Election reform announced in Egypt

[transplant99]

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak ordered the constitution changed to allow multi-candidate presidential elections in September, making a surprise reversal Saturday that could pit him against a challenger for the first time since taking power in 1981.

The announcement followed increasing opposition calls within Egypt for political reform and historic Iraqi and Palestinian elections that brought a taste of democracy to a region.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/26/...t.ap/index.html

[Looger]

'democracy' is kind of a funny word.

when your government controls large sections of the media, has tremendous influence over which opposition groups are chased by the military out in the toulies, and runs as much industry as this one runs, then the sway over voters and the factors at work put a sham aspect on the idea of democracy.

i'm not saying canada and the US are totally not influenced by the same factors, just that egypt's democracy, for the time being, i see as having a glass ceiling of say, mexico's democracy. the economic power brokers in egypt have for a long time been an oligarchy, and not just the copts either.

[tjinaz]

Look at this too

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/uae/?id=12811

Must be just a coincdence, like how Reagan had nothing whatsoever to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Elections are probably just a fad, I think Parachute pants are next on their list. Those crazy arabs

You can pick apart all the shades of grey you want, the fact is the middle east is undergoing a dramatic shift towards increased freedom and moving toward civilian controlled governments. More in the last year that in the last 2 decades. Hmmm what change occured in middle east in the last several years that might have prompted this?

At least you can bank on Canada having absolutely nothing to do with the current string of elections in the middle east. Canada wanted Saddam to stay in power remember. Keep the status quo, there is no need for change there. That Moral high ground getting a little narrow these days.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by tjinaz@Feb 27 2005, 08:59 PM
Must be just a coincdence, like how Reagan had nothing whatsoever to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Reagan was partly repsonsible for exposing the Soviet Union as a failing empire, but there were numerous other factors that had nothing to do with him. They were doing a good enough job screwing themsleves over by wasting reources Afghanistan and mismanaging their own economy.

Although Reagan did support bin Laden in Afghansitan to weaken the Russians, so we should probably give him credit there. As well as the rise of Saddam Hussein.

[Looger]

is it a factor?

probably.

justifiable homicide?

give me a freaking break.

the more people tell me that it was all worth it because regimes that get billions in aid every year are 'reforming' the more i know it is all going to hell.

or maybe it's always been there.

if WWII had been fought with premises like these...

we would have pre-emptively firebombed the germans while they were disorganized and poor in the 20s.

man would we be heroes then, eh?

i am shocked and awed that people can look back on THIS invasion and say that some positive effect here or there is worth it.

the terrorist backlash that

WILL COST INNOCENT AMERICAN LIVES

is still coming.

[tjinaz]

So you are saying if the opportunity existed to take out Hitler and save the 20 million lives that were lost you would not take it? Wow ... I sure would,


Define terrorist backlash. So they haven't been trying up until now? Funny I thought they had been coming out with everything they had from the beginning. If they had nukes at 9/11 they would have used them. Not saying they may not get some but they would have used them regardless.

I guess the question is what is a more stable and democratic middle east worth?

You have to admit that without the invasion there is no way Democracy was going to come to Iraq. Just like Japan in the 30s and 40s.

[Looger]

personally i would have taken one life to save the 20 million, but that does not compare to iraq - apples and oranges.

"they"

"them"

terrorist backlash is what will happen when the relatives of thousands of iraqis killed in the invasion and occupatrion of iraq forget their modern and technological upbringing and embrace revenge.

the actual safety of the american people has probably gone down, and the american government is pursuing policy that creates more terrorists, not less.

iraq did not supply terrorist bases and recruits anywhere near the degree that it now does. saddam did not tolerate dissent. islamic fundamentalists sat across that great divide in arab society today, 180 degrees from saddam. iraq was arguably the mideast nation that supported international terror the least. and since the bulk of palestinian attacks occurred on land promised them a decade ago on illegal settlements, then i struggle to call that international.

israel for example, does really neat things like use canadian passports to go into syria and murder people. that's not terrorism?

and saudi arabia, good god don't crack that can of worms open. talk aboot helping terror! it's their national sport!

linking al-quaeda with iraq is probably the most idiotic thing i have ever heard. i just fail to see it.

more stable middle east? the invasion of iraq inflamed the fires everywhere there. they made the nutcases that run iran look like patron saints because

EVERYTHING THEY HAD BEEN TELLING THEIR PEOPLE FOR 25 YEARS TURNED OUT TO BE TRUE

iran elected a reformer president and though it was a small step, it was a step. iran is now regressing back towards bad stuff. the opportunity created by droughts, student rebellions, a stagnated economy, and decades of diplomatic overtures by europe was completely wasted by ONE invasion.

the israel/palestine situation has not been helped.

over 100,000 iraqis have died since the invasion and the insurgency.

lebanon is getting uglier after a period of calm.

democracy comes when the people themselves take it. imposed democracy will only result in another theocracy in the region, or simply a puppet government with nine huge and permanent american military bases.

the people had to take care of their own business.

i fail to see these WWII connections, you'll have to be more specific.

[badnarik]

i disagree with the idea that families of victims will be so hellbent on revenge that they will become terrorists. is that what you would do?

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by badnarik@Feb 27 2005, 10:38 PM
i disagree with the idea that families of victims will be so hellbent on revenge that they will become terrorists.# is that what you would do?

Well, lets look at the scenario:

Around 100 000 Iraqis dead, as a result of American fire (bombs, gunfire, etc) and the insurgents or 'terrorists' (suicide bombers, gunfire, etc).

So you basically have the American military and the insurgent/terrorist camp to blame for all those casualties. Now I know from our perspective we don't really blame the deaths caused by suicide bombers or insurgents on America. All things aside, America is the good guy from our perspective. However, it might (is probably) a different story from their side. Remember, no one was strapping bombs to themselves and blowing themselves up in crowded streets before Iraq was invaded. There weren't gun battles taking place everyday in many different locations in Iraq. There weren't any bombs dropping from the sky blowing things up. This is all new stuff to Iraq since the war started. Couple that with all the anti-Western propoganda that was spreaded under Saddam Hussein and it really makes America look worse than it is (and I am no way implying all Iraqi's are mindless drones that believed whatever the local 'media' was spewing before the second Iraq invasion).

Now I also realize Saddam was a bad guy and i'm sure many, many, many Iraqi's are glad he's gone as he was not afraid to kill his own citizens on purpose and in large numbers should he have ever felt the need too. Seems to me, though, that the killing brought about by Saddam has more or less simply been replaced by the killing brought on by the new and ongoing conflict in Iraq, the conflict that Bush and America started. This view may or may not be shared by a large number of Iraqi's I don't really know.

So, draw your own conclusions. After considering what I just typed I see it as really depending upon the person if they will essentially 'become a terrorist' out of hatred for America brought on by them being affected by the war. An insurgent kills one Iraqi's family member and that particular person blames the 'terrorists' while another person blames America for invading their country as the 'terrorists' are merely defending Iraq and it's soverienty.

I firmly believe that at least a substantial amount of terrorists have been created as a result of insurgent/American invoked casualties though...

[CaptainCrunch]

However, it might (is probably) a different story from their side. Remember, no one was strapping bombs to themselves and blowing themselves up in crowded streets before Iraq was invaded.

Not to be picky about this point, but do we really know this, Saddam was pretty good at supressing information, and there were some pretty active dissidents at work in Iraq.

Just thought I would bring this up, not that I'm entering the political debates on this board anymore.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Feb 27 2005, 10:59 PM
However, it might (is probably) a different story from their side. Remember, no one was strapping bombs to themselves and blowing themselves up in crowded streets before Iraq was invaded.

Not to be picky about this point, but do we really know this, Saddam was pretty good at supressing information, and there were some pretty active dissidents at work in Iraq.

Just thought I would bring this up, not that I'm entering the political debates on this board anymore.

Fair enough, and I really have no clue either so i'm making an assumption here. I think it's a pretty safe assumption though, I can't really think of any big reasons in pre-war Iraq that would bring about all the suicide bombings we are seeing today in post (heh)-war Iraq.

But who really knows.

EDIT: On a side note, i'm curious as to why you wouldn't want to enter any political debates on this board anymore?

[tjinaz]

I don't see that revenge angle either. I think it will go the other way. The Iraqi government was highly corrupt and the minority 20% ruled the other 80%. I think there will be more risk of old vendettas from Saddams time coming to the fore. I think what creates terrorists is intolerance from radical religion and frustration. Once the people realize they have a voice in deciding their own destiny for the first time in their lives they will settle down. There will continue to be foreign fighters causing trouble but once the Iraqis take charge of their own security and begin to actually trust their own government the situation will rapidly improve.

I don't agree on the numbers killed by coalition forces nears what Saddam did but have no facts from either side. The differnce being that the coalition forces show regret for civilian deaths and Saddam made sure the deaths generated fear.

The situation in Lebanon is getting better. You bash the US for occupying Iraq, yet syria occupies Lebannon. Syria really went too far in their last assasination and p*ssed off the native Lebanese. They are now demanding a Syrian exodus.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/27/...ests/index.html

How can you describe the situation in the middle east as getting worse when we are finally seeing the first real elections and democratic reform.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by tjinaz+Feb 27 2005, 11:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (tjinaz @ Feb 27 2005, 11:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I don't see that revenge angle either.# I think it will go the other way. [/b]

Heh, that's exactly how Rumsfeld et al. thought the Iraqi people would react to America after they had 'liberated' Iraq. Shower em with praise with little to no resistence.

Give it time. America will be there for a long time and we shall see how things turn out in the end. I am cautiously optimistic, you seem... well... just really optimistic. Wish I felt the same way.

<!--QuoteBegin-tjinaz

The Iraqi government was highly corrupt and the minority 20% ruled the other 80%.# I think there will be more risk of old vendettas from Saddams time coming to the fore.# I think what creates terrorists is intolerance from radical religion and frustration.#
[/quote]
Okay, I can agree that that may be one of the reasons that leads to 'terrorism'. All i'm trying to say is that for some Iraqi's, seeing a bomb annihilate their house and whoever's inside might make them a little PO'ed at America. Maybe make them more inclinded to believe the 'radical religion' you speak of. Something along those lines. You know, someone thinks 'Yeah Saddam was a bad guy but now my house and so-and-so family member have been replaced by a crater. This is liberation?' type of thinking.

Not afraid to admit if some sort of scenario like that happened to me i'd really start reviewing whose side I was on...

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by tjinaz@Feb 27 2005, 11:15 PM
I don't agree on the numbers killed by coalition forces nears what Saddam did but have no facts from either side.# The differnce being that the coalition forces show regret for civilian deaths and Saddam made sure the deaths generated fear.

I never said they near what Saddam did. All things considered though, does it really matter? 100 000 is still alot of people in a few years.

Also, I realize the coalition forces are remorseful towards civilian deaths as does most of the rest of the Western World. You think that matters for certain people over there, the ones getting killed or seeing other civilians getting killed? That whatever they have lost during the war is simply collateral damage? You seem to be applying your logic on a very broad scope whereas i'm trying to break it down to a more case-by-case basis. 0.0001% of the Iraqi population wants to seek revenge on America for the reasons I have described and 2500 'terrorists' have just been created...

[badnarik]

is this 100,000 figure from the study released just prior to the u.s. election?

those numbers were based on a very small sample and were not even documented deaths. the iraq body count site shows about 16-18 thousand.

anyway i think poverty is probably a better recruiting tool for terrorism than revenge. clean that place up and give those people some jobs, and a terrorist won't be able to come in and find somebody to drive a car bomb around for 20 bucks.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Looger@Feb 28 2005, 02:38 AM


if WWII had been fought with premises like these...

we would have pre-emptively firebombed the germans while they were disorganized and poor in the 20s.

man would we be heroes then, eh?

Not as easy a question to answer as you make it out to be is it?

A pre-emptive strike on Germany, let's say 10 years before WWII?

How many lives might have been saved had Hitler's plans never come to fruition?

Just averting the hollocaust alone would be enough to justify it for me....and that's not even considering all of the people who died during that war in the European theatre.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Feb 28 2005, 03:05 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Feb 28 2005, 03:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Looger@Feb 28 2005, 02:38 AM


if WWII had been fought with premises like these...

we would have pre-emptively firebombed the germans while they were disorganized and poor in the 20s.

man would we be heroes then, eh?

Not as easy a question to answer as you make it out to be is it?

A pre-emptive strike on Germany, let's say 10 years before WWII?

How many lives might have been saved had Hitler's plans never come to fruition?

Just averting the hollocaust alone would be enough to justify it for me....and that's not even considering all of the people who died during that war in the European theatre. [/b][/quote]
if WWII had been fought with premises like these...

the Nazi's would have been declared the imminent threat to freedom and democracy and then El Salvador would have been invaded to quell this oncoming threat. Much like Iraq was invaded to deal a crushing blow to the imminent threat of terrorism and WMD's. But then, Bush didn't even get the 'imminent' part right.

Tough question indeed...

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Feb 28 2005, 04:59 AM
However, it might (is probably) a different story from their side. Remember, no one was strapping bombs to themselves and blowing themselves up in crowded streets before Iraq was invaded.

Not to be picky about this point, but do we really know this, Saddam was pretty good at supressing information, and there were some pretty active dissidents at work in Iraq.

Just thought I would bring this up, not that I'm entering the political debates on this board anymore.

It just wasn't fun to debate politics here anymore, I got tired of being basically called a Bush apologist and some other nasty things, so I walked away from it.

I came to the realization that its as unlikely that the opposite camps on this board were ever going to reach any kind of a middle ground.

Plus I found myself really losing my temper and having to bite my toungue so it wasn't fun from that aspect either.

[Looger]

CaptainCrunch,

i for one enjoy debating things with you, and am saddened by the possibility that you're turned off.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Meh, I can definitely agree with him. I can't really remember anyone changing their stance on anything as a result of a discussion here, or anywhere for that matter. Don't get me wrong I think it's fun to debate things but it sometimes it feels like it's not even worthwhile debating anything because nothing ever changes in the end...