian nation by agents of the US and British dictatorship, no one will ever dare to initiate the rise of a dictator."
Nonetheless, he’s not a dictator, that’s rhetoric. Rather than call him a dictator, we should call him a demogogue. He is not the commander-in-chief of the armed forces and he doesn't control the Iranian intelligence agencies. He’s not blinded by faith and unacquainted with scientific method. He knows that the Holocaust happened and he knows there are homosexuals in his country. His bizarre exclamations are best explained by the simple fact that he is not a dictator, but a politician.
Nonetheless, that you can say of Iran
Quote:

Its a more sound democracy than our own, by a solid margin. Its not an ideal state, but in terms of elections, sure.
blows my mind. If so, why:
Quote:

the voting was effectively rigged in advance by the council of unelected clerics that decided who would and who wouldn't be allowed to run. And this is for a presidency, remember, that has no power to do anything the unelected clerical establishment does not want done, as amply shown by the frustrating eight-year tenure of the departing incumbent, Mohammad Khatami.
As to democracy:
Quote:

Democracy is a political form of government in which governing power is derived from the people, by consensus (consensus democracy), by direct referendum (direct democracy), or by means of elected representatives of the people (representative democracy).

There are several varieties of democracy, some of which provide better representation and more freedoms for their citizens than others. However, if any democracy is not carefully legislated “ through the use of balances “ to avoid an uneven distribution of political power, such as the separation of powers, then a branch of the system of rule could accumulate power, thus become undemocratic.

Yeah, America’s not perfect in it’s execution of democracy by the true meaning of the word. Neither is any other. But Iran?? That’s insane.

Quote:

EU nations criticized Iranian authorities Sunday over the conduct of presidential elections. The 27-nation EU said it was "concerned about alleged irregularities" during the election.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,526223,00.html

There is no “theocracy” involved in the appointment of the Supremes, that’s a complete misstatement. Where is the religious aspect? Remember:
Quote:

Theocracy is a form of government in which a state is understood as governed by immediate divine guidance especially a state ruled by clergy, or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided.
Show us where the “divine guidance” comes with regard to Supreme Court nominations...

I think
Quote:

I'm not saying that no atrocities ever happened, I'm saying they happen daily in Detroit Michigan
Is an overreaching fallacy. “Atrocities” are not committed by the GOVERNMENT; crime happens everywhere, it’s a failed comparison.
Quote:

Cops in LA capture and beat and kill black suspects. Isn't that torture, and genocide, surely that makes California a totalitarian dictatorship.

Just do a little comparison to other Muslim democracies of the middle east, and to us, and take a look at the map.

When you get the point of subjectively deciding who is and isn't a democracy based on who you like, then there is no democracy anymore, you're just dictating to the world.

This goes for Anthony too. Don't be too quick to judge other peoples democracies. Take a damn good look at the competition, including your own.

In my opinion, that is a subjective, erroneous judgment based on a requirement of perfection. To call the inequality of how people are treated here with how “police” treat people in places like Iran, Egypt, Afghanistan is ridiculous...atrocities are REGULAR OCCURRENCES in those places, committed with the central government acquiescence and in some cases assistance. Here, individual police departments abuse their power, but on nothing like the same scale, and without the authorization of the federal government. I think your judgment is terribly skewed in an attempt to make a point which is invalid on its face.

I don’t judge democracies country by country, but things like freedom of speech, of assembly, how the population is treated by the FEDERAL authority, etc., are hugely different between countries. The comparison of those you’ve mentioned as better than our form of democracy fails on it’s face.
Quote:

The fact Iran isn't some perfect democracy, doesn't prove it isn't a democracy
It goes so far beyond that. Where is the balance of powers, the legality of the elections, the freedom of speech, or any of the other things which make up a true democracy? If you completely ignore the concept that the PEOPLE voted for their leaders, you leave democracy behind...just calling it one doesn’t make it one.

DT,
Quote:

My tip off terms are "agree to disagree"
So. In other words, any time someone recognizes a debate is going nowhere, has proffered their case, with quotes, cites, facts and figures, and yet the other person continues to insist they’re right, no matter what, the first person should continue debating...what, forever?...rather than accept that there can be no meeting of the minds, so agrees there will be no meeting of the minds and both parties will continue to disagree. I take it that’s what you demand of everyone, all the time, or else “they have no case”? If so, we could debate that forever and a day, which would be a waste of both our time, which is absurd.
Quote:

the United States is also not a democracy on the grounds that the party in power hand picks its opposition candidate
Sometimes you go right off the end of the dock, DT, and in my opinion you have several times in this discussion. Just my opinion.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 31, 2011 6:02 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Voting rigging is, I believe, in its infancy.


More like its dotage, given that it pre-dates democracy...

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 31, 2011 6:10 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Voting rigging is, I believe, in its infancy.


More like its dotage, given that it pre-dates democracy...
-F

I meant, voting rigging in the USA is in its infancy.



-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 31, 2011 7:54 PM

DREAMTROVE


In my last post, "easier" should have read "harder"

Niki

That's applying the term "news agency" very loosely. There are only a few internationally recognized news agencies in iran, and only one of those is govt. run.

IRNA : Ahmadinejad 51%, Mousavi 26%
FARS : Ahmadinejad 53%, Mousavi 36%
IRIB : Ahmadinejad 58%, Mousavi 22%
Alef : Ahmadinejad 54%, Mousavi 22%
PressTV: Ahmadinejad 58%, Mousavi 22%
ILNA : Ahmadinejad 36%?, Mousavi 52%
Mehr : Ahmadinejad 15%, Mousavi 24%

So, okay, not all are favoring the victor, but there's a trend, also, this was pretty easy to find

Aggregate of all Iranian poll data: Ahmadinejad 40.6, Mousavi 35.1

Things that effected the poll data:

1. If the poll was taken early, the data favors Mousavi. As more conservatives dropped out and as some of the anti-feminist statements and actions from Mousavi's past resurfaced, his numbers fell.

2. Polls of urban populations favored Mousavi because they favor Reform, rural populations, less so. Ironically, for a student revolution, Mousavi seems to poll worst among students, but this is not too surprising, Ahmadinejad is not just a professor, but he has poured tons of money into universities.

3. The number of candidates in a race. If you look at this as a parallel to our primaries, Ahmadinejad has only a plurality of conservative support on his own side, not a majority, but his side has a majority of overall support.

As to our allies chirping up and chucking a couple chips in, that happened with a little nod from us. I meant when the polling was actually done, at the time, when the Iranians said "come in and do your own poll."

But no, every election has fraud.

I don't know how much propaganda you've been swallowing, but this is about exactly one thing: Iran won't sign on to the WTO. (Oh, and there's a side order of lots and lots of oil.)

But as for Ahmadinejad and Khameni, I'll give them credit for this: They are actually trying to defend their country against take over from foreign interests, while at the same time trying to see that education and science prevail against a backwards religious fundamentalism.

Considering that we are failing to do either, as we discuss whether creationism or evolution should be taught in schools, or which overseas energy company should own which american natural resource, then no, I don't think it's iranian demagoguery that's the problem. They happen to disagree with us, that's all. And their people agree with them, not completely, but in general, and so, they elected them, directly, or by proxy. And yes, Iran has a lot of dissent. They have a lot of dissent in the sessions of the Iranian Parliament. Sometimes it's the sort of dissent you might like to see here, but don't.

Again, it ain't perfect, because, let's face it, someone ends up winning, and someone ends up unhappy. Democracy is not my favorite form of govt., but I think that claiming Iran doesn't have it is disingenuous and leads down a dangerous path where one failed democracy such as our own can claim someone else isn't a democracy and use that as a pretense for invasion.

Also, if this is a women's rights kick, consider that there is a lot of propaganda going around. Ahmadinejad's biggest push has been education. Now 60% of Iran's 3.5 million college students are women. That's not something you do if you want to lead a backwards fundamentalist islamic society.

Meh.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 1, 2011 3:28 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
But as for Ahmadinejad and Khameni, I'll give them credit for this: They are actually trying to defend their country against take over from foreign interests, while at the same time trying to see that education and science prevail against a backwards religious fundamentalism.

I agree that is one thing good they are doing for their country.

I also agree this is one reason they suffer from negative American propaganda. The western hatred of Ahmadinejad is truly unfair.

But of course, I still disagree they are a flawed democracy.

The polls are interesting, but not conclusive to me. People say things in polls that they may not do in the voting booth. Esp in a country with very limited free speech.

My belief is free speech is absolutely necessary as a foundation for a democracy. As long as Iran persecutes dissidents with torture AND does not have independent investigations of voting results when challenged, I cannot be persuaded there is a democracy in Iran.



-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 1, 2011 3:49 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


A rose by any other name... who cares what name you give it? Meanwhile...

Today's protests are the largest, even larger than Saturday's unprecedented numbers. The tipping point?

Now Jordan is feeling it:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/02/01/world/middleeast/AP-ML-Jord
an-Cabinet.html?_r=1&emc=na


"Filed at 7:58 a.m. EST

AMMAN, Jordan (AP) — Jordan's Royal Palace says the king has sacked his government in the wake of street protests and has asked an ex-army general to form a new Cabinet.

King Abdullah's move comes after thousands of Jordanians took to the streets — inspired by the regime ouster in Tunisia and the turmoil in Egypt — and called for the resignation of Prime Minister Samir Rifai who is blamed for a rise in fuel and food prices and slowed political reforms.

The Royal Palace says Rifai's Cabinet resigned on Tuesday."

Talk about end of an era, decay from within and enough push, cya. A New Middle East? Is it really that weak?

China has disallowed any mention of "Egypt" from their press, no stories, nothing, cowards. Ironical much? If you have to do that seems like that's a sure sign you should be toppled.


Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 19:51 - 445 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 19:42 - 851 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Thu, March 28, 2024 19:16 - 51 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:24 - 3413 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 16:32 - 9 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:18 - 2071 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL