DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Henny on December 01, 2011, 04:11:31 AM
-
Election results may be announced today in Egypt. As to what I'm reading, it would be really scary if the Noor Salafists win - Egypt would become the new Saudi Arabia.
Again, as to what we all talked about earlier this year, the Muslim Brotherhood are Boy Scouts compared to some of these other groups.
Egypt awaits election results
Cairo (CNN) -- Initial results of Egypt's first parliamentary elections since the fall of President Hosni Mubarak are due as early as Thursday.
Both the Muslim Brotherhood and the Al Noor Salafi Muslim Party have claimed a lead in ballot counting, but election officials have been tight-lipped.
Voting took place Monday and Tuesday, the first in a multi-step process to pick members of the lower house of parliament.
The lawmakers will then be tasked with drafting a new constitution.
It was the first time some Egyptians -- young and old -- ever cast ballots after three decades of Mubarak's rule.
Some voters and human rights activists expressed hope that their votes will actually count, though some boycotted the elections saying they don't trust the voting will be free and fair.
There were reports of some illegal campaigning taking place, with the Egyptian Association of Human Rights alleging some cases of vote-buying in the city of Alexandria.
Elections for Egypt's lower house of parliament are scheduled to take place in three stages, based on geography. The last of the three stages is set to take place in January.
Upper house elections will run between January and March.
Presidential elections will be held by June, according to the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, Egypt's acting ruling body. Military leaders have said they will hand over power to a new government when one is elected, but many Egyptians say they don't trust the council and fear the military will cling to power.
During the past two weeks, at least 42 people have been killed in clashes, as protesters called for an immediate end to military rule. An additional 3,250 have been wounded, according to the Health Ministry.
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/01/world/meast/egypt-elections/?hpt=hp_t1 (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/01/world/meast/egypt-elections/?hpt=hp_t1)
-
"it would be really scary if the Noor Salafists win"
What might that mean for Israel? And would it effect the changing dynamic in Syria?
-
Looks as if the Muslim conservatives are doing well enough to controll the government. If they form a coalition of simular minded partys the majority will be strong.
I think we should celebrate and congradulate the Egyptians, the people speak and are heard , if what they want is a pious Islamic government then they should have it.
What they have to keep is the democracy, the new government should do as it pleases bearing in mind that in afew years the people shall speak again. If this new government drags the country into a bad direction , it is within the power of the people to peacefully depose it. The wisdom of the people can be trusted , if not so then Americans have no creed . We are obliged to accept the will of the Egyptian people.
This doesn't mean that the USA will get along with the new Egyptian government , I think it likely we won't. Neither the government nor the people have much history of getting along well with the extremely conservative forigners , Muslim or not.
If we don't get along well we might not ought continue the gifts we have been giving to Egypt, but this should depend more on the actions of the new government than on the action of democracy itself, I don't think we should ever say that aid money should depend on who is elected , that would seem like overweening influence. After the election we should negotiate any new deal with the new government as we find it.
-
"it would be really scary if the Noor Salafists win"
What might that mean for Israel? And would it effect the changing dynamic in Syria?
BSB, I don't think it would impact anything in Syria.
As for Israel - and not meaning any offense to you, of course - I don't know and I guess I don't care how it affects them. ???
-
There is really very little definitive information in the media here about the various Egyptian political parties.
There is a language barrier, but also a cultural barrier. Most of the time, Muslim politicians are seen only as pro-American, pro-Israel, or anti-Anti Israel, and I am pretty sure that the US and Israel are not the major and crucial issues to most Egyptians. It seems to me that they want a return of tourism, jobs, and a government that is more responsive to the problems of the average Egyptian.
There are some Americans to whom Israel is a single issue, but very few who would see Egypt in the same way. The first things many Americans think about in terms of Egypt are Steve Martin doing his King Tut routine, Cleopatra, and Charleton Heston leading the Hebrews out of Egypt. None of these have anything to do with Egypt today.
What do the Noor Salafists stand for?
I see that they are for Sharia law. That seems pretty unrealistic in a country so heavily dependent on non-Muslim tourism.
-
Well, it's no offense to me Henny. I'm Jewish nor am I particularly pro Israel. The problem is when Israel gets in trouble they want something from us, meaning America. So, while I'm not Jewish or particularly pro Israel, I am an American, who lives here, votes here, pays taxes here, and is concerned about the future of this country. And, no offense to you of course, Henny, but I could care less about how conservative that part of the world gets except how it effects us. If they want to live in the dark ages, they can be my guest. If they don't have the guts to stand up to thugs, that's their problem. If they don't know by now that women are the equal to men, they can rot in hell for all I care.
Montain climbers say all concern for others gets thrown out the window above 20,000 feet. It's every man and women for themselves. The world is rapidly getting above 20,000 feet.
BSB
-
What do the Noor Salafists stand for?
I see that they are for Sharia law. That seems pretty unrealistic in a country so heavily dependent on non-Muslim tourism.
To be clear, all Muslims are for Sharia law. Even Jordan, famous for tourism, has Sharia law. The difference is the strictness of interpretation.
Salafist - Salafi. The strictest and most fundamental in Islam. Saudi Arabia is Salafist. You are right, not very realistic for Egypt - they don't have Saudi's money to get away with something like that... but who said that average citizen is realistic? In a country of 80 Million, there are more simple, poor people who have had nothing but their religion to embrace all of these years of suffering than educated academics.
-
Well, it's no offense to me Henny. I'm Jewish nor am I particularly pro Israel. The problem is when Israel gets in trouble they want something from us, meaning America. So, while I'm not Jewish or particularly pro Israel, I am an American, who lives here, votes here, pays taxes here, and is concerned about the future of this country. And, no offense to you of course, Henny, but I could care less about how conservative that part of the world gets except how it effects us. If they want to live in the dark ages, they can be my guest. If they don't have the guts to stand up to thugs, that's their problem. If they don't know by now that women are the equal to men, they can rot in hell for all I care.
Montain climbers say all concern for others gets thrown out the window above 20,000 feet. It's every man and women for themselves. The world is rapidly getting above 20,000 feet.
BSB
You are right, but you are not only affected via Israel. I sincerely don't know what will impact Israel. I could give you a good guess if it were the Muslim Brotherhood but with the Salafists it's anyone's guess.
Other ways you could be affected: increasing extremism in the Muslim world = more trouble for the entire west. America could get a huge chunk of money back by no longer supporting Egypt - that's huge. Here's another one - they could be extreme like bin Laden extreme and destroy they Egyptian artifacts declaring them pagan - like the giant Buddha carvings that were destroyed. There are so many ways to be affected without considering Israel.
-
Henny, if they're going to continue playing with fire, and mixing religion with politics, and the law, is playing with fire, there isn't a damn thing we in the west can do about it. And all you have to do is read this forum to realize we have enough problems with our own fanatics right here in America. Dumbshititis has become epidemic. People are thinking Newt Gingrich would make a good president. The folks in Washington have reached an historic impasse. Western economies are on the brink.
How's your life going BTW? It's good to see you posting.
BSB
-
Mixing Religion with tolerance and Christianity and politics gets you 1776.
I note that the changes in America were actually very slow and evolutionary in nature.
In Egypt it is hard to tell what is presently happening , the results will be easyer to understand when they are decades old and most of the unimportant distractions are forgotten.
-
"Mixing Religion with tolerance and Christianity and politics gets you 1776."
Two hundred and thirty five years into our experiment and many Americans are still where the Muslims are in this regard. People apparently need to lump things together, it's easier for them, perhaps, that way. They have their lives to live, families to support, children to bring up, marriages to to uphold, love to comprehend, anger to deal with, old age to face, and the ever present Grim Reaper breathing down their neck. They need a sustaining philosophy, an overriding concept, to get them through. Of course it's going to spill over into politics and the law. How could it not? The problem, though, with world views, is that they're dangerous, and divisive. They pit themselves against each other. They compete for power outside of our minds in order to gain space within them. Their life's blood is control. To hold a world view, is to relinquish your freedom to it.
Do we know what we are? Do we know where we came from? Do we know where we're going? Isn't that the wonder of it? Isn't that our connection? Wouldn't you rather lived a connected life rather than a life fractured by competing world views?
BSB
-
Mixing Religion with tolerance and Christianity and politics gets you 1776.
=======================================================
Whatever disputes the American revolutionaries had with the British crown, it was not religious in nature, other than not believing that God sent George III to rule the Empire.
Egypt would be very foolish to destroy ancient artifacts in the name of Islam. Egyptians are mostly the descendents of the ancients, and not Arabs at all.
Tourism depends on the temples, pyramids, and other trappings of the ancients.
-
Mixing Religion with tolerance and Christianity and politics gets you 1776.
=======================================================
... other than not believing that God sent George III to rule the Empire.
What more would be needed?
But you are wrong , there was a lot of Religious meddleing by the government , one of my own ancestors was locked up for preaching as a Babtist.
-
Henny, if they're going to continue playing with fire, and mixing religion with politics, and the law, is playing with fire, there isn't a damn thing we in the west can do about it. And all you have to do is read this forum to realize we have enough problems with our own fanatics right here in America. Dumbshititis has become epidemic. People are thinking Newt Gingrich would make a good president. The folks in Washington have reached an historic impasse. Western economies are on the brink.
How's your life going BTW? It's good to see you posting.
BSB
Hey, BSB - things are good, thanks for asking. My kid is growing like a week and I have a dream career that has me running from country to country which is a dream.
The thing is I don't watch American politics anymore. It doesn't make any sense at all to me - and it seems pretty whiny compared to some of the suffering going on elsewhere in the world. But what I looked up and glimpsed, I would say that the U.S. - and in fact the entire rest of the world - is in the middle of major revolution that will be named in future history books.
-
Henny, if they're going to continue playing with fire, and mixing religion with politics, and the law, is playing with fire, there isn't a damn thing we in the west can do about it. And all you have to do is read this forum to realize we have enough problems with our own fanatics right here in America. Dumbshititis has become epidemic. People are thinking Newt Gingrich would make a good president. The folks in Washington have reached an historic impasse. Western economies are on the brink.
How's your life going BTW? It's good to see you posting.
BSB
Hey, BSB - things are good, thanks for asking. My kid is growing like a weed and I have a dream career that has me running from country to country which is a wonderful. How are you?
The thing is I don't watch American politics anymore. It doesn't make any sense at all to me - and it seems pretty whiny compared to some of the suffering going on elsewhere in the world. But what I looked up and glimpsed, I would say that the U.S. - and in fact the entire rest of the world - is in the middle of major revolution that will be named in future history books.
-
Henny
There is no revolution here.
It got cold outside.
Perhaps in the spring.
-
>>and it seems pretty whiny compared to some of the suffering going on elsewhere in the world.<<
I see. Maybe we can upgrade our suffering here for ya. I'll look into it.
BSB
-
I would say that the U.S. - and in fact the entire rest of the world - is in the middle of major revolution that will be named in future history books.
================================================
This country does not have revolutions. As a rule, change comes before things blow up. The closest we have come to a revolution was among the Blacks in parts of the country struggling against the Jim Crow establishment and other discrimination and among the young people trying to end the Vietnam War. There was a sort of revolt on the Sioux Reservations in SD. But the entire country in upheaval as Egypt did for a while and as Syria is doing now, has not happened.
That is not to say it is impossible, simply improbable.
-
I was in the service during much of the second half of the sixties when a lot of this stuff went on. Thinking back though, the riots in Detroit are the worst in my memory. If I remember correctly the 101st Airborne, or maybe the 82nd, was set up on the outskirts of the city, and they may have even gone in. Further, I think there were armored personal carries using their 50s on the streets of Detroit at one point.
A friend of mine was living near Watts when it blew in '65. He said white people, of which he was one, were breaking into gun shops to get a weapon to protect themselves.
BSB
-
It got CLOSE to a revolution in the '60's in a few places, but it was not a revolution. It scared a lot of people so much they voted in Tricky Dicky, who claimed to have a very secret Plan for 'Peace with Honor'.
It was so secret that 38 years later, no one is sure what it was. Could Cain's 'Plan B' be more successful? At least we know what it is: to drop out and run a pretend campaign on the cheap.
-
Nixon won on Law and Order. The silent majority who weren't real happy with the Northern riots and the anti war demonstratrations which many felt were supported (rightly so, according to post Soviet document dumps) by the Soviets.
No one expected an immediate solution to Viet Nam.
-
I was there. EVERYONE I know expected Vietnam to be over within a couple of years. All they had to do was pack up and get the Hell out.
They would have been better off if that was what they did, too.
-
So was I. None of us expected the war to be over at least for a couple of years.
-
within two years, at least two years. it lasted for FIVE MORE YEARS.
Nixon lied.
-
If saying he lied helps you sleep at night go ahead and say it.
Just know that that statement is not true.
-
>>and it seems pretty whiny compared to some of the suffering going on elsewhere in the world.<<
I see. Maybe we can upgrade our suffering here for ya. I'll look into it.
BSB
::) Not the point. All I'm saying is U.S. politics no longer make sense to me.
-
Henny, "U.S. politics no longer make sense to me."
Well it's just the usual stuff you know. I can't find a good brownie. The Whole Foods market moved so I have to drive 200 yards further down the road to get my Argentinian raspberries and organic blueberries. They didn't have the cut of grass feed beef I like last week so I had to settle for some organicly feed American Bison. And to top it off the gas station across the street from the market no longer has a touch free car wash. And of course there's always Israel. But we try to take these hardships in stride and not whine too much. Hopefully Newt or Romney can help us by stimulating the economy enough to ease these difficult burdens.
BSB
-
Just know that that statement is not true.
================================
Nixon said he had a plan to end the war. He didn't have any plan. Or at least, he didn't use it, or it was so secret that no one realized that there was a plan in place. Or it was an invisible plan, and it didnlt work.
Saying Nixon didn't lie is like saying Smuckers does not know about jelly.
-
And yet peace was achieved under his watch. Because it took longer than expected (by you) does not mean he lied. It means your expectations were not based on real knowledge of what was going on.
-
Nixon was out by the time Vietnam was over ford was in by then.
i expected bullshit from Nixon, and that is what we got.
he was always a despicable human being. as Vonnegut said, 'the founding fathers never expected that the people would elect anyone who so thoroughly despised them.'
-
Nixon was in office when the Paris Peace treaty was signed. Nice try.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peace_Accords (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peace_Accords)
-
the war ended when ford was in office.
it was peace with anything but honor. had Nixon decided to withdraw the day he took office, it would not have been worse, and several thousand American troops would still be alive, not to mention how many Vietnamese.
-
South Viet Nam was lost when Ford was in office because the dems in the congress did not honor our commitments to the South Vietnamese.
The peace accords were signed in 73. Nixon was in office until August of 74.
Beginning on 27 January 1973 at midnight, Greenwich Mean Time — in Saigon time, 08:00 on 28 January — there would be an in-place ceasefire. North and South Vietnamese forces were to hold their locations. They were permitted to resupply military materials to the extent necessary to replace items consumed in the course of the truce.
As soon as the ceasefire is in effect, U.S. troops (along with other foreign soldiers) would begin to withdraw, with withdrawal to be complete within sixty days. Simultaneously, U.S. prisoners of war would be released and allowed to return home. The parties to the agreement agreed to assist in repatriating the remains of the dead.
There would be negotiations between the two South Vietnamese parties — Saigon and the Vietcong — towards a political settlement that would allow the South Vietnamese people to "decide themselves the political future of South Viet-Nam through genuinely free and democratic general elections under international supervision."
Reunification of Vietnam was to be "carried out step by step through peaceful means."
-
the war was lost long before that. the democrats simply realized that there was no point in continuing to throw money at the corrupt south Vietnamese government. the war was a huge mistake from the very beginning.
-
Which means that Ford didn't lose the war and the peace accords came under Nixon. So Nixon did have a plan and he delivered it, just as he said he would. Thus in this case he did not lie.
-
So Nixons secret plan was to hire Henry Kissenger, bomb and mine North Vietnam into misery ?
-
Nixon's plan was to build up the South Vietnamese forces so they wouldn't need US forces to protect the south. Kissinger was the negotiator that hammered out the accords with the North. Peace with honor.
-
yeah, peace with honor, that's what it was.
Nixon never revealed his 'plan' because either what he had in mind would not work or his plan never existed.
what happened was an utter rout. they could have done that in 1969.
-
Perhaps they could have surrendered in 69, but that wasn't the plan.
Because you disagreed with his plan does not mean, he did not have a plan, nor that he lied about having a plan.
-
Nixon never revealed his 'plan' because either what he had in mind would not work or his plan never existed.
"In the 1968 Presidential campaign, Richard Nixon stated that 'new leadership will end the war' in Vietnam. He never used the phrase 'secret plan', which originated with a reporter looking for a lead to a story summarizing the Republican candidate's (hazy) promise to end the war without losing. When pressed for details, Nixon retreated to the position that to tip his hand would interfere with the negotiations that had begun in Paris. Nixon never disavowed the term. In his own memoirs, Nixon stated he never claimed to have such a plan. Nevertheless, Nixon's critics have continued to accuse him of campaigning on a 'secret plan' to end the war."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_promise#Case_study:_Richard_Nixon.27s_Election_promises (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_promise#Case_study:_Richard_Nixon.27s_Election_promises)
And I guess they still do...
-
It's exceedingly naive to think that we could have just walked away from Vietnam in 1969, for a plethora reasons. If you really want to understand that war read something about it instead of just going by a heavily colored memory of 1960s and early 70s.
XO, you sound like CU4 trying to grasp the first several years of the war in Iraq. You're not as lost as in the woods as he is, no one could be, but you're heading in that direction.
BSB
-
On this site ( http://faculty.smu.edu/dsimon/Change-Viet4.html (http://faculty.smu.edu/dsimon/Change-Viet4.html) ) there are two graphs. One showing U.S. troop levels in Vietnam, and the second showing U.S. killed in action. During Nixon's first term the U.S. troop level drops from aprox 500,000 to under 30,000. The average monthly U.S. KIA rate drops from approaching 800 to just over 20. If that isn't ending U.S. involvement, what is?
As for ending the war itself, we weren't fighting ourslves over there, there were other belligerents involved.
BSB
-
How does Egypt relate so well with Vietnam?
Did President Obama have a plan that went this way?
-
I don't see much relation between Egypt now and Vietnam at all. We have no troops in Egypt nor do we have any agreement to defend Egypt from anything.
-
We have a treaty with Egypt that includes us paying the equivelent of their defense costs.
Is this leverage for us or for them?
-
What do you mean by leverage?
We basically are bribing Egypt not to get bellicose with Israel. I suppose that we are giving them military aid because basically i8t is a subsidy to US weapons makers. We give them our older weapons, or newer ones with lower technology, and our weapons sellers get paid. Egypt has no real enemies. It is not like they are going to be attacked by Chad, Libya or Sudan. And Egypt is one of very few countries that could be nearly totally devastated by just one bomb at the Aswan Dam.