The Legacy of Hosni Mubarak and US Billions?

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
For all of his flaws, Mubarak was a pragmatist who opposed extremism and has maintained a peace treaty with Israel for the last 30 years.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
So do you want democracy or do you not want democracy? I only ask because if the answer is "no", we have wasted an awful lot of blood and treasure to put forth the "Bush Doctrine".
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
Before Egyptians had the chance to properly celebrate their tremendous victory and wake up to the first morning of a new Egypt, they were met with predictable concerns that Egypt is on the brink of an Islamist takeover. Western (particularly American) policymakers and pundits remain worried that Egypt’s largest Islamist organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, will hijack the inspirational revolution that brought an end to Hosni Mubarak’s 30-year tyranny, and will lead Egypt down the path of Iran-style theocracy.

By now, careful observers will know that these fears are unfounded on multiple levels. The protests were not led by the Muslim Brotherhood, which only joined them after they had been going on for days. The Brotherhood itself is not the bloodthirsty threat to liberty its enemies would have us believe. And the process of engaging in collective action may actually have deepened some of the internal fissures within the party’s leadership, making it unlikely to “dominate” Egypt’s future in any single, clear direction.

From Christian Science Monitor: Why Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood Isn't The Islamic Bogeyman
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
The Arabs are seeing their second wave of revolt against colonialism. The first wave of revolt started between the First World War and at the end of the Second World War. It involved the Great Arab Revolt, with British and French support, against Ottoman Turkey during the First World War and then Arab revolt against Britain, France, and Italy during and after the Second World War. [3]

During the formal period of colonialism, the authority of the colonial powers (Britain, France, and Italy) were politically visible. Today, the Arab World is under the "invisible authority" of the neo-colonial powers. These include the U.S., Britain, and France.

The modern-day neo-colonial powers maintain control over Arab countries through the supervision of their economies and the control of their political leaders, who serve neo-colonial interests as vassals. Thus, 2011 is not only the start of the second wave of Arab revolt against foreign rule via imposed dictators and corrupt regimes, but it is also part of a broader struggle against neo-colonialism.

Starting with Tunisia, revolts and protests have broken out across the Arab World. Algeria, Yemen, Jordan, the Israeli-occupied Palestinian Territories, Mauritania, Sudan, and Egypt have all been electrified with activism. Added to this is the political tension in Lebanon, continued instability in Iraq under American-led foreign military occupation, building tensions in Bahrain, and the balkanization of Sudan.

At first glance the Arab World seems to be in turmoil, but there is much more than meets the eye.

The Struggle for Self-Determination in the Arab World
 

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
Imagine how different things would be if the USA was not dependent upon Middle Eastern oil.

If we were energy-independent, it would be of little or no concern to us what happened over there. But instead, we drive around in our gas-hog SUV's and get indignant about the fact that "those people" had the audacity to build their countries on top of "our" oil.
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
Imagine how different things would be if the USA was not dependent upon Middle Eastern oil.

If we were energy-independent, it would be of little or no concern to us what happened over there. But instead, we drive around in our gas-hog SUV's and get indignant about the fact that "those people" had the audacity to build their countries on top of "our" oil.

Reminds me of 150 years ago where we held a similar attitude of "how dare those people live on the land where we want to put our railroad!"

On a different note, good to see the NY Times giving Gene Sharpe some credit relating specifically as to what is going on right now in Egypt. Especially in that first week when the protests were student led, it explains a lot of why it was so non-violent. But then this also creates a conundrum that runs headlong into "they hate us for our freedoms" myth.
 

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
One of the things I find incredibly ironic is the double standard we are applying towards human rights in other nations.

Back in the 1980's it was a popular liberal cause to boycott goods from South Africa because of that nations policy of aparthied. Blacks in that country were second-class citizens with no civil rights, and the world was (justifiably) outraged.

Fast-forward to 2011. Today there is a nation that arbitrarily denies civil rights to half of its population. These people are denied the right to vote, the right to work, and the right to drive a car. They cannot allow their faces to be seen in public, and they are considered to be the "property" of their owners. They can be beaten, stoned, or even put to death for actions which are not even crimes anywhere else.

That nation is Saudi Arabia, and those people are women.

I wonder why it is that during the 1980's there was no shortage of well-meaning people who spoke out in protest over the racial aparthied policies of South Africa, yet those same people are silent today when it comes to the gender aparthied policies of Saudi Arabia.

My best guess is that its pretty easy to "boycott" a nation that doesnt have anything you really need anyway. Its a little more complicated to "boycott" a nation that produces a third of the oil that we import. Apparently, our need to drive gas hogs outweighs our sense of outrage over the fact that half of the human beings in Saudi Arabia have the legal status of cattle.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
Now you can't bring up Saudi Arabia without bringing up th 9/11 terrorists. If ever a country deserved to be invaded for terrorism I would have thought that would do it. Talk about double standards.
 

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
Now you can't bring up Saudi Arabia without bringing up th 9/11 terrorists. If ever a country deserved to be invaded for terrorism I would have thought that would do it. Talk about double standards.

To be fair, Bin Laden was a wanted criminal in Saudi Arabia and Al-Queda has committed terrorist act there also. He has repeatedly called for the overthrow of the monarchy. It would be factually incorrect to state that the current leadership of Saudi Arabia was involved in 9-11.

At some point we as a nation are going to have to ask ourselves why these people are committing acts of terrorism against us. The problem with a purely military response is that we are making enemies faster than we can kill them. And until we can wean ourselves off of our addiction to their oil, they will continue to have us by the short hairs.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
To be fair, Bin Laden was a wanted criminal in Saudi Arabia and Al-Queda has committed terrorist act there also. He has repeatedly called for the overthrow of the monarchy. It would be factually incorrect to state that the current leadership of Saudi Arabia was involved in 9-11.

At some point we as a nation are going to have to ask ourselves why these people are committing acts of terrorism against us. The problem with a purely military response is that we are making enemies faster than we can kill them. And until we can wean ourselves off of our addiction to their oil, they will continue to have us by the short hairs.
No more factually incorrect than to say Sadam Hussein was involved. I'm not saying any war was necessary, prudent, or wise (in fact I have never considered anything close to it). Simply that there was a double standard involved in selecting despots to topple.
 
Top