I do have to wonder if this is a good thing or not.
It sets a dangerous precedence for a Democratically elected govt to be ousted by a very vocal minority.
It sets a great precedence for the region if you really think about it. The entire area needs to figure out that minority rights might just be the most important thing to become successful. This group in Egypt got it wrong and have paid a price.
It's a question of process vs. substance. Both sides can make good arguments, the process side would argue that steps towards democracy and freedom are unlikely to immediately result in the ideal situation, (eg: A democratically elected islamicist), but that so long as the process of democratization is followed, ultimately positive change is being effected.
The substance side would argue that what is important is that a genuinely positive government ends up in power. That a democratically elected theocrat is as bad as a totalitarian dictator, even if that theocrat was elected properly.
I think I would generally fall on the process side of the argument, but I happen to believe that theocrats are the worst kind of people on earth and find myself supporting a more substantive position on the Egypt question.
I hope the Muslim Brotherhood ends up completely marginalized as a result of these events in Egypt.
The Following User Says Thank You to driveway For This Useful Post:
It's a question of process vs. substance. Both sides can make good arguments, the process side would argue that steps towards democracy and freedom are unlikely to immediately result in the ideal situation, (eg: A democratically elected islamicist), but that so long as the process of democratization is followed, ultimately positive change is being effected.
The substance side would argue that what is important is that a genuinely positive government ends up in power. That a democratically elected theocrat is as bad as a totalitarian dictator, even if that theocrat was elected properly.
I think I would generally fall on the process side of the argument, but I happen to believe that theocrats are the worst kind of people on earth and find myself supporting a more substantive position on the Egypt question.
Nicely put.
Personally I have very little faith in the process argument. Democratic elections have brought into power everyone from Charles Taylor to Adolf Hitler.
On the other hand, England (UK) was and still is largely ruled by an elite class that is very hard to break into, yet generally speaking it's a well run country where the average citizen is doing okay. (Not that things couldn't be better, but...)
I think the question is ultimately flawed, because the answer isn't really significant.
It's not how someone came to power, but what powers that someone is given and how is the society structured. Freedom of speech, civil rights and a well structured government with proper checks and balances are what's important, and they need to be protected by law and in independent justice system.
Democracy is generally speaking a good way to work towards these things, but it's not the only way, nor does it automatically produce them. There are also situations where force is required.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
MB claiming peaceful protesters were cold-bloodily gunned down (doubtful). Army claims 'terrorists' stormed their barracks (equally doubtful). Most credible report I've seen, it was sticks and bottles vs tear gas and rubber bullets, when a group of men in plain clothes open fire on the mass of pro-Morsi protesters, and carnage ensued.
MB has a militia, and plenty of weapons (from Gaza and Libya). Their rhetoric over the weekend indicated they were ready to use em. Now, after such a massacre of their people, we'll see.
The Nour party is a more hardline Islamist political party, significant in that the army included them in the interim government. Nour is considered more hardline than the MB; because such a significant number of Egyptians favor some degree of Islamist government, the army was not willing to ignore that segment of the politic. When El Baradei was named prime minister on Saturday, the Nour party rejected him as too liberal, and the army complied with their demand he not be appointed.
In reaction to this massacre, the Nour party said they were done, and ended their cooperation with the interim govt. Could just be their initial reaction, and they may change their minds. Or, battle lines being drawn…
...to be continued.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
Bright boy. I know his adult peers probably have something to do with it but I was impressed.
See 10 posts up. He sounds like an intelligent kid, it's too bad much of his generation growing up in increasing tensions, hostility, and with an economic downturn and instability might not grow up with the same enlightenment attitude.
The Muslim Brotherhood doesn't care about protestor lives, they want as many people killed as possible so they'll double down on their bet and up the intensity of the protests.
If the death rate keeps going up the world pressure will fall on the government in place.
We are rapidly moving towards a completely destabilized Mid East region with probably a dozen civil wars happening at once.
It really is time for the States and the other Western countries to completely withdraw, stop buying natural resources from that region and let it settle itself out.
We all know that its only a matter of time before China and Russia become the only major players in those regions anyways.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
While I agree it would be better to just let them sort out their own mess, the West will never step out while Israel exists.
With little to no influence in the middle east, the only prudent thing would be to find a way to stop buying oil from the Arab States, help Israel with its defense needs, and stay the hell out at this point.
The middle east is just going to be a quagmire for Western Nations.
I would even be up for the American's removing their bases from Saudi Arabia.
Let the Chinese and the Russian's role up in there and see how those nations like how diplomacy is handled then.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Closing the Saudi bases was a big mantra of Bin Laden, but it won't make a difference in terms of terrorism because Al Qaeda has roots in Qutbism anyway.
The Russians and the Chinese seem to care a lot less about international opinion, so the middle east being solely their sphere of influence might be interesting. Terrorist may find out that they prefer "Western Decadence" after all.
From a purely morbid standpoint, it would interesting to see how long Israel would fight a conventional war before it started turning its neighbours into glass.
Closing the Saudi bases was a big mantra of Bin Laden, but it won't make a difference in terms of terrorism because Al Qaeda has roots in Qutbism anyway.
The Russians and the Chinese seem to care a lot less about international opinion, so the middle east being solely their sphere of influence might be interesting. Terrorist may find out that they prefer "Western Decadence" after all.
From a purely morbid standpoint, it would interesting to see how long Israel would fight a conventional war before it started turning its neighbours into glass.
Nope it won't make a difference in Terrorism, I would think that it would get worse, if the U.S. pulled out their money, those regions economies would probably crash making it easy to recruit the disenfranchised.
I remember reading a story about the 70's Soviet Union when one of the terror groups there grabbed a Soviet Diplomat and threatened to kill him. The KGB then snatched up the family of one of the leaders of that terror group and started mailing body parts. They got their diplomat back and a heartfelt apology. The Chinese would even be more ruthless in the region.
I have my doubts that Israel would go nuclear unless there was a massive attack on their country. I think they came close during one of the wars when the Arab armies threatened to over run.
Unless there was a nuclear or chemical attack on say Tel Aviv they would keep things conventional.
If the States were to theoretically leave the middle east they would continue to sell Israel advanced weapons.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Nope it won't make a difference in Terrorism, I would think that it would get worse, if the U.S. pulled out their money, those regions economies would probably crash making it easy to recruit the disenfranchised.
I remember reading a story about the 70's Soviet Union when one of the terror groups there grabbed a Soviet Diplomat and threatened to kill him. The KGB then snatched up the family of one of the leaders of that terror group and started mailing body parts. They got their diplomat back and a heartfelt apology. The Chinese would even be more ruthless in the region.
I have my doubts that Israel would go nuclear unless there was a massive attack on their country. I think they came close during one of the wars when the Arab armies threatened to over run.
Unless there was a nuclear or chemical attack on say Tel Aviv they would keep things conventional.
If the States were to theoretically leave the middle east they would continue to sell Israel advanced weapons.
The current state of modern warfare is air superiority and drones. Israel leads the world in drone technology. Israel plays a heavy role in designing the electronic and computer components of the USA's fighters. Israel also supplies the USA with most of their drone technology.
The idea that the USA is simply supplying Israel with technology, money, and weapons is false. It truly is a two way relationship. The USA will continue to cooperate militarily with Israel, because if they don't Israel will supply Russia and China with drone technology. So far the USA, has been blocking several deals between Israel and China:
You might not agree with drone strikes, but from the perspective of the USA, they are saving the lives of thousands of American soldiers.
Also, I don't see Israel going nuclear unless attacked first with some major WMD. Israel's air superiority in the region is total. They are at no risk of being run over, as they were in 1973.
The current state of modern warfare is air superiority and drones. Israel leads the world in drone technology. Israel plays a heavy role in designing the electronic and computer components of the USA's fighters. Israel also supplies the USA with most of their drone technology.
The idea that the USA is simply supplying Israel with technology, money, and weapons is false. It truly is a two way relationship. The USA will continue to cooperate militarily with Israel, because if they don't Israel will supply Russia and China with drone technology. So far the USA, has been blocking several deals between Israel and China:
You might not agree with drone strikes, but from the perspective of the USA, they are saving the lives of thousands of American soldiers.
Also, I don't see Israel going nuclear unless attacked first with some major WMD. Israel's air superiority in the region is total. They are at no risk of being run over, as they were in 1973.
I don't disagree with you, Israel has exception weapons research and production. They make one of the best tanks in the world. They do amazing things in terms of jets and drones. But a lot of American military technology frames make up the back bone of the Israeli military as well as munitions supplies.
The biggest issue with Israel's survival is that their country can't fight a defensive war because of their size, their strategy is to force the conflict back onto enemy territory. Its a complex situation but explains why Israel's military is offensively driven.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I'd also wonder at the effectiveness of the fully mobilized Israeli army now compared to the 60's and 70's. Different generations and a longer time gap since the end of WW2 so the memories aren't as fresh.
The regular army still sees semi regular action, but kids suck today, I know that I'd be a terrible soldier.
I don't disagree with you, Israel has exception weapons research and production. They make one of the best tanks in the world. They do amazing things in terms of jets and drones. But a lot of American military technology frames make up the back bone of the Israeli military as well as munitions supplies.
The biggest issue with Israel's survival is that their country can't fight a defensive war because of their size, their strategy is to force the conflict back onto enemy territory. Its a complex situation but explains why Israel's military is offensively driven.
I just don't see a war happening on Israeli soil. Israel's separation barrier is largely based on topography. It gives them the high ground. A combination of high ground and total air superiority is going to be very difficult to breach.
In previous wars, the Israelis were outnumbered in the air by Russian jets and tanks sold to the arab forces. They had to rely on tactics to succeed. Currently, countries like Syria, Egypt, etc... are largely armed with 1970s era Soviet weapons in various states of disrepair. Egypt has been given older American F-16 fighters, but those are no match for the modern Israeli ones.
The best effort, the surrounding armies would be able to make, would be to volly missiles at Israel. Israel's modern bombs could take care of that pretty quickly with a few rounds of carpet bombing. In the last war with Hezbollah, Israel was restraining themselves, you wouldn't expect similar restraint in the event of a true threat to Israel's existence.
All that being said, the arab armies seem to be occupied with eachother at the moment. The #####e/Sunni conflict is heating up again in a major way. That's the driving force between current conflict in the region. Saudi Arabia and Iran have both been arming and training Jihadists for decades. Those oppossing forces are now clashing. They also fight guerilla warfare. To get Israel involved, you're going to need big guns. Israel is likely to continue their disengagement from the West Bank and push a very islationist policy in the region. They'll continue to make pinpoint strikes on major threats, but keep out of things as best they can.
