Users who Dugg This
retroscifigeek.com
710 Followers
gingerlove169
0 Followers
Larry Cooper
183 Followers
morningDigger
1022 Followers
grungegbunny
445 Followers
inakamonJan 30, 2011
It's not unreasonable for people to be uneasy, even afraid, of the unknown. If things go bad, if the new Egyptian regime is radically anti-Israel, the U.S. could be in for some hard choices.
roguegeniusJan 30, 2011
Come on. We are afraid democracy might break out and the natural unpopularity of our nation will make us have to work harder and pay more. At least be honest about what we are afraid of.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
inakamonJan 30, 2011
Egypt has been a moderating force in the region regarding Israel. A radicalized Egypt could destabilize things. Not likely, but possible.
maxell101Jan 30, 2011
It's a toss up in my opinion. It could very well happen and with that would bring more violence and less democracy.
norman619Jan 30, 2011
Which is amazing given their part in the 6 day war.
lostinseganetJan 30, 2011
6 day war? Man no bullcrap hiding there just rush, and let fate sort it out...
Closed AccountJan 30, 2011
The problem in the Middle East is not Egypt or Tunisia or Iran or Iran but Israel.
An artificial construct set up for war and oppression and since 1948, the area has been in a state of war, thanks to Israel!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
roguegeniusJan 30, 2011
It's part of the problem. Not all of it. I don't absolve the Arab nations of blame for the mess they are in. I just don't absolve us either.
kinserJan 30, 2011
Agreed, this is a problem that we have all created and we ALL need to deal with.
norman619Jan 30, 2011
"Agreed, this is a problem that we have all created"
What bulls**t. We had nothing to do with how the Egyptian people feel about their oppressive government. That part of the world hasn't known real peace in ages. They are always fighting each other and the people have always been living under oppression.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
breadfredJan 30, 2011
Norman, look who is supporting Mubarak and who has been supporting him for the last 30 years. You cannot wash from your responsibilities THAT easily.
roguegeniusJan 31, 2011
Norman your education level is depressing.
Who do you think made the bullets they are being shot with? This regime could have fallen a dozen times, who do you think keeps it propped up? Those Taxes you people are always whining about. How much would we save if we weren't keeping repressive regimes in Egypt, Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia propped up?
Don't act like we aren't involved. We are VERY involved.
sirfoxxJan 30, 2011
I'm sorry but that region has been in conflict for thousands of years before the modern state of Israel was setup. I love how some think that area was some peaceful utopia, ruined by the state of Israel.
JewstinJan 30, 2011
hahaha no it hasn't, the Islamic empire and the Ottoman empire once thrived in the middle east, while Europe toiled in its own s**t for a thousand years. The middle east has been at war for most of the 1900's mainly due to European, Russian and American power grabs.
kasha34Jan 30, 2011
It wasn't actually "in conflict." The Muslims invaded 1,300 years ago, made the streets run with blood. And persecuted the conquered Jews and Christians ever since then.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
roguegeniusJan 31, 2011
I'm sorry sirfoxx, but that region of the world invented civilization. They have been though peaceful times and warlike times. The US is only 235 years old, and look at the crazy number of wars we've had. If we keep on I don't even want to imaging how it will be after 5000 years. We started way behind, but we are working hard to catch up.
Israel is part of the problem, but I can't really blame them for all this.
roguegeniusJan 31, 2011
Kasha. What? Where do you get this crap? Do you have any education at all.
1300 years ago, Islam came into existence RIGHT THERE, in the middle east. Maybe 600 miles to the east of the Jordan. If by invading you mean walked around their own neighborhood.
Furthermore, that would have been about, uh, lets see... 1200 odd years after the last remnant of Israel was wiped off the map. You can't invade someone who isn't there. I would be like trying to go to war against Mordor. (Though I wouldn't put it past our last president to have tried it.)
sirfoxxJan 31, 2011
@RogueGenius
You're right, the USA is only 235 years old and look what we've done in that short time period. Came up with the greatest governing document the world has ever seen(The Constitution) and became, and still are, the greatest superpower.
That region has had thousands of years to get their s**t together and they still are mostly 3rd world.
Now I'm not some jinonistic(sp?) super patriot by any means, and I see a lot of disturbing trends in the USA that need to be fixed but I still see the USA as far better than anything in that region in just about every respect.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rotundoJan 31, 2011
Silly fox, the US didn't create itself out of thin air in 235 years. What are you, 12 years old? We are descended from all the civilizations that came before us and developed alongside us.
The region you are badmouthing is where a significant amount of civilization was invented. They were civilized superpowers when Europe was a bunch of barbarian tribes. Now the tables have turned to a degree, but acting like we are geniuses for following the course that most civilizations were following around that time is kinda dumb.
In another 1000 years someone in China or India is probably going to say what you're saying now about the US. They'll be wrong too. So get off the high horse.
deathray2kJan 31, 2011
Sirfoxx, every mature civilization (The US is not), goes and has gone through periods of immense power and immense strife. You can't point to any one of them and generalise about their history.
Then again, the fact that you think the US's constitution is the greatest governing document says everything I need to know about your education in such matters...
sirfoxxJan 31, 2011
@deathray2k
Name anything better than the Constitution as a governing document. Something that provides better checks and balances, better liberty for its countrymen.
cavalier581Jan 31, 2011
@ roguegenius I appreciate you sticking up for the Islamic world but hope you don't think Egypt invented civilization. That would be Iraq/Iran. And while this is only tangential to any of the real issues involved: I can't speak for the spread of Islam in Egypt, but the Arab invasion of Iran actually was pretty unpleasant.
theredwhynoJan 31, 2011
Indeed, Israel is part of the problem, but likewise so are those who believe that through their efforts--violent or otherwise--Israel will go away. Regardless whether Israel's creation was artificial, regardless of the displacement of the Palestinians, and regardless of the Israeli government's abhorrent human rights record, Israel is here to stay, and the world needs to accept that.
roguegeniusJan 30, 2011
Israel is Israel's problem. I have a friend who is a drug addict. I've helped him out of some jams in the past, but he keeps doing the same things over and over. I finally said, if you can't get your act together, then I have to stop helping you. Israel has been as much an obstacle to peace as everyone else over there.
At this point, Israel either needs to succeed or fail on her own.
late8Jan 30, 2011
I agree. The US and Europe should distance themselves from Israel and instead engage positively in peace and/or a Palestinian state. The government over many years has been getting away with a lot of things because it feels it can do due to Bigger Brothers standing behind its back.
Where the West should be concerned is if Right Wing Islamic groups hijack the troubles in Egypt.
The Egyptian President and government has links with the West- this could be easily manipulated into a greater anti-western agenda.
Remember it was the USA that backed IRAN during the Islamic Revolution there and that turned out to be the wrong move.
kasha34Jan 30, 2011
"Right wing Islamic groups"? Are you kidding?
Islam is ANYTHING but "right wing." They forbid paying interest on loans, to start with.
Left wing groups around the world have allied themselves with the jihadis for several decades now. Wake up.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
roguegeniusJan 31, 2011
Again, Kasha, please stop talking if you don't possess any knowledge. I'm becoming embarrassed for you. Plus correcting every single post you put up is getting wearisome ALL fundamentalist religions are right wing. That's the whole point. The are CONSERVATIVE.
theredwhynoJan 31, 2011
Kasha, you don't know what you're talking about. Religious fundamentalism is by definition right wing. If your goal is to defend everything right wing, i hope you know you've got some real class-acts under your umbrella...
tylermilliJan 31, 2011
The argument over whether Extreme Islamic groups are right wing or not is really meaningless. The term has a different definition depending on which country you are in. Right Wing will mean something very different to a US American than it will to a British citizen. In international politics it seams like nothing but a way to confuse and blame.
sanmanJan 30, 2011
You don't achieve moderation at gunpoint, by keeping an entire population imprisoned
Let the Egyptian people exercise their rights to self-determination, instead of making them sacrificial lambs to keep the peace
angrycat70Jan 31, 2011
As much as I would like to see democracy break out all over, that's probably not going to happen. Egypt has never had anything but military dictators since independence from the UK in 1953- Nasser, Sadat and Mubarak.
There are no signs of elections breaking out and parties having conventions. The reality is its probably going to be a replacing a aging dictator with a more ruthless one in his prime.
letsgetlostJan 30, 2011
yes- it could destabilize things for America. So begs the question- does the American government care more about democracy in other nations, or about a potential threat to American security? I think it has proven time and time again- see Iran, chile, Iraq, gaza- that America cares more for security. and that's fine. But all the democracy rhetoric is starting to piss me off.
Bottom line- America's stable diplomatic efforts and support for dictators does conflict with the calls for democracy. All the crap about democracy not being possible in Arab countries because of Islam, or the patriarchal nature of society needs to look at what is actually influencing the status quo.
conservative_zombieJan 30, 2011
Natural unpopularity?
Your beatnik coffee house prattle makes little sense. Probably sounds cool though.
arpadJan 30, 2011
Hey stupid, the world's a bad enough place with one Iran in it. Another radical Islamist regime, this one with a common border with Israel, won't make the world a less scary place.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
whiteravenJan 31, 2011
NO! It is not democracy we fear. What is of concern is the high probability that a military junta is what replaces Mubarak.
This uprising has no center, no focus. Democracy is an *unlikely* outcome.
roguegeniusJan 31, 2011
The point is: you fear. I respect you for being the first to admit it.
whiteravenFeb 1, 2011
Do you not fear for other people's lives?
roguegeniusFeb 1, 2011
I am concerned for other peoples lives. I wouldn't call it fear. But before we get too far off track, let me say I'm as much a coward as the rest of us. I've receive the same socialization as everyone else. I'm trying to combat it, but I'm more frightened than I should be too.
I think a lot of people are taking this personally. It a systemic problem. I think we need to solve it individually, but the problem is all of us.
angrycat70Jan 31, 2011
the reality of the situation is that BAD could easily be replaced by HORRIBLE or even God-AWFUL.
What's happening in Egypt isn't an election. It's on the cusp of turning into a Civil War. Nobody wants to see that kind of bloodshed.
Sane people around the world are praying that Egypt can find her way to a equitable solution while avoiding terrible carnage.
abram730Jan 31, 2011
It's a revolution... A Democratic one at that.
"This uprising has no center, no focus."
That's Democracy.
Now yes it could be hijacked, or not lead to their desired outcome, but getting on the wrong side of a revolution would be bad.
The main demands are for sewage, sanitation, water, food, and jobs.... ext
The military seems to see the writing on the wall. What Egypt is to be, sits in the hands of the military and in the hands of the people. Some protesters were chanting "The people and the army are one hand together".
The Military is quite capable of filling a vacuum in the interim post revolution phase.
whiteravenFeb 1, 2011
You need to stop and think. Democracy requires a process. Votes must take place. No such thing can happen in chaos. And whatever force does finally impose control is unlikely to be interested in democracy.
No, chaos is not democracy. Anarchy is not democracy. Civil war is not democracy. Nothing happening in Egypt is conducive to democracy. You need to take off the rose colored glasses and look at the reality of what is happening.
Chanting demonstrators control *nothing*. Egypt is NOT in the hands of the people. At the moment, it is in the hands of no one... and once we have this lack of control, it is only aggressive, organized and *armed* groups that can take control.
Egypt is screwed. The best to hope for is that Mubarak somehow gets his hands firmly back on the reigns. All other realistic possibilities lead to death and destruction.
abram730Feb 1, 2011
The best we can hope for in the short term is Mubarak's decapitated head.
Clear enough?
whiteravenFeb 1, 2011
Yes, quite clear.
You're an assh**e.
abram730Feb 2, 2011
I'm Just and fair. I didn't call for him to be hung by his entrails.
I'm an assh**e for speaking out against a tyrannical dictator? Well we know where you stand on freedom and democracy.
What country are you from?
Are you from North Korea?
letsgetlostJan 31, 2011
So what is the alternative? Do Americans expect people to live in a repressive society because it's in the interest of the International community? the dangers that come with a state's transition to democracy are fairly well established- the alternative (a peaceful transition to democracy) is a rarity. I hate to bring up a fairly obvious example- but prior to the revolutionary war, it was *unlikely* that the US would be victorious. And it certainly wasn't a smooth transition.
My point is that America's fear of the unknown doesn't justify keeping people in a known state of repression.
whiteravenFeb 1, 2011
I don't believe Egypt is capable of existing as a democracy. There are too many interested parties that would simply overwhelm a democratic civilian authority. It's impossible to hold elections when 30% of the population is more than willing to simply kill the opposition.
letsgetlostFeb 1, 2011
So the people of Egypt are doomed to live in an autocratic state forever? is that really the position you want to argue for? What then is it about some nations that allows them to be democratic and not other nations? You have to start somewhere. And if they can make their situation better, then they deserve the support of the nations who are constantly spewing democratic rhetoric. Even if all this thing in Egypt does is makes Mubarak a little more accountable to the people- then that's a step in the right direction and that's a step towards a democratic future.
whiteravenFeb 1, 2011
Not forever, no. But Democracy must take shape within a stable system. If you destabilize the system, democracy is impossible.
abram730Feb 2, 2011
"It's impossible to hold elections when 30% of the population is more than willing to simply kill the opposition."
Sounds like America.
Are you also not in favor of democracy in America?
I mean America is far more politically violent then Egypt.
The people of Egypt will do just fine with democracy... and if they fail it's more expensive to corrupt a democratic system so they are still better off.
eraptorJan 30, 2011
I agree that there is a significant amount of unease in the U.S. over the Egyptian crisis. The grim faces shown by U.S. media pundits and politicians clearly reflect this concern.
It's important to note that MOST Americans support the right to freedom the Egyptian people cry out for now and wish for the best possible outcome in Egypt, specifically Democratic freedom. If one notices concern in America over current events, it's not the result of fear, racism, Arab-Israeli policy or religion alone. While some of these issues contribute to our concerns, the main concern is what will become of Egypt AFTER change has transpired. Specifically, will it become a stabilizing or destabilizing force in the region. Given the size and influence Egypt holds over the Middle East, this should be a genuine concern for everyone, including Egyptians.
Having said this, another undercurrent of concern among government/business leaders in America is that while the U.S. appears to be politically stable, a similar revolt could easily occur in the U.S. for very similar reasons. Just as business interests have destabilized the global political environment, they have done the same in the U.S. Most Americans are as disgusted/exasperated with their government as the Egyptians and for the same reasons...lack of representation (i.e., function, NOT form), corruption, economic disenfranchisement and the absence of substantive economic change benefitting MOST citizens. This reality is only now beginning to sink in with them as open revolt spreads across the globe.
As we can all see, free trade is anything but free.
ac3505Jan 31, 2011
Your first two paragraphs are great, but then you fall off a plateau. While the U.S. may currently share some of the same ailments that plague Egyptian society, they are two radically different societies, so any comparison of the two is inherently flawed. Americans are fed up with the government, but they enjoy an undeniably democratic system meaning that they can simultaneously blame themselves and their elected officials for their troubles. Also, as a student of political science I can tell you that revolution to most Americans is unthinkable (what would we replace the current system with?). Furthermore, your claims about business and free trade may be correct but are seemingly irrelevant to the topic, thereby undermining your argument. Maybe some more context would help explain what you are talking about...
eraptorJan 31, 2011
While my comment may appear radical to you, it's not as improbable as you may believe. Consider the following:
1) If one looks back over history, one common thread emerges among MOST revolutions throughout world history....economic disenfranchisement (i.e., excessive concentration of wealth, absence of viable economic opportunities and lack of social mobility). While the U.S. has avoided this danger by the advent of a large middle class and available social mobility for much of its history, these key economic/political stability factors are rapidly eroding by the day. For this reason, sustained high unemployment/underemployment pose the SAME danger in the U.S. as they presently pose in Egypt. Don't make the mistake of assuming that a higher standard of living or different political structure reduces the risk as they don't. This is driven by economic loss/hardship, not one's socioeconomic status. You see, political instability tends to be driven economic hardship, NOT ideology or political structure (a common misconception). For examples, just look at the economic histories preceding the Russian, French, American and Latin-American Revolutions (e.g., Cuba). Obviously, we can now add Egypt and Tunisia to the growing list.
2) "...they enjoy an undeniably democratic system meaning that they can simultaneously blame themselves and their elected officials for their troubles. Also, as a student of political science I can tell you that revolution to most Americans is unthinkable (what would we replace the current system with?)."
First, you lost a significant degree of credibility by "blaming the victim" (i.e., American people) while ignoring the political "disconnect" in the U.S. Anyone who understands our election system knows that MOST decent political candidates (i.e., people who would fight for the country and its people) stand NO chance of mounting a credible political campaign against well-funded candidates who are hand-picked by the special interest groups who support them. As such, political "choice" is as much an illusion as the notion that we're truly living in a Democratic society. The American people deserve virtually NO blame for the weasels serving in our government OR the lack of credible alternatives available.
3) "As a student of political science I can tell you that revolution to most Americans is unthinkable (what would we replace the current system with?)"
Really? Did it ever cross your mind that revolution would lead to replacing the PEOPLE running our government, NOT it's form of government (i.e., Democracy). Once they were replaced, genuine reform could be implemented to make our Democracy work as it is supposed to...for the people, without corruption and special interest group interference.
For the record, the Tea Party is not an example of Democracy at work. It's an example of the political disconnect in the U.S. Those of us who are familiar with its financial backers know that Koch Brother's support for this organization amounts to an astroturf movement in support of yet another special interest group...Koch Industries. This kind of political activity is meant to undermine our Democracy, not strengthen it.
4) "Furthermore, your claims about business and free trade may be correct but are seemingly irrelevant to the topic, thereby undermining your argument."
What you're missing here is that politics and business/economics are inextricably linked to one another. The fact that so many U.S. politician's ignore this link explains why the country's economy is in the toilet. They simply don't "get it". Tragically, Obama appears to making this fatal mistake and his recent cabinet appointments are likely to make his political fortunes worse, not better, as a direct result.
ac3505Feb 1, 2011
You bring up a lot of good points there are still problems in what you're saying. First, while all of the examples of revolutions you bring up in your first point were preceded by economic hardships, all of the governments that were overthrown were not democratic (or just puppet democracies as in the case of LA).
Secondly, you cannot take the blame for America's actions entirely off of the American people. While there is a growing disconnect between the elected officials and the American people, any significant government action still needs considerable support from the people. Simply put, this is because politicians will not act against the will of the majority for fear of losing their next election. Also, it is easy to blame interest groups for the problems of America and, surely, they are due some of the blame, but not all of it. America has more interest groups than any other country, and they serve a great deal of interests and many counteract each other. If you're a student, teacher, factory worker, or retiree, there is an special interest group that is serving you, just as their are special interest groups serving large companies. On a side note, wasn't a large portion of Obama's campaign funded by individual contributions and not special interests?
Thirdly, wouldn't a revolution against the elected officials be undemocratic? Furthermore, my statement about the thought of revolution being unthinkable to most Americans is correct. Look it up. And, thank you, I have heard of the Tea Party and its backers.
My last point is that I was just asking for some context to your previous comment because there was no context to your "free trade is anything but free" comment, and I've grown sick of the hippies and wannabe know-it-alls decrying the international trading system without really knowing what they're talking about. But you do know what you're talking about for the most part, so I don't think our fight is with each other.
eraptorFeb 2, 2011
First, the form of government's that were overthrown is irrelevant by for the simple reason that "economic disenfranchisement/hardship" trumps ideology/form of government. Simply put, most people tend to dismiss/ignore ideological views (or whatever form of government happens to be in place) when they're struggling to put food on the table.
Second, while I don't completely absolve the American people of their civic responsibilities as citizens, it's hard to completely blame them for choosing between candidates #1 and #2 (i.e., major party candidates), when a better option never reaches the ballot box (i.e., independent candidate #3 or a more qualified candidate within either major party) due to political sabotage by the major parties.
With regard to, "...politicians will not act against the will of the majority for fear of losing their next election." I once worked for a high powered D.C. lobbyist who shared a peek behind the D.C. curtain. In his words, "campaign rhetoric is for votes, the real agenda takes place after the polls close and before the next election". This is why I judge politicians by their voting record and legislative positions, NOT campaign ads or public speeches. It's where "the rubber meets the road". By the way, special interest groups and corrupt politicians ARE responsible for the "lion's share" of the blame for problems in our country. After all, this is who creates the problems and government gridlock/flawed legislation. Don't believe it? Go back and track the legislative changes to healthcare/financial reform and the legislators responsible for them. Once that's done, scour their list of campaign contributors for glaring conflicts of interest. By the way, special interest groups are NOT all created equal. Teachers do not possess the same legislative influence in D.C. as Wall Street bankers.
Would a revolution in the U.S. be undemocratic? No. In fact, our founding father's believed that Democracy would need to be "refreshed" from time to time. Unfortunately, it appears we may be approaching one of those times if major economic/political change doesn't occur soon.
In conclusion, I should tell you I'm a capitalist at heart. As such, I'm aware that left to it's own devices (i.e., self-regulation), capitalism has a tendency to foster cannibalistic and self-destructive behavior among those who engage in it. There's many reasons for this, but it usually boils down to human weakness (i.e., blind greed). In order to maintain healthy, sustainable market/economic activity, capitalist societies require a market "referee" (i.e., government) capable of pulling market forces back from the dark side/edge of the abyss. Unfortunately, we elected some morons over the years who ignored this critical role and the market predictably veered over to the edge. That's why we're in the current economic mess.
abram730Jan 31, 2011
"they enjoy an undeniably democratic system meaning that they can simultaneously blame themselves and their elected officials for their troubles."
@ac3505
Have you been living in a bubble?
America isn't Democratic... Our votes do not determine the results of elections and even if they did the candidates are groomed.
The 2000 election showed that. When it was shown that evoting machines had been rigged, the reaction of the government was to expand their use by requiring them.
This clearly shows the intent of the government, and their hostility to the people.
The patriot act also shows it's opposition to freedom.
I'd much like to see a revolution in America... Complete with guillotines.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
staffaJan 30, 2011
Seriously, he asks the questions and answers it in the next paragraph.
"Why is America so afraid?
...it seems inevitable that Egypt will cease to be a client state to the U.S. And thereby threaten the order of the last 30 years."
This is exactly what happened to Iran 40 years ago. So ya, Iran turned out great, no reason to be afraid.
letsgetlostJan 31, 2011
You didn't go back far enough. In 1953, the USA ousted Mosaddegh, the democratically elected leader of Iran - claiming he was leaning towards communism (read: he helped nationalize iran's oil). The USA preferred the shah- the safer choice who would protect US interests in the region. If you want to talk about why Iran is where it is today- you have to talk about 1953.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état
staffaJan 31, 2011
While true, I didn't see this adding much to the discussion. It doesn't really change my point, it adds depth, but everything is a continuation of something that happened before. In forum discussion, I find it better to not write endless paragraphs, people tend to tune out after about 2.
waltifariJan 31, 2011
This is incredibly well put
grungegbunnyJan 30, 2011
American's have been conditioned to be afraid.
Be afraid of the communists. Be afraid of the socialists. Be afraid of the atheists. Be afraid of the terrorists. The more things the people are afraid of, the easier it is for us to lay down liberties for safety.
When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fear the people, there is liberty.
effyochickenJan 30, 2011
Don't forget Muslims, all of Islam, Cuba, China, Russia, government regulations and oversight, taxes, any foreign-born politician or white collar worker, Mexican immigrants, marijuana, police, guns, gun control, expanded health insurance, every single government agency, etc..
Honestly I could list way, way more.. But communism, socialism, atheism, and terrorism works as a nice umbrella for everything else.
cavalier581Jan 31, 2011
Voted up for listing guns AND gun control.
karmashockJan 30, 2011
It doesn't help that we were at war with the communists for about fifty years and the terrorists have actually been blowing up our buildings and trying to kill us.
But right... all our fears are irrational... why be afraid of nuclear war or suicide sleeper cells.
*yawn*Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
roguegeniusJan 30, 2011
As I posted elsewhere. It's not wrong to fear. It's wrong to respond stupidly and cowardly.
karmashockJan 30, 2011
Hmmm... cowardly action is often the opposite of stupid and stupid is often the opposite of cowardly.
Would you mind defining your terms please so we know what kind of stupid and what kind of cowardly you're talking about?
Bombing someone from 30,000 feet for example is often considered "cowardly"... but it's also very smart.
Stupidity and bravery go together like peanut butter and jelly.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elmuerte17Jan 30, 2011
Living in constant fear of another terrorist attack, pat-downs in airports, is both stupid and cowardly.
karmashockJan 30, 2011
Your alterantive? Please tell me what would be brave?
How about this, we require that everyone on the plane carry their own personal suicide vest. That way, if the terrorist gets on the plane, we can blow up the plane and martyr ourselves to end him.
That would be pretty brave... right?
Explain what you want please. You're not going anywhere with this.. you don't like what we're doing right now? Join the club... they sell t-shirts and everything. But do you have a better idea?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
breadfredJan 30, 2011
karmashock: by raising the bar America is constantly raising the terrorist threat. The current pet-down proceudres do NOTHING but instill some false sense of security in the populous. This is not controversial and agreed by independent security experts.
If you want to secure airports; you need look no further than how Israel secures their planes and airports. They do NOT do pet-downs. Don't you think THEY are afraid of terrorist attacks from Iran? They don't use these so-called security measures because they know IT DOES NOT WORK.
They talk to the passengers - specially trained officers have a chat with each passenger. Strangely enough, this is quicker than the the pet down and scanning.
smotpokerJan 30, 2011
I could be wrong but I think that cowardice almost always implies some form of stupidity in that the "coward" is so overprotective of himself that he/she makes unnecessary sacrifices.
I am a pacifist and certainly agree that running from a fight isn't always cowardly but at the same time I think cowardice always qualifies as exchanging part of your own or others' well being because you are too scared or greedy to make the right choice.
karmashockJan 30, 2011
Ok, then what do you suggest we do so we're less stupid/cowardly. This is all too vague and hypothetical.
breadfredJan 30, 2011
@karma: America is trying to police states where they are not welcomed by that countries' population. That causes anger and upset - which can be easily extrapolated into terrorism by certain power hungry individuals who see an opportunity to get more power and more money.
smotpokerJan 30, 2011
@karma
I wasn't exactly trying to make a political commentary so much as nitpick on vocabulary, hah. I was just pointing out that "coward" has negative connotations and trying to specify the main reason why.
If you act out of fear in a way that doesn't harm innocents (yourself or others, either emotionally or physically) then it isn't a cowardly act.
Also, if you act out of anger because you are too afraid to responsibly accept or address your own faults then you *are* acting cowardly.
In other words, I don't think cowardice has so much to do with acting in the name of fear of self-preservation. It is mostly contingent upon the amount of responsibility you have over a situation and whether your actions or inactions caused harm when you foresaw and could have prevented it.
Acting without wisdom or imminent threat purely for self-interest in a manner that is harmful is cowardice.
smotpokerJan 30, 2011
As for what we can do to be less cowardly, I guess the best approach I know of is to establish lines in the sand we will and won't cross based on the most ethically sound criteria we can. Then we must live up to our rhetoric and guidelines as thoroughly as possible.
When an ally acts inhumanely we should withdraw support that might facilitate such actions, when an enemy acts properly, we should give them due credit and add some support. Further, we must act with principle by refusing to criticize others for that which we are unwilling to criticize ourselves for.
I guess that's about the best I can think of as far as that goes. Still kinda vague I guess but valid, IMO.
roguegeniusJan 30, 2011
No. Stupidity and cowardice are unrelated. You can be both or neither at the same time.
Stupidity is looking at a data set, determining that you don't LIKE the obvious result of it, and instead of tailoring your response to it, you pretend the data set isn't the data set (The current right is all about stupidity. Examples: Afraid of the solutions for Global Warming? Pretend it doesn't exist. Afraid of economic hardship? Pretend the problem is taxes instead of business. etc.)
Cowardice is not addressing dangers in a headlong and honest manner. Getting your young men to bomb from ten thousand feet over Iraq because they look similar, but are in no way related to some others who 10 years ago knocked down the WTC just in case they MIGHT do something similar despite the fact there is no evidence they ever have or would... THAT is Cowardice with a capital C.
Note: before you get confused, ignorance and stupidity are two different things. Ignorance is simply not knowing the facts. Stupidity is making mistakes DESPITE knowing the facts.
stevendavisJan 30, 2011
Your describing ignorance, not stupidity and cowardice.
karmashockJan 30, 2011
you haven't offered a solution. You just defined things that didn't really need to be defined.
I don't know what you're trying to do... you're clouding the issue with nonsense rather then just making your case in a forthright manner.
It seems both foolish and cowardly to dance around and not make your point... couldn't resist.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
roguegeniusJan 30, 2011
You asked me to define the terms. I did.
stevendavisJan 30, 2011
You need to buy a better dictionary.
roguegeniusJan 30, 2011
Steve, you need to read the last line of my post.
roguegeniusJan 30, 2011
You don't know what I'm trying to do? I'm trying to hold a mirror up to us. We all complain that we are manipulated by Fox or MSNBC or Churches or Unions. Everybody has their own straw man. Some are actually true - they are doing exactly what you fear.
The question is, if you know what they are doing, why does it still work? I'm addressing one of the reasons it works. It's working right now in the situation of Egypt.
There is the looming possibility of democracy in Egypt. That democracy will NOT be as subservient to our wants as the current puppet regime. This is bad news for who? Almost nobody... Except the oil companies. They own our congress, and strongly influence out media. So what are the talking points? They are going to be another Iran! They are going to be ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood! Both of these things are possible, neither are likely. So what happens?
Exactly what we CLAIM we want is happening in Egypt. And we are frightened into not welcoming it. Or, more honestly, we are too cowardly to accept the strong possibility that democracy will be good for the sniveling fear that it will be bad. Better that Egyptians continue to be oppressed and tortured.
So, what am I trying to do? I'm trying to make us a better, more effective nation.
addiktionJan 30, 2011
You can control people by putting them in a state of fear. It's a tactic they have used for hundreds of years. It's one of the reasons why they bag the victims head so they aren't aware of their environment in certain prisons or camps. The difference really is the propaganda is spouted on main stream media and many people can't critically think for themselves. The government doesn't want people who know what the hell is going on. The government doesn't want people who stand up and protect their rights and protest like in Egypt.
How many people will it take for us to realize that we're running down the wrong path. 2 Billion starving people? Half the population at 3.5 billion starving people?
elimgarakJan 30, 2011
You mean we shouldn't be afraid of the middle east going up in a nuclear fireball? Should we welcome that possibility instead?
nubemetJan 30, 2011
grungegbunny. not only Americans. Its everywhere the same. People who fear are easy to manipulate, so everybody does that: from communist Russia, through religious preachers, ending up with the US.
maxell101Jan 30, 2011
Er, when that was said, "government should fear the people" that was meant in regards to voting. Stupid comments should be feared as well. I am in fear of your irrational thinking.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elmuerte17Jan 30, 2011
... and if the government stops fearing the vote, then what? Give up and accept the police state with a smile? No, a government should have a genuine fear of what its constituents are capable of, both on paper and in the streets.
Wow, that kinda got off topic...
badoriginJan 30, 2011
I couldnt have said it any better...
elimgarakJan 30, 2011
And liberty in every single situation is the perfect answer? Even if the people in question are religious nuts and whack-jobs (tea party)?
Closed AccountJan 30, 2011
And the greatest part about Tunisia and Egypt is that it is a humongous blow to the Church of NRA and all second amendment worshipers.
Two countries overthrowing their governments and no second amendment or guns were necessary! Pulls the rug under the US gun debate and solidly so too!
sirfoxxJan 30, 2011
Its only been as peaceful as it is so far because the Egyptian military has restrained itself. Look what happened in Iran when the military didn't stand on the sidelines and crushed the unarmed protesters.
Closed AccountJan 30, 2011
Two words: Tianenmen massacre.
superkendallJan 31, 2011
It's pretty odd that you think citizens of countries vying for more freedom is an indicator we need less freedom in the U.S.
bdbrJan 30, 2011
A Russian friend and I were having a beer, and we got to talking about the cold war. I joked that they gave us quite a scare, and talked about how we grew up doing duck & cover drills in case of Soviet attacks. He said they did the same thing, and always wondered why the Americans always wanted to kill them.
I'm a lot more skeptical now when the government declares who is and isn't evil.
Closed AccountJan 30, 2011
Remember that your Russian friend only had state media available.
kasha34Jan 30, 2011
Remember, the Soviet government killed millions of their own citizens.
roguegeniusJan 31, 2011
Remember the time Russia invaded our soil for no reason?
Oh. Damn. That was us. Never mind.
kasha34Jan 31, 2011
Remind me...what invasion are we talking about?
roguegeniusJan 31, 2011
Archangel 1918. Look it up.
darwininmotionJan 31, 2011
You'll love this then:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkK6xloLAE8
It's a bit older now, but exactly what you're talking about, perception all depends on which "side" you're on.
ac3505Jan 31, 2011
I'm with Karmashock on most of this one and I don't know why people are burying him for bringing up legitimate points. (Just because you disagree doesn't mean you should bury, especially when it advances a debate). There have been a lot of legitimate fears in American history although many (or most) have been overhyped for political gain. That's not to say that the U.S. should have built 30,000 nukes (although it did work right?) or that they should have invaded two countries (but they were attacked). So while the responses to the provocations may have been overly-severe, the threats should not be downplayed. Rather, they should be labeled as the legitimate threats that they are, but not subjected to fear-mongering and political rhetoric.
skull24Jan 30, 2011
Egypt was once the most advance civilization in the world once. Now it's some backwater country. Trying to hold on to it's identity.
karmashockJan 30, 2011
It's identity was washed away when it was taken over by islam and it's native religion and political system was wiped out. To the extent it has an identity it is not an ancient one. It takes more then a few old ruins thrown around to have an ancient culture. If the people forget... then it's no longer part of the culture.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bdbrJan 30, 2011
That identity was washed away when it was taken over by Rome. It was a vassal of Rome for seven centuries, and grew increasingly weak as did Rome. Status at that time no longer came from being Egyptian, but from being Roman. Then it changed hands a few times because it was so powerless.
karmashockJan 30, 2011
Wrong. The religion of Egypt survived Roman domination as did most of it's civic system. Egypt's aristocracy even survived roman domination to some extent.
Mostly the romans wanted tribute... they were less interested in converting the egyptians to their ways.
Closed AccountJan 30, 2011
Too bad you are so brainwashed that you can not even acknowledge the great achievements by Islamic universities and science.
Have you ever had a class in Algebra? From Arabic Al Gebra. Used a 0 lately? Thank the muslims for it!
karmashockJan 30, 2011
Ironically you're suggesting that ancient Egypt offered nothing of value and so it was only right for Islam to wash it's culture away?
The contributions of ancient Egypt are enormous. They provided incredible insight to ancient Greek and Persian culture. No country had better craftsmen. No country had better engineers. No country had better scientists (at least what existed of that type at the time.)
I respect Islam for what it brought to the table even though most of it was Persian and Greek contributions. But even so that doesn't mean they had a right to destroy Egypt's culture. You really think Islam contributed more throughout it's history then Egypt? Try again.
More then 4000 years of history. They innovated VERY slowly but they innovated for a very very long time.
sanmanJan 30, 2011
@earloflade, AlGebra is not an Arabic invention - it was invented in Southern India, along with the zero (ie. aka base10 numbering system.)
Arab traders who were exposed to these things while visiting Southern India then exposed them to Westerners who then wrongly attributed these inventions to the Arabs. Likewise, so-called 'Damascus Steel' was invented in India as Wootz Steel.
Historian Bernard Lewis pointed out that once Westerners shifted to maritime commerce, they quickly bypassed the Arab middlemen and went directly to the source in East Asia, thus causing the decline of the Muslim world. The first casualties of globalization.
Since the world isn't about to abandon ocean-going ships or even the internet, it's unlikely that Arabs will be able to regain their onetime lucrative role as sole middlemen between East and West.
roguegeniusJan 31, 2011
(this directly to bdbr, but several of you need to learn too)
You are right. It was gone even before that. Also there were MANY Egyptian civilizations, including a short lived one that was actually monotheistic. Then the Hellenistic empire of Ptolemy came along. It called itself 'Egypt' but only because it was in the Nile valley. THEN came Rome. Then came several empires, so with large Christian communities. Then, LONG after the Egypt of the pyramid builders was gone, came the Muslims. Classical Egypt was gone for a longer time when the Muslims came than from when they came to today.
karmashockJan 30, 2011
We don't want Egypt to turn into another Iran.
That's basically the long and the short of it. We want them to be free and happy etc... but we really have no stomach for another Iran. If the choice is the Egyptians living in a military dictatorship that is friendly to the US and peaceful with Israel... Or a military theocratic dictatorship that is extremely hostile to the US and extremely hostile to Israel... then we'd just assume stick with the friendly military dictatorship.
In the end it's no worse to the people then the theocracy would be and far less damaging to neighbors.
Furthermore, a military dictatorship can be reasoned with... but a hostile theocracy can be fatalistic and messianic. You point a gun at a military dictatorship and they weigh the risks. A fatalistic theocracy is just as likely to close it's eyes, scream some religious chant, and run straight at your loaded gun.
Think about it. Who would you rather deal with? The Islamic brotherhood does not give anyone that knows them any confidence that they'll be rational players.
mirzaadJan 30, 2011
Brilliant. What a fantastically intolerant statement. Democracy is fine, but only in the interests of Western and Israeli interests.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
Addendum: Exception of Egyptians.
Closed AccountJan 30, 2011
That's not what karma said.
sanmanJan 30, 2011
Egypt's democracy movement has no Khomeini. Instead they have people like former UN official Dr ElBaradei. Are you going to call him a Khomeini? Come on, it's apples and oranges.
karmashockJan 30, 2011
If you don't realize be's being used as a cat's paw you're kidding yourself.
sanmanJan 30, 2011
Cmon, ElBaradei isn't being used - he wants democracy, just like everybody else
Basically, you're setting a standard where nobody could satisfy you that their need for democracy is legitimate. So by your standard, all they deserve is dictatorship no matter what. Nobody can live like that.
Your comments say more about you than about the Egyptians. You want to keep an animal trapped in a cage being poked by a stick over and again - then when he gets vicious you say "Aha! I knew he was vicious all along! That's why I put him in the cage and had to poke him with the stick!"
karmashockJan 30, 2011
Sanman,
I want him to be everything you say he is... but he's being backed heavily by the islamic Brotherhood and I do not trust them.
I suspect that when he gets in power two things will happen.
1. Strong islamic rules will come into force... perhaps gradually but relentlessly. To the point where many minorities will be forced out of the country and freedoms will be a shadow of what they were even under the previous regime.
2. He'll blame all Egypt's problems on the US and the "Jews" creating enormous political and military tension in a region that doesn't need anymore.
I don't trust these guys farther then I could shot put them. I want everything to be cool... but everything is indicating a set up.
sanmanJan 30, 2011
I don't see what makes him a nut in your eyes. He looks quite reasonable to me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_ElBaradei
Again, Mubarak tries to paint all his opponents with the fundamentalist brush, which is why he goes after his non-religious critics to quickly eliminate them. Then he can craftily say that the opposition is dominated by fundies, and proclaim himself the safer choice.
This crook is planning to install his own son in power, like an hereditary monarchy. He really is a modern day Pharaoh - a relic of the past which needs to be discarded asap.
karmashockJan 30, 2011
I don't think he's a nut. I think he's a puppet for the fundamentalists.
Closed AccountJan 30, 2011
I'm enjoying the conversation, but I think you and karma kind of AGREE... but one is being pessimistic and one is being optimistic.
It's waaaay to soon to know what's going to happen, and, from what I'm seeing you BOTH have great points...and who knows?
karmashockJan 30, 2011
As the stakes increase it makes sense to be pessemistic... or as I like to think of it... careful.
Imagine you're betting a dollar on the flip of a coin.
Sounds ok right? I mean, it's only a dollar. So even if the odds are only 50/50 you're willing to take them because you don't really care.
Okay, now lets say instead of a dollar we're betting the lives of a school bus of four year olds.
Ready to flip the coin? Of course not because you stand to lose too much and those odds are not good enough to risk the lives of little children.
That is how my logic is working. The stakes are very very high.
I'll give you 50/50 he's on the level but honestly that isn't good enough. I want to know with 99 percent certainty that he's on the level. The stakes render certain odds unreasonable.
Closed AccountJan 30, 2011
I understand completely.
There's a lot of insanity around this whole issue. We're just watching it unfold with our fingers crossed.
I mean...it could escalate so quickly.
I have decided to avoid Democratic Underground. I read there fairly frequently in order to see what "the other side thinks". I've seen so many of them jumping on this "revolution" bandwagon that it's ridiculous.
Some of them are saying we Americans should take to the streets.
Really?
I'm embarrassed for us. My grandparents survived wars and the great depression. There was meager food. There was rationing. Things were s**tty...this NEW crop of good young Democrats is ready to have a riotous revolution if the internet wasn't available in the USA.
They honestly think WE'RE on the brink of a revolution because of what's happening in Egypt and Tunisia.
And whether we like it or not there probably IS a bus of kids at stake. Upheaval can turn REALLY violent.
We're all NOT EXPERTS and I don't even know if the "experts" know what's wise in this situation.
I'm NOT afraid for me. Hopefully saner heads will slap down revolutionary idiots in this country....
I am definitely AFRAID for the people of Egypt.
karmashockJan 30, 2011
Well said. On the point of revolutionary democrats. It's my opinion that the 60's have been so immortalized into legend and song that the young crop wants their chance to protest in the streets, take some photos, and feel like they mattered a youth movement in history.
There is something egotistical in the political faction that I don't think is present in the republicans. Doubtless the republicans have their own flaws and quirks. But there seems to be an exhibitionist streak in the democrats. No one protests like the left. No one else has as well oiled a protest sign, bus, faux anger machine. Compare the protest code pink put on to what the tea party mustered. No contest... the left is always better theater.
I don't say this to dig at you... so if it does, know it's unintentional. Again, I'm sure the right does something equally annoying.
Anyway, I wouldn't worry about protests in the US becoming a threat to national security. Some people like to protest and we've gotten very good at ignoring them.
Closed AccountJan 30, 2011
Dig at me?
No, I'm GOP. I'm reading what the left is saying because I think it's important to know....
...but they are being absolute IDIOTS right now since the last election didn't go their way. They think the companies own this country because Democrats weren't elected.
They TRULY believe this.
So...since the EVIL CORPORATISTS own us...it's time for rioting in the street.
Seriously.
I am NOW reading that the Egypt situation is turning uglier with the USA and Israel being the focus of new rage.
I sort of thought it would happen. They are pissed. They need someone to be pissed at.
NOW they have something in common with thte would-be pissed pants American revolutionaries.
How many Americans are going to cheer Egypt rioting against America?
JewstinJan 30, 2011
The whole Egypt thing has me curious personally because I agree it could easily go both ways. One thing is for sure though is this situation could have profound effects upon the world, which could be either good or bad.
I got to agree with you guys the left do tend go wild when it comes to protests, but that’s probably where I would have to draw the line. I don’t think many on the left are pissed at just republicans, I think a lot of our anger is being directed towards the democrats. The continuation of Guantanamo Bay, not introducing a public option, continuation of the war and patriot act, TSA pat down, to the new internet bill going through. Think Liberals are pissed off at the fact that Wall Street got bailed out (that’s corporate socialism), yet the people didn’t get bailed out.
I don’t think liberals think that the nation is ruled over by corporations, though it certainly is a possibility in the future. We have a right to be scared though, the rights sitting their arguing for smaller government in order to cut down on situation, when in reality it will do nothing more than put all the power in the corporation’s hands, which we don’t want. Russia did this at the beginning of the 90`s when the soviet union collapsed, which resulted in 40% unemployment, famine, and worse.
karmashockJan 31, 2011
Jewstin,
You say the left is mad but we don't see the protests anymore. Remember the crazy protests when bush was in office? The left was burning effigies and lynching dummies to bush. They were gathering in huge rallies. They were randomly disrupting civic meetings all over the country.
Remember code pink?
Where did they go? Because the war didn't stop, gitmo didn't close, and the patriot act is still in effect.
Forgive us, but when we see that the protests stop when your political faction gets power but your faction doesn't actually do any of the things you were demanding in the protests... We assume that the protests were crass political ploys and that you don't really care about the issues. That in fact, the left will just protest about whatever it thinks sounds good until they get elected and then suddenly they'll all say "never mind".
Forgive us if this isn't how you really feel... but it's how it looks to us. It makes it harder for us to take the left seriously and trust their sincerity when they flip flop on everything. They get all excited about something and push for it and start using the most powerful words they can think of... they call all their opponents nazis and racists. And then when they get to office they do the same thing but suddenly the people doing the same thing aren't nazis and racists.
Again... no offense intended... take this as mirror on your political faction. This is what we see. I think you'd have to admit that it would be hard to come to other conclusions given that information.
Closed AccountJan 31, 2011
Jewstin - you're Canadian, right?
roguegeniusJan 31, 2011
"It's waaaay to soon to know what's going to happen"
Now THAT I can digg up. I don't think of my self as 'optimistic' I just see the greater context. This is a secular movement. The Religious nuts are muscling in, but it's about freedom. Even if we have a new Iran, it won't be popular or powerful, it will quickly feel the wrath of the people.
roguegeniusJan 31, 2011
... and that was short lived digg up. I just read the rest of that thread, and you are both crazy and fearful.
You worry about extremist minorities in Egypt and extremist minorities in the US. How do you guys ever get any sleep?
Closed AccountJan 31, 2011
You should change your name:
"Even if we have a new Iran, ..."
We're talking about Egypt.
roguegeniusJan 31, 2011
Actually, yeah. He did. It's pretty much exactly what he said.
Closed AccountJan 31, 2011
This interruption in the intelligent conversation happening is brought to you by.
"Rogue Genius"
Rogue is a rogue. Who thinks he's a genius.
roguegeniusJan 31, 2011
Uh, cute. But that is what he said. Democracy in other countries is great unless it doesn't serve us.
That is pretty much exactly what he said. Don't take it out on me.
elimgarakJan 30, 2011
OK, so if you have two people and one of them says that he wishes to express his freedom by killing the other guy you would let him?
sanmanJan 30, 2011
your assumption is that democracy will result in Egyptians turning into psychopaths
why make that assumption just for Egyptians? why not make it for Americans and Israelis too?
what if there was the opportunity to keep Israelis living under a police state which would agree with any terms to keep peace with the Arab world? how would Israelis like that?
what if there was a similar opportunity to keep Americans living under a police state, just to avoid future wrongful invasions of other countries like Iraq? would Americans put up with a police state just for that?
don't make the Egyptians the sacrificial lambs to keep everybody else happy
karmashockJan 30, 2011
Mostly we assume this because of experience. We've watched these regions and different cultures respond differently.
Part of the problem is that the clerics are very powerful and tend to be pretty f'ing bloodthirsty. It seems like they're more powerful if they're more bloodthirsty and who doesn't like power?
Anyway... I'm happy with the Egyptians having whatever they want. They want democracy or a theocracy or a dictatorship or straight up anarchy? Fine. Have it. I'm beyond caring. But the US doesn't need any more s**t right now and frankly Egypt turning into another Iran is not something we can tolerate at the moment.
So if Egypt wants to go with some new government... just don't cause problems for us. We pay these idiots about a billion a year in "leave us alone" money and we're current on our payments. Which means we'll be annoyed if despite that faithful contribution to their treasury the Egyptian government decides to screw us.
We will not be pleased.
sanmanJan 30, 2011
I think it's America's prerogative to decide whether it wants to continue aid. The fact is that no country should expect foreign aid as an entitlement.
Egypt is not just important in maintaining the peace with Israel, but also because of the Suez Canal, which is obviously a strategic waterway. It's possible that China could quickly move in on Egypt, just as they have with the Panama Canal, because China is increasingly focused on maintaining vital access to natural resources and other strategic chokepoints, because it needs to keep its economic expansion moving along to avoid internal collapse at home.
elimgarakJan 30, 2011
No, that's not my assumption - my fear is that Egypt will once again join a coalition of Muslim countries and attack Israel. You know, just like they did in 1967? And then again in 1973? I am not stating that it will happen - I am suggesting that it is a real danger, and saying that I am worried about it.
I am not saying that the Egyptian dictatorship is the right thing. I am wondering however (while being completely uninformed on the subject) whether it is the least bad choice among many bad choices.
If it was just the Egyptians, I would be happy for them. However it is a global situation in a very volatile region of the world. In a completely hypothetical situation, if it is the choice between dictatorship for one country vs. nuclear war, what would you pick?
Once again, I am not advocating support for the Egyptian system or for Israel. I am saying that there is a real reason to worry.
sanmanJan 31, 2011
Israel is a nuclear-armed power. It's not like this is some secret. Somehow I don't see 80 million Egyptians collectively taking leave of their senses and trying to provoke nuclear armageddon.
Closed AccountJan 31, 2011
Israel is a HUMANE nuclear armed power.
karmashockJan 30, 2011
First, I don't think they have a real option of democracy on the table. I think their choices are between what they have and a mullocracy like what Iran "enjoys." It is my judgment that that isn't real democracy and thus represents at LEAST a zero sum game situation where in it is no better then the alternative. Thus the quality of the choice must be weighed on different variables.
Second, all other variables are negative. If the Egyptian people aren't going to get anything positive out of rising up then the question is what else will rising up do? I don't see anything good that will come of that.
So it's net negative.
Think about it please like an adult rather then like some pie eyed idealist that doesn't know which way to put his underwear on.
sanmanJan 30, 2011
Why? Look at Turkey to the north. Did they only have a choice between continued military rule and mullah-ocracy? If they can have a democratic govt without mullah-rule, then why can't the Egyptians? At least Egypt is a more ethnically homogenous country than Iraq. If ethnically fractious Iraq was considered a candidate for Jeffersonian democracy, then why write off Egypt?
karmashockJan 30, 2011
Turkey's republic is maintained by the military. There is a military take over of the government in Turkey about once every 10 to 15 years always over the same thing. The mullahs get out of control and the army comes in and imposes secularism on the system by force.
So yeah, Ataturk's system would be fine for Egypt if they can do it. It should be pointed out that the system is breaking down in Turkey right now. They are over due for a take over and the religious laws are starting to enter Turkish law even though they were forbidden before.
It's corrosive. It just eats away at everything. Hopefully they can pull it together but I don't think we can afford to count on anyone.
kasha34Jan 30, 2011
Islam doesn't give up.
karmashockJan 30, 2011
Kasha34,
Perhaps but it's just a human institution and you can create other human institutions that are just as relentless.
We could pit the communists against the islamists...
In the end, if they cannot keep to their boundaries then we'll have to use creative tactics to make it impossible for them to exceed them.
No choice if they won't be reasonable.
sanmanJan 31, 2011
Mubarak is the local equivalent of the Ataturk system, which was completely repressive. Even the Armenians didn't enjoy it.
The army isn't an elected representative of the people, and naturally would similarly lack legitimacy if it tried to govern as another Mubarak redux.
The mullahs have power because the people feel they have no alternatives in relation to their impotence over their govt. Democracy is a natural safety valve that keeps social frustations from building up to explosive proportions.
We should no more wish for the army to intervene in Egypt than we should wish for another Tiananmen Square, or another Prague Spring.
karmashockJan 31, 2011
historically if you let the mullahs loose you get a theocratic dictatorship according to sharia law.
I'm sorry but that's worse then a military dictatorship for most people.
torisutanJan 30, 2011
"America" is not afraid. Right wingers are scared because it means people that aren't White are actually capable of free thought and revolution, and that's terrifying to them because it means they might have to treat different people like... well... people.
roguegeniusJan 30, 2011
Everything you said is 100% but the first sentence. It's true right wingers are the most cowardly people on earth, but the rest of us are conditioned to fear as well. I want to solve the whole problem, not just the biggest part of it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
conservative_zombieJan 30, 2011
Do you have any evidence to back up your claim on right -wing cowardice or is it something vague and unsupported, like leftists being a bunch of liars?
jsplawnJan 30, 2011
This is an account of evidence. I have only read the account and not the evidence itself but it seems pretty clear cut.
http://digg.com/news/business/study_conservatives_have_larger_fear_center_in_brain
roguegeniusJan 30, 2011
Voting history is the evidence. Conservatives always vote for the one they think will 'protect' them from whatever made up boogin they have been convinced is coming for them. They also fear the truth, which is why you have posted three (THREE!) times trying to mock and take the sting out of the truth I have spoken.
karmashockJan 30, 2011
It's just idiotic bigotry.
roguegeniusJan 31, 2011
Yes. I've posted about the party of bigotry trying to co-opt that word. I won't bother again, but you can probably read and learn if you go back though my profile.
torisutanJan 30, 2011
Well, look at Liberal News versus Conservative News.
Liberal Headlines: "Starvation Ravages African Continent" "AIDS Victims Don't Receive Proper Help" "Global Poverty Increasing" "Latest Earnings Reports Prove Big Business Could Hire 5X As Many Workers - Why Isn't It?"
Conservative Headlines: "Liberal Media Supports Hidden Gay Agenda" "Muslims Are Outnumbering Christians - Are These The End Times?" "Obamacare Is Going To Kill Capitalism" "The Left Wants to Raise Your Taxes, Against The Constitution!"
So basically, Conservatives read and accept stories that pander to fear, while Liberals read and accept stories that pander to empathy.
kasha34Jan 30, 2011
I don't know where you pulled those Conservative headlines from. And they're all true.
torisutanJan 31, 2011
Various places over the past year: RedState, Drudge, Fox, Wall Street Journal, etc.
The Liberal ones I got from places like AlterNet, CrooksandLiars, DailyKOS, HuffPo, etc.
All real headlines.
roguegeniusJan 31, 2011
And yet, they get their panties in a bunch when you point out that they are afraid. I guess nothing hurts like the hearing the truth. I don't even know how they can deny it with a straight face.
torisutanJan 31, 2011
They don't, they usually make a face like this: http://www.filmnaut.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/rage_face.jpg
torisutanJan 30, 2011
Well to be honest, I am not afraid of what happens in Egypt, and I can't think of any liberals who are afraid of it either. I'm not talking about fear in general, because everyone is afraid of something. Liberals are afraid of the people losing their authority to Big Business, Conservatives are afraid of actually having to be responsible with their wealth (responsibility includes taking care of your fellow man. Something I believe that guy Jesus would have said. Actually, he definitely said that. Huh, I'm an Atheist and I'm still a better Christian than people who actually believe in that garbage...)
ethanleducJan 31, 2011
Be reasonable here.
Most conservatives are afraid of losing their liberty to Big Government. And they're not all assh**es who hate gays/blacks/foreigners, though I hear what you're saying.
Most people [regardless of political leanings] are just, friendly, quiet, sheep.
torisutanJan 31, 2011
This is true. The issue with Conservatives, however, is that very VERY few of them are Conservative for a good reason. Most of them are Conservative simply because their parents are, or because they're Christian and feel that Conservatives are more "Christian". But, just like those with religious faith, they have no REAL reason for feeling the way they do. No facts exist to back them up.
kasha34Jan 31, 2011
I have an intuition about you.
ethanleducJan 31, 2011
OK, you've got me there.
I don't know very many serious libertarians, which is what I assume you mean by 'good reason' for being conservative.
tyhoJan 30, 2011
This is a overly optimistic article by a Jew-hating member of code pink. I hope he's right in his assertion that the populace will set up a non-radical Islamic type of democracy, but I wouldn't hold my breath.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
karmashockJan 30, 2011
How he concludes that it won't be theistic is rather strange since the spearhead of the riots seems to be the islamic brotherhood... which is extremely religious in nature and has shown no interest in secular government.
jsplawnJan 30, 2011
Setting aside the fact that evidence of any particular group "spearheading" the protests is thin at this time.
Who are we to say that these people are only entitled to democracy if they don't set up an Islamic government? It's their country.
Worse is most people who complain that Egypt is in danger of becoming a Islamic Theocracy are the same people advocating for a Christian Theocracy in this country.
Or did I misunderstand what a "Christian Nation" was exactly.
karmashockJan 30, 2011
You're not paying attention. The primary opposition leaders are all islamic brotherhood or hand picked men they approve of...
They also were organizing the riots before cellphones and internet were cut off.
As to your odd and clearly nonsensical christian nation comment... I'm going to assume you're not a rational player unless you back up your pathetic ad hominem against me. You won't be able to do that... so I guess I'll accept an apology or I'll just ignore you as a fool.
Your choice.
Closed AccountJan 30, 2011
So what?
T-H-E-I-R choice - not yours! Get off you stupid f**king high horse!
karmashockJan 30, 2011
their choices effect other people.
Deal with it.
Closed AccountJan 30, 2011
Exactly, karmashock - YOU will have to deal with what the Egyptian people decide - their choice nor yours - deal with it!
karmashockJan 30, 2011
Oh, we have ways to influencing things one way or another. Further, if they make decisions that make them our enemies then that will bear it's own consequences.
Egypt will dislike being our enemies a lot more then we'll dislike being theirs. That's the way with all our enemies. The US is a terrible enemy. We can fight a dozen of these powers with one hand tied behind our backs forever.
It just gets expensive. Push us and move the pieces on the game board to more sustainable positions. In any case, if Egypt decides to give us the finger... they'll live to regret it.
roguegeniusJan 31, 2011
"their choices effect other people.
Deal with it."
Ahhhh. Interesting. I trust then you do not object to 'foreign' meddling in US affairs. You were not on the right wing bandwagon claiming 'China purchased the Clinton administration.'
Correct? Or, does that only count for the Egypt.
sanmanJan 30, 2011
Bunch of crap. Mubarak goes out of his way to eliminate all political opponents except the Muslim Brotherhood, so that he can then say "Look! The entire opposition is Muslim Brotherhood! Support me and be safe from them! I'm the lesser evil!"
This is an age-old game that he's playing, and you're only parroting his propaganda line.
karmashockJan 30, 2011
If he's done that, then it's a recent move because they used to be banned from the country.
Furthermore, it might have been a mistake to play that game because the muslim brotherhood is almost impossible to negotiate with...
jsplawnJan 30, 2011
I don't doubt that any minority group would seek to capitalize on these events by attempting to put their name on these riots. I am sure members of the Islamic Brotherhood are actively agitating and attempting to create as much press as possible for their cause.
Asserting that the only cause of these protests is Islamic fundamentalism and that the only possible outcome of these protests/riots is an Islamic Theocracy marginalizes the complex beliefs and interests of the Egyptian people.
It must be convenient to ignore those you don't agree with as "non-rational players" furthermore I made no ad hominem attack against you. If I said "you don't understand what ad hominem means and that makes your comment irrelevant" that would be an ad hominem attack. What I did do was equate a "Christian Nation" with a Christian theocracy. I was asking in earnest if I had confused the two. Are they in fact different?
I was pointing out that we have no right to tell the Egyptians what kind of government they should have and that the people who are most worried about Islamic theocracy in Egypt are hypocrites.
Am I worried about radical Islam in Egypt? Certainly, do i think we should actively subvert a democratic process we claim to hold sacrosanct to prevent the perceived rise of radical Islam? I don't think so.
karmashockJan 30, 2011
*sigh*
Everyone I think wants Egypt to have a stable democratic republic with a rule of law, firm boarders, etc etc.
I dismiss the Islamic brotherhood because they have a track record. I connect them to these events because their prints are all over it.
Is it more complex? Of course... but does that complexity matter? Resources are flowing to feed these groups right now. I can't help but assume they'll be a powerful force in the new government. And that means a more fundamentalist government that may or may not be compatible with US strategic policy. If they run at odds to the US then we have to counter Egypt by funneling money to another power that can distract and contain Egypt so they cannot act as regional disruption.
Please back out and see the strategic game board here. Each hostile force must be balanced ideally with a local ally. Israel is already tapped with it's own share of problems so we might have to fuel the Saudis or some other group.
This is very dangerous. There is a whole web interconnecting political, economic, and military relationships.
roguegeniusJan 31, 2011
Karma, that is simply wrong. You are free to your opinions, but when you make up facts, I'm going to throw them in your face. The Islamic brotherhood is the johnny come lately to this. And they aren't in Tunis, where it all started.
You are either ignorant or a knowing liar. Either way you should not post if you don't have something honest to say. You are not owed, but you owe apologies.
karmashockJan 31, 2011
I hope you're right. Because if I'm right then Egypt is going out of the frying pan and into the fire.
I don't think either of us want that. If you're right then Egypt should transition to a fairly stable republic with no overt religious leanings.
If I'm right then the country will slowly enter a downward spiral of religious law.
Currently Iran has no diplomatic ties to Egypt... hasn't for a long time. Want to be the new government opens ties?
And then we also have the overt anti american and anti jewish sentiments. Remember that not long ago we had suicide bombers attacking Christians in egypt. It could start again... this time with the help of the police.
These things have happened elsewhere in the region and tehy could happen in Egypt with a new government.
Call that what you will but there are a lot of uncertainties here and the stakes are the fate of millions.
roguegeniusJan 31, 2011
I'm not right or wrong. I really don't know. Nobody knows, that's the point. At this point, it's just fear talking. There is no data.
But I'll be damned if I'm going to bollix up the first chance at freedom they've had in the modern era because I'm afraid of another small, weak nation on the other side of the earth.
centraltransJan 30, 2011
americans aren't afraid. were just tired of the same old crap. i hope egypt get democray, but i doubt that will happen.
inetroadkillJan 30, 2011
I'm hoping the US will stay the hell out of the politics in the middle east and let them fight their own battles.
karmashockJan 30, 2011
We've tried that... if we ignore them they get bored and attack us anyway.
sanmanJan 30, 2011
heh, "they get bored" - no, getting bored is faking claims of WMD and then traipsing half-way across the world to massacre somebody for it.
karmashockJan 30, 2011
We didn't fake them. We were mistaken. There is a difference.
How can you look at all the mistakes we make and then assume we're incapable of making mistakes? Why automatically assume that it had to be some kind of plot?
We had positive intelligence from the British, the Germans, the South Africans, and the Israelis.
The only contrary source were the French.
Honestly if the CIA, MI6, the germans, the south africans, and the mossad are telling you the same thing do you think the US is going to trust the French over all of that?
Oh right and a member of the UN also said there were no WMDs.
Again, don't look with hindsight. Look at what we knew at the time and make a choice given that information. You would have pressed the button too.
roguegeniusJan 31, 2011
I would be a difference. Unfortunately we weren't mistaken. We faked them. The so called Prague report was such a thinly veiled fake that It took Interpol about an hour to debunk it. Yet on that evidence, we went to war.
Bush and Co. faked it.
And that ISN"T hindsight. I knew we were going to war before the news did. We made the decision that we were going to hit Iraq the on 9/11. Took us a few months to figure out the excuse.
I remember watching Charlie Rose. I can not remember who was on, but he was British. He used the phrase 'when you got to war.' Charlie corrected him: "If we go to war." He responded, 'oh, you are going to war. It's crystal clear you are. They just haven't figured out why yet.'
karmashockJan 31, 2011
We didn't go to war on any one bit of evidence. You're clearly a fan of historical revisionism... I'd suggest sticking to older events. These are too fresh in our minds to get away with that sort of deceit.
roguegeniusJan 31, 2011
Then correct me. Why did we go to war in Iraq?
And answer carefully, because it's pretty fresh in my mind too.
karmashockFeb 1, 2011
As I remember we went in shut down a nuclear weapons program that we thought Saddam was developing in secret.
We thought he was using duel use and mobile facilities to make nuclear weapons.
We were wrong. But not lying.
Given the information at the time, the conclusion was reasonable.
Closed AccountJan 30, 2011
And a lot of us hope the same for the US but I doubt it will ever happen!
US politics is so two-dimensional, suffering form political bi-polar disorder and completely under the thumb of big corporations. It's not the Obama administration, it is the Obama-Wall Street administration. Too bad the US will never experience democracy itself.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
karmashockJan 30, 2011
That doesn't even make sense.
roguegeniusJan 31, 2011
It was poorly phrased, but I see what he is trying to say. There is something 'Soviet' about the way we are dominated by two and only two parties. And how corporations are not people, and the only ones who have any real freedom of speech. Yeah, we have a pretty messed up system in desperate need of updating.
I just would like the populace to smarten up and make changes in the voting booth rather than the streets.
karmashockFeb 1, 2011
You might like New Hampshire's new voting system then.
They're moving to an "approval" system rather then first past the post.
The idea is that you can vote for as many people as you like and whoever gets the most votes at the end wins. So you can vote for your reliable establishment party to be safe AND vote for the third party reform candidate as well without dooming your establishment candidate to lose to the rival establishment candidate that you don't like.
I think it's a good idea.
roguegeniusFeb 1, 2011
I'm with you on that one. I didn't realize that was how it worked. I thought it was just that the people of each district cast their votes and their elector cast that vote no matter how the rest of the states districts voted. In most places it's winner take all.
But I agree. Both are better systems. Yours MUCH better.
karmashockFeb 1, 2011
The elector almost never... I actually am not aware of it happening at any point in modern times... but anyway, they don't vote against a plurality.
What they do is vote ALL votes with the plurality vote. So... winner take all.
There's a virtue to that but it's complicated. You can run into some problems by letting minority and fringe votes take up very small portions of the government. It sorta balkinizes the government and makes it even more unmanageable.
Whatever though, the idea with this system is that it will still be winner take all but you don't have to only vote for the guy you think will win. You can also vote for the guy that you'd like to win but don't think they'll get enough votes.
It might get us out of a two party system in a responsible way. Getting rid of winner take all again seems to lead to silly situations. So the approval system is a compromise in that it's still winner take all but people can feel safe to vote for third party candidates without automatically making their establishment rivals win.
redcolumbineJan 30, 2011
Mubarak is a US puppet, and everybody but people in the US knows. His instructions, which he obeyed, were to keep a lid on anti-Israel sentiment. Nobody bothered to tell him, "Oh, by the way, don't torture, extort, let corruption run rampant, or beat people to death in the street." When playing puppets, one shouldn't let go of the strings.
karmashockJan 30, 2011
please... he's no one's puppet. Dictators keep themselves in power. The US was no king maker. Yes, we had friendly relations with a dictator... sue us. It's the real world. If we only made friends with republics we'd be incapable of projecting power. Most of the world is run by dictators and oligarchs. That is reality. The US didn't make the world like this... we found it like this...
grammerpantsJan 30, 2011
Actually that States had a large hand in maintaining that the dictatorships in this world. They didn't create them but they sure do support them willingly.
karmashockJan 30, 2011
Not really. We created a few during the cold war perhaps but not since and they are always sustained internally. Dictatorships cannot be sustained from external powers unless they are sustained with external troops. The US doesn't maintain any dictatorships with US troops. So we don't sustain them.
We do send a few money but it's never enough to keep a regime going. It's mostly a reward for cooperating. Without the US there would be if anything more dictatorships.
Remember first that the US is an inspiration for democracy in and of itself. Remember further that we have thwarted the take over of many places by hostile regimes.
Weigh our good against our bad please. We don't pretend to be saints but be fair.
sanmanJan 30, 2011
Come on, Mubarak didn't just magically fall into place after Sadat's assassination. His path was greased by copious amounts of US aid, without which he couldn't have survived. That aid is meant to fund a police state which wouldn't otherwise be able to sustain itself. This is the so-called method of "keeping the peace" between Egypt and Israel. It's not a natural peace, it's one that's artificially maintained at the cost of keeping Egyptians under the boot of a police state.
It's all fun and games on the deck of the cruise ship, as long as somebody else is stuck below shoveling the coal.
karmashockJan 30, 2011
A billion a year isn't enough to sustain anything in egypt. It's cooperation money. If the US left him alone 20 years ago very little would be different today in Egypt.
We have no interest in a dictatorship there. Our only interest is in containing messianic expansionistic islam. Beyond that and keeping the Canal open we really don't care what happens in Egypt.
notyavgkatJan 30, 2011
You sir are correct.
laurahoustonJan 30, 2011
The prisons were emptied out yesterday. (guard system walked away)100,000 prisoners in the street. Some are quite dangerous, not only to their general population but thousands are extreme radical terrorists who also hate America.
udehnansJan 30, 2011
I don't know why... Actully I will go to america in the end of this year. but, I am afraid... :(
roguegeniusJan 30, 2011
I always get dugg down for saying this, but why can't we face the truth? We are a cowardly nation. In this case I use the term cowardly rather than fearful, because fear is natural and a good thing. It's how you respond to fear that counts, and we respond with cowardice. I honestly don't think you can look at the news for more than five minutes and not agree with that statement. I don't like it either. I try not to exemplify that rabid, contagious cowardice that is saturating this nation.
Now, just because we ARE something, doesn't mean we have to remain that way. We need to look at the root causes of this cowardice, analyze it, and try to combat it. I don't claim to know how we got to be this way, but I have some 'suspects.' We live in a political culture that functions on the whim of the masses. The only way to gain personal power in this system to to manipulate the masses. Our founders felt that this would eliminate tyranny, but they were wrong (At the risk of bringing Godwin's Law down on myself -- we tend to forget that Hitler was democratically elected.) The power hungry throughout history have manipulated the masses to get them to do what they want. Fear is a powerful motivating weapon and it has been shamelessly used from almost the very beginning. This is how rich, plantation owners convinced poor men to betray their nation and take up arms (the southern men who did the dying in the civil war, had NOTHING to gain from winning it) It's how we ginned up the war with Spain a few years later. It's how the oil industry keeps us under their thumbs. Every day is an endless litany of how 'they' are out to destroy you. That is why we are afraid, and that is why we are the most cowardly nation on the planet at the moment.
Now, you can have two responses to those facts. You can get pissy, digg it down and pretend it's not true (ie be AFRAID to face the truth) or you can think about it and try to do something about it. At least in your own life.
conservative_zombieJan 30, 2011
Oh look, more beatnik prattle. Cool daddy-o, cool
elimgarakJan 30, 2011
LOL, so your opinion is the "truth" and everybody who disagrees with you and diggs you down is by definition wrong and is afraid to face the truth?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
roguegeniusJan 30, 2011
I guess I'm not getting dugg down this time. I guess the truth will out in the end.
elimgarakJan 30, 2011
Yes. Because if somebody disagrees with your point of view, then the terrorists win.
ethanleducJan 31, 2011
Hitler was not democratically elected, he was appointed by his opponent, who *was* elected.
bilalsanaJan 30, 2011
Policy of USA: we support democracy where it suites us, where we can control it, for the rest of the nations we either have despots or the axis of evil-club!
conservative_zombieJan 30, 2011
What exactly am I suppose to be afraid of?
roguegeniusJan 31, 2011
Take your pick, the list is long. And you aren't supposed to be: YOU ARE! I know, because I am. We all are. We are socialized cowards.
In this conversation, we fear what will be come of Egypt. But that is only the latest thing at the top of a very long list. Doubly long for conservatives.
fatbikezJan 30, 2011
its because america is so politically correct. we lost our balls!
Closed AccountJan 30, 2011
I believe the title's a pretty massive generalization. The article's also incredibly naive. Because leaders are expressing concern about a large nation becoming unstable, it means we're just "afraid?"
And seriously, how did commenters manage to work "right wingers" into their comments. It's not what the story is about. People, both left AND right, are concerned about the events in Egypt.
Over at Democratic Underground, many members are saying that the USA should do this. We need Egypt-style action? Really?
I think it's pretty normal to feel cautious about what's happening. We can hope for the best, but we may end up with an Egypt that's adversarial. As far as democracy goes ... well, most revolutions actually wind up with increased power for the state.
lbobrifeJan 30, 2011
Yours is the first rational comment of any substance I've read so far.
enantiodromiaJan 31, 2011
The booze hasnt kicked in yet
drmangrumJan 31, 2011
It's the MO of the left to divert every, and I mean EVERY, argument back to vilifying conservatives. If they can't argue a topic, they make one up and divert the original argument.
I, too, would like to know how the author came to the conclusion that America is in fear over the Cairo situation. I just don't see anyone who's all that concerned.
norman619Jan 30, 2011
"This is his 9/11 -- the day Arabs blindsided a president."
Huh?!
ethanleducJan 31, 2011
Yeah, that one raised an eyebrow over here as well.
renorocJan 30, 2011
My deepest concern is the safety of the antiquities and ancient history of Egypt. I think Mubarak will crackdown once he realizes that the West will not lift a finger to aid the revolutionaries. I remember T Square in China, back in '89 and how the tanks rolled in as soon as the authoritarian Chinese learned the West was adopting a "wait and see" attitude. Mubarak will do the same.
norman619Jan 30, 2011
That stuff should come second. Human lives should always viewed as a bit more important that some historical artifacts.
bdbrJan 30, 2011
I'm not afraid. Real democracy at work it exciting! People I talk to are excited about it. Probably the most encouraging thing about these riots is their secular nature. The papers in Lebanon were applauding the Tunisian riots for being non-Islamist, and it's been widely touted that Egyptian were shouting over Allah Akbar's with "Muslim, Christian, we're all Egyptian!" Arabs have seen the repression of religious dictatorships; don't be so quick to assume they want that.
Of course the stock market took it a hit; the stock market always reacts to uncertainty. This could be a turning point for the region, with long period of uncertainty. Egypt's trade partners have the uncertainty of not knowing who to deal with. And of course Israel and it's supporters have reason to worry. Just because those people are worrying doesn't mean the rest of us are in fear.
hiropendragonJan 30, 2011
Americans are afraid because of articles just like this one - asking if we should be afraid. A sitting US President supporting a nation's 30-year leader? Gasp! It almost sounds like ... what he/she is expected to do! Whatever. Burying, which is sad because Salon usually has decent stuff.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJan 30, 2011
So you are saying the US should support North Korea then because it have had a long standing regime?
Wow - political brilliance at it's best!
hiropendragonJan 30, 2011
So let me get this straight - You're equivocating a country which the US is still technically at war with, starves millions of its people to pay for a nuclear weapons program, and is isolated from nearly all of the world, and a country that has been a long-standing trading partner (Suez canal), tourism stop, a hub of one of the world's largest religions, and actually preserves freedom for different religions in the country? Seriously?
But all that aside, I think Mubarak has to go. But at the same time, the whole goddamn would has had normal relations with Egypt for decades. Why is it a surprise that world leaders would continue to address them as leader, until they formally resign? That's the premise I disagree with. What would happen if Obama were to call for Mubarak to resign, and then he doesn't? That would be disastrous to US relations with the entire middle east. If, however, Obama lets this play out, and then supports the new government when it takes hold, it makes us look good. Is that so difficult to understand?
yaosioJan 30, 2011
Because they are not? Nice strawman article author.
gwennyJan 30, 2011
I'm sure the government in the US has anxiety about similar things happening here. In a climate where morons are taking guns to political town meetings and fruitcakes are shooting congress critters and Tea Partiers, clearly neither students of law or history, protest socialism while drawing "Social" Security it is not inconceivable that conservatives would take up arms, and Reload instead of Retreat. The Egyptians are justified. There are many abuses in their system. Americans, sadly, are just stupid and violence and petty. So expect the blowhard rightwingnut pundits to siege the chance to try to overthrow our government.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJan 30, 2011
Go over to Democratic Underground. Have a read of some of the blogs and threads.
Then come back here and try to say that the "right-wingers" will try to overthrow the government.
ethanleducJan 31, 2011
Come on now.
I realize we've got some vocal nuts in our camp [who doesn't?] but we're not the ones getting dressed up in camo and heading out in the woods with our assault rifles to practice for that day-of-days when we get to violently overthrow the government.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJan 31, 2011
People in MY camp aren't doing that. I'm GOP.
People in YOUR camp are going over the edge on Democratic Underground...
They are cheering for revolution because they lost a f**king election.
It's insane.
enantiodromiaJan 31, 2011
uhm quirk, we've all visited countless gun nut sites, survivalist sites, and the like. you cannot seriously pretend there is not quite a large group of husky, drunk white men, who identify themselves with the "GOP", who t dream of the day when they get to fight their imagined tyrant.
if you are actually confused by this, i will spend my lunch hour tomorrow and compile a list of blogs and facebook groups which support this.
roguegeniusJan 31, 2011
Afraid I have to go with ethanleduc on this one. 85% or more of the crazies are on the right. They always have been.
jefftsJan 30, 2011
It takes a lot of guts to label Americans stupid when your commentary contains so much grammatical fail
gwennyJan 30, 2011
OMG . . .I haven't seen this fallacy in a long time. I'm sorry you are only capable of parsing simple sentences. I suggest you don't try to tackle anything harder than Dr. Seuss, as most writers employ compound and compound complex sentences to add variety to their discourse.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jefftsJan 30, 2011
I can read and write just fine. Since you don't seem to understand my comment, I took a few minutes to try to rewrite your original comment.
"I'm sure the government in the US has anxiety about similar things happening here. In a climate where morons are taking guns to political town meetings, [NOTE THE COMMA AND REMOVAL OF "AND"] fruitcakes are shooting congress critters, [NOTE COMMA] and Tea Partiers, WHO clearly ARE neither students of law or history AND WHO protest socialism while drawing "Social" Security, [NOTE COMMA] it is not inconceivable that conservatives would take up arms: e.g. "Reload" [NOTE QUOTES] instead of "Retreat" [NOTE QUOTES]. The Egyptians are justified. There are many abuses in their system. Americans, sadly, are just stupid, VIOLENT, [NOTE COMMAS] and petty. So expect the blowhard, [NOTE COMMA] rightwingnut pundits to SEIZE the chance to try to overthrow our government."
And your reply...
"...as most writers employ compound and [NOTE THE REMOVAL OF COMPOUND] complex sentences..."
If you are going to label people stupid, and I assume you mean the R team which, in and of itself displays an ideological ignorance, at least take the time to write a well-crafted comment that doesn't produce a sense of irony.
roguegeniusJan 31, 2011
If you can't defeat the substance. Mock the style.
Most of use learned that losers trick in grade school.
jefftsJan 31, 2011
Oh, believe me, I can defeat the substance. I'm just not inclined to argue with someone who labels an entire group of people as stupid while their entire comment is half-way illiterate.
But, go ahead. Carry on with your own bullying tactics of name calling by insinuation. Apparently you didn't learn not to do so in grade school.
roguegeniusJan 31, 2011
Talk is cheap. Clearly, since you didn't have time to write one sentence in actual debunking but managed 5 paragraphs of mocking.
If you can debunk, then do it.
jefftsJan 31, 2011
Newsflash: There is no conclusive evidence that anybody on the Right has taken up arms and attacked anyone in an effort to overthrow the government.
Newsflash: There is no conclusive evidence that anyone on the Right is calling for the overthrow of the government or rioting in the streets. But take a wonder over to the Democratic Underground and you'll find evidence of such. Pro tip: Democratic Underground is a left-wing establishment.
Newsflash: There have been no reported arrests of Tea Party members at Tea Party rallies. Nor have there been any acts of violence at said rallies. But go on YouTube and watch some left-wing rallies.
Newsflash: While there have been violent acts that have made national headlines, the Left has accused the Right of said acts without any evidence what-so-ever within moments of the incident. Incident 1: Andrew Joseph Stack III flew his plane into an IRS building. Immediately, the Right was blamed. It was later discovered that this man left a suicide note whose ramblings spanned the political spectrum. Incident 2: Census worker Bill Sparkman was found hanged. Immediately, the Left blamed the Right without any evidence. It was later discovered that it was a suicide. And Incident 3: The AZ Shooting. Same story. Left blames Right. No evidence. And the shooter didn't listen to talk radio, watch Fox News and enjoyed the musings of both Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto. So, tell me, through their actions, who exactly is it that is inciting anger that could lead to real violence? If you answered "The Left", you get a cookie.
There. Debunked. Go away.
roguegeniusJan 31, 2011
A) Unless I'm mistaken, your objection was she called us cowards. You didn't even try to debunk that.
B) *whew* this could take a while.
1st Newsflash: Google 'Milita movement' and 'second amendment solutions'
2nd Newsflash: Seriously? Google anything from the Civil War, to the Turner Diaries to the John Birch Society. There is such a wide variety of calls for that on the right, and always have been, I don't even know where to start.
3rd Newsflash: I don't know, you may be right on that one. I'm not a cop and don't have records of it. Of course, nobody was arrested or violent at woodstock, so who knows what that means. Oh, rightists do tend to get violent at abortion clinics, Klan rallies, etc. So you don't get points for that one.
4th Newsflash: I can find a million times (a day, currently) that the left was blamed for something they had nothing to do with. But I don't extend that to say that 'all leftists are non-violent. They surely can be violent. Sometimes they are almost a violent as the right.
I like cookies and will happily take one, but you've done no debunking. You just listed a bunch of cherry picked examples. I can do that.
And it's all pointless anyway. The issue is fear. Try to debunk the fact the Americans (left and right) are not irrationally fearful.
I'll go away when I'm proved wrong. Not before.
jefftsJan 31, 2011
Nope, she said, and I quote, "Americans, sadly, are just stupid and violence and petty." Nowhere was it mentioned or implied that she was calling anyone cowards. Nor was I agreeing or disagreeing with what she said. My objection was to the lack of care taking in crafting the comment while labeling people stupid. If you are going to label people stupid, you should at least present that claim in an intelligent manner.
Read my first newsflash again. Don't parse it. Read it in its entirety. You're replying to the first half of my sentence and ignoring the second half.
Yes, I was incorrect, at least in part, on the second newsflash. There are, and have been, militias throughout the history of this country. But I still know of any group on the right that is calling, at this time, for rioting in the streets.
Third newsflash: Come on. You and I both know with the attention that the Tea Party has received, and mainly negative attention I might add, that any arrest made of a Tea Partier or any violence at any of their rallies would immediately have become headline news and been spread across the blogosphere.
Fourth newsflash: Fine, find some. The point is, in this current age, it's the Right who are constantly blamed, within moments, for the acts of individuals when there is absolutely no evidence to support such claims. And yet acts of left-wing violence go unreported or under reported. And placing blame, continuously without evidence, does nothing but incite anger that could, if pushed far enough, erupt in to violence.
And I like cookies too. So, at least we agree on something!
roguegeniusJan 31, 2011
"Nope, she said, and I quote, "Americans, sadly, are just stupid and violence and petty.""
You are right. I stand corrected. That was the overall topic, but she did not restate it. I withdraw what I said.
skews13Jan 30, 2011
An overly broad statement. I don't think most Americans are afraid with regards to Egypt, as most Americans don't know what's really going on, or who the players are. Egypt is our biggest ally in the Arab world, along with Jordan. Just as with other Arab nations, they want the US to lead in the matter of the Palestinian problem, which many here just seem to ignore as if it's a settled matter, and then defer to Israel, as if their best interets are the only concern. Saudi Arabia supports Egypt, and sees interference by Iran trying to influence the majority demographic of the under 30 age group to side with the Muslim Brotherhood. That would be a disaster of epic proportions. The US is going to have to broker a deal with the Palestinians, and Israel whether they want to or not, and is going to have to ignore the die hard Israeli supporters for everyones best interest. This puts us in a good light to all of those young Egyptians, and lessens the influence of Muslim radicals from Iran, and Yemen.
roguegeniusJan 31, 2011
Now this is truth. The problem with the US is most Americans can't be motivated off their lazy asses to do anything - not even vote. That leaves us in the hands of the cowards. Who are motivated by unreasoning terror. A POWERFUL motivator.
snapdragonxJan 30, 2011
Egypt has a major roll in the region as a stabilizer, it also controls the Suez Canal.
If Egypt falls into the wrong hand, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, they can block the canal having a nearly devastating affect on ports in southern Europe - Italy, Greece, Spain and more. Ships will have to go round Africa to reach Europe.
There was already a war because someone decided to close the Canal.
iriemeditationJan 30, 2011
The powers that be in the u.s., the secret powers that think they run the show, they do not value freedom and truth like they say they do :( They want us all dumb and obedient, what they see in egypt probably scares the sh!t outta them... and they better watch their asses or they're next :DComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
herojonJan 30, 2011
America is afraid because our government is stupid and keeps putting itself on terrorist radar screens by getting involved in the worlds affairs. The terrorist masterminds don't care that we aren't Muslim. That is just a rallying cry to recruit mindless followers. They care because they have vendettas and goals and our involvement with so many international affairs puts us squarely in the cross-hairs.
Leave the rest of the world alone. Deal with our own problems. Keep a intel and surveillance on the terrorist groups, which we could easily do with the technology we have, but otherwise stay the hell out of things. Then we will be much safer, and guess what we won't be wasting so many resources from an economic standpoint "fighting" terror by having ground troops stationed around not really stopping the terrorists from doing anything.
tcs_harsh_realityJan 30, 2011
all american news is based on fear. you won't see many cheery faces delivering the worst of whatever happened that day, i refuse to watch it myself
unfortunately all this war has caused major tragic consequences all around the world like what its done to our earth itself, along with are own greedy needs ruining earth, WE TO GREEDY, it wont matter till we faced with the hardest repercutions that humans typically try and change,
globel warming is coming faster then any of us want to or will admit, all this fighting is pointless when we need to come together before its to late
WE NEED to not be afraid of CHANGE , change can be good and tho its our natural instincts not to like change we can do it..
I hope and prey for the bestComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
vimrulJan 30, 2011
I Dont Know !!!!!
bassmastrJan 30, 2011
So did we plan it or are we scared of it? I'm confused...
imfreeofdebtJan 30, 2011
calories are spooky
jerky1312Jan 30, 2011
They don't want to have to pay off another regime to play nice with Israel.
dailycrowJan 30, 2011
The radicals are rioting. The radicals want democracy.
America's "interests" is not always promoted by democratic nations.
That is why we covertly overthrow certain democratically elected officials in foreign gov's. Dictator's, and Puppet Governments often are 'created' to suit our 'interests'.
The term "Interests" is a euphemism for financial dominance to our American Corporations. Our "Interests" DO NOT necessarily means "democracy's abroad"
rayhanwmJan 30, 2011
Because the new government my be Inti-Israel and may not serve US's best interest...
Closed AccountJan 30, 2011
I dont think Americans are unhappy about what is happening, or wish that it wasn't happening. Its always amazing to see a revolt, and to see how it spreads. My father is a retired AF officer who has been to Egypt many times and he said the entire police force was corrupt. I am disappointed that Americans are letting their fear show through, but I can't blame them too much. The Suez canal is prime real estate.
Some people dont realize how important Egypt is in the middle east to Americans, because you dont hear the name as often as you hear the other ones, but we have been funding Egypt for years (ironically it was on the list of cuts GOP created). Its possible that instead of cutting it, we were use it as a means to control. I hate to say that, but its not necessarily a bad thing. America will use it for personal benefit, but it might also help with relations in Egypt to America and other surrounding nations.
America is afraid because it takes years to work out deals with the middle east for cooperation and other such things. To see it possibly destroyed over night is terrifying for politicians. Tunisia, then Egypt. Now s**ts going on in Israel, while unrelated, the upset can surely spread. Its like dominoes. Yes, Americans being scared is mainly about what will happen to us, but not to consider the consequences would be bad news.
Obama is supports Mubarak for now, and that might be the best thing to do. If the country starts over with an entirely new government filled with people who dont know what they are doing could be hell. Mubarak has agreeed to put new leaders in the government, and we'll see how that turns out. But Mubarak got a wake up call, he now knows just how in a corner he is.
And truth is, if a country revolted once they will do it again, because they know what it can do.
thickapeJan 30, 2011
If I were ignorant of history, I would be thrilled too. Party on, Egyptians! You go! Stick it to the man! Excuse me as I log off twitter and meet my buddies for a margarita at the ultralounge in comfort and safety to talk about how awesome revolution is.
daankragtJan 30, 2011
Who watches television these days?
tomgfromcanadaJan 30, 2011
conditioned
kasha34Jan 30, 2011
It hardly matters who is leading this revolution right now. Most revolutions get snatched away from the original declared purpose.
nick041Jan 31, 2011
American's are retarded. The majority of the people that use this website put all their confidence into one guy simply because they're too f**king stupid to figure s**t out on their own. Now where are we? Are things better? Are any of your lives any better then they were 3 years ago? You people can recite all of Obama's "accomplishments" as much as you want, which you tend to do anyways, but in the end it's still s**t! So American's aren't afraid by any means. They're just so f**king brainwashed by the politics in this country that they honestly believe THE RIGHT TO VOTE means something. Vote away dumbasses. It's been working perfectly thus far.
angadap2000Jan 31, 2011
Perfect article. Thanks to Salon for putting up this true and honest news. And Thanks to Rouge77 for finding it.
jay2kJan 31, 2011
salon.com = massive propaganda site
colspexJan 31, 2011
Imagine if Jimmy Carter was still in charge and ticking? No voting, no republicans, no democrates, no elections - just Jimmy. Ruling the country since 1981 while occasinly riding his bicycle in Plains, Georgia. And there would be nothing you could do about it.
enantiodromiaJan 31, 2011
We wouldn't give a s**t what was going on in the Middle East by now, as we would have been off their energy for a while.
grahagJan 31, 2011
People are afraid because they're easier to control when they're afraid. It's much easier to gauge someone's actions when you give them some choices and FEAR guides that choice.
The question is, WHAT are we afraid of and should we really be afraid?
shportJan 31, 2011
Think about it, homey!! No more access to the pyramids. NO MORE ACCESS TO THE PYRAMIDS!!!!! Then how will they talk to that eye that tells them how to govern the world?
Who are they? Well that's another story with other sets of comments.
Closed AccountJan 31, 2011
We're not.
Why does salon stil think this is 2000 and that people still read their s**t?
enantiodromiaJan 31, 2011
Question: What grade were you in during 2000?
EchoTVJan 31, 2011
"Why do cats not like dogs?"
superkendallJan 31, 2011
The press may be afraid. Obama may be afraid. But are Americans really afraid? I don't think so, most of them back the protestors.
o76923Jan 31, 2011
It's really simple. This is a lose-lose for the US. The rebels trying to overthrow the government are trying to depose a dictator and install a democratic government. Mubarak is pro-Israel, the new people are coming in are less likely to blindly support Israel.
So either we oppose democracy or we oppose Israel. There isn't a way this can end well for the big American politicos.