|
egypt
Jan 29, 2011 12:43:53 GMT
Post by MightyKhan on Jan 29, 2011 12:43:53 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
egypt
Jan 29, 2011 17:44:30 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2011 17:44:30 GMT
Thank you so much for this. It goes without saying what part "we" westerners play in the oppression of these people. I am not sure how in good conscience we can continue to enjoy the pleasures of our own lives at such a cost to others.
The world needs to change. Maybe it starts in egypt.
|
|
|
egypt
Jan 30, 2011 5:40:51 GMT
Post by wollstonecraft on Jan 30, 2011 5:40:51 GMT
Thank you so much for this. It goes without saying what part "we" westerners play in the oppression of these people. I am not sure how in good conscience we can continue to enjoy the pleasures of our own lives at such a cost to others. The world needs to change. Maybe it starts in egypt. Actually, it doesn't go without saying. According to the information that I have, the recent protests grew from a history of human rights abuses, religious persecutions and low wages, not from Western oppression. -WSCraft
|
|
|
egypt
Jan 30, 2011 22:45:43 GMT
Post by uncanny on Jan 30, 2011 22:45:43 GMT
Thank you so much for this. It goes without saying what part "we" westerners play in the oppression of these people. I am not sure how in good conscience we can continue to enjoy the pleasures of our own lives at such a cost to others. The world needs to change. Maybe it starts in egypt. Actually, it doesn't go without saying. According to the information that I have, the recent protests grew from a history of human rights abuses, religious persecutions and low wages, not from Western oppression. -WSCraft Someone's in Da Nile...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
egypt
Jan 31, 2011 3:47:00 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2011 3:47:00 GMT
Thank you so much for this. It goes without saying what part "we" westerners play in the oppression of these people. I am not sure how in good conscience we can continue to enjoy the pleasures of our own lives at such a cost to others. The world needs to change. Maybe it starts in egypt. Actually, it doesn't go without saying. According to the information that I have, the recent protests grew from a history of human rights abuses, religious persecutions and low wages, not from Western oppression. -WSCraft We do not oppress them, we merely facilitate their oppression. More later.
|
|
|
egypt
Jan 31, 2011 5:29:23 GMT
Post by wollstonecraft on Jan 31, 2011 5:29:23 GMT
Actually, it doesn't go without saying. According to the information that I have, the recent protests grew from a history of human rights abuses, religious persecutions and low wages, not from Western oppression. -WSCraft Someone's in Da Nile... Care to elaborate? I'm only denying having any knowledge on the topic. If you know something, please illuminate me. -WSCraft
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
egypt
Jan 31, 2011 6:33:30 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2011 6:33:30 GMT
Thank you so much for this. It goes without saying what part "we" westerners play in the oppression of these people. I am not sure how in good conscience we can continue to enjoy the pleasures of our own lives at such a cost to others. The world needs to change. Maybe it starts in egypt. Actually, it doesn't go without saying. According to the information that I have, the recent protests grew from a history of human rights abuses, religious persecutions and low wages, not from Western oppression. -WSCraft It is in the better interests of western governments and corporations that some regimes be in power than others. Such powers take steps to ensure the emplacement and survival of regimes that are often oppressive. Citizens of western nations can make a difference through choices as consumers and voters.
|
|
|
egypt
Jan 31, 2011 18:38:57 GMT
Post by uncanny on Jan 31, 2011 18:38:57 GMT
Actually, it doesn't go without saying. According to the information that I have, the recent protests grew from a history of human rights abuses, religious persecutions and low wages, not from Western oppression. -WSCraft It is in the better interests of western governments and corporations that some regimes be in power than others. Such powers take steps to ensure the emplacement and survival of regimes that are often oppressive. Citizens of western nations can make a difference through choices as consumers and voters. yup... exactly. @ws.. while I agree it was a little rude, its hardly news that the western governments and corporations facilitates - and creates - oppressive governments when theres a profit to be made. Cuba, Botswana, Zimbabwe - are all examples of the same.
|
|
|
egypt
Feb 1, 2011 0:38:41 GMT
Post by tomaan on Feb 1, 2011 0:38:41 GMT
It is in the better interests of western governments and corporations that some regimes be in power than others. Such powers take steps to ensure the emplacement and survival of regimes that are often oppressive. Citizens of western nations can make a difference through choices as consumers and voters. yup... exactly. @ws.. while I agree it was a little rude, its hardly news that the western governments and corporations facilitates - and creates - oppressive governments when theres a profit to be made. Cuba, Botswana, Zimbabwe - are all examples of the same. That was certainly true during the colonial period in India, Africa, Australia and North America, but that's not necessarily the case in here Egypt or the Middle East in general. Mubarak, for example, was an accomplished Air Force Officer and VP to Sadat. He came to power as a result of an assassin's bullet and not because of any Western plot (not gonna debate the assassination...different topic altogether). In terms of the rest of the Middle East, the US traditionally favored stability to ideology (can't speak for Europe). There was certainly an economic element to this - it's easier to business with somebody you know than it is with somebody you don't know. There was also a realist element to it - many of these groups were already in power when the West got there so that's who the West dealt with....toppling said regimes and replacing them with ones more in line with Western political ideology simply wasn't an option (yet). During the Cold War, the spectre of communism led the US to actively involve themselves in Middle East politics - most notably in helping the Shah of Iran defeat the communists and rise to power. (I don't discount the economic incentive in these moves, but I think political ideology was as important a driving force. Don't forget, the Middle Eastern political map was largely drawn by the time the West began to focus on oil in the 50s and 60s.) After the Shah was defeated by Islamic fundamentalists, the focus returned to stability - only this time against fundamental radicalism. This meant supporting secular regimes even if they were more than a little slimy (i.e. House of Saud, Saddam Hussein, etc.). Which brings us to Mubarak. He came to power when Sadat was assassinated, not because of some corporation or Western government. Sadat himself came to power after Nasser's death - so he wasn't put in place by the West either. Like Saddam Hussein, Mubarak is not a religious fundamentalist and that's the reason the US supported him. Like Saddam, Mubarak used US support to consolidate his power, but, like Saddam, Mubarak would probably have remained in power regardless of US support. This doesn't excuse hte US for supporting him, mind you, just addresses the notion that some of these regimes couldn't exist without Western support. Unfortnately for the US and the people of Egypt, Mubarak is a brutally repressive, patently corrupt scum ball. Now, we find ourselves in the unenviable position of trying to decide if we want to support a known sleaze or risk a democratically elected Islamic fundamentalist government like we saw in Palestine. You could reasonably argue that Mubarak would have opened fire by now but for the prying eyes of the West. In that regard, there's a potentially positive outcome for Western interference. On the other hand, Mubarak made life for Egyptians so miserable that they were pushed to this point...expecting him to change or that they'll trust him to change is a bit of a stretch to say the least. I'm not endorsing or condemning any course of action here. I see it as a choice between sucky and suckier, only I can't decide which is which. (apologies for the US slant but I just don't know enough of European political/economic history to comment)
|
|
|
egypt
Feb 1, 2011 7:07:11 GMT
Post by MightyKhan on Feb 1, 2011 7:07:11 GMT
Egyptians are rather proud of their tolerance of religion (that's what all of our tour guides said at least). An Egyptian is Egyptian first, then Muslim/Copt/whatever, so I sort of doubt an Islamic fundamentalist government would rise.
I do hope they manage to find a goverment that can handle their garbage though - the place is a mess.
|
|
|
egypt
Feb 1, 2011 9:50:25 GMT
Post by uncanny on Feb 1, 2011 9:50:25 GMT
tomaanI stand corrected, though it does seem very much like something the west would do (and I do mean western world, I do not distinguish Europe from the US when I say "west"). When you look at the wars started, even in recent times Iraq - I have two brothers out there right now - the main reason for Western involvement has been profit. We can couch it in terms of "war on terror" (bush) or "weapons of mass destruction" (blair), or any number of other terms - but the result is the same. <tin foil hat> The interesting thing about Anwar Sadat's assassination was how the French fighter jets were overhead moments before the assassination took place. News reports call him a brutal dictactor, and yet Mubarak has been given a very soft treatment by Obama, and Clinton's own administration supported Mubarak's efforts in times past. Contrast this with both Clinton's and Obama's approach to China! </tin foil hat> OK.. back to seriousness - we know there are more conspiracies than truth in many rumors. Some are too close to the bone to be dismissed outright. And that's the basic gist of what I meant - humble apologies if I offended anyone!
|
|
|
egypt
Feb 1, 2011 14:31:20 GMT
Post by tomaan on Feb 1, 2011 14:31:20 GMT
Egyptians are rather proud of their tolerance of religion (that's what all of our tour guides said at least). An Egyptian is Egyptian first, then Muslim/Copt/whatever, so I sort of doubt an Islamic fundamentalist government would rise. I don't know a lot about the Egyptian people, but I always suspected that Mubarak was over-stating the potential threat by the Muslim Brotherhood - it provided him with a very convenient excuse for crushing dissent. I think an ideal outcome would be a Turkish-style moderate Islamic democracy, but it's hard to see Mubarak surviving (politically anyway) this threat. @uncanny - don't get me wrong - there's plenty of hypocrisy and sleaze in Western economic/political policies. That has been proven throughout history. While I don't necessarily think the West created this problem, it has done absolutely nothing to address it. As I said before, it is now faced with a very difficult decision that could have repercussions throughout the region - the West needs to tread very carefully here. (I also have family serving in Iraq/Afghanistan...best wishes and a safe return to yours
|
|
|
egypt
Feb 1, 2011 18:28:38 GMT
Post by desolationangel on Feb 1, 2011 18:28:38 GMT
As reliant as we are on the fossil fuel supply from the middle east, it cracks me up when people trivialize our desperate need to maintain stability in the region.
You know, if we'd invest in nuclear power plants, electric cars and alternate energy sources, we wouldn't be in that position in the first place.
|
|
|
egypt
Feb 1, 2011 18:35:48 GMT
Post by CataclysmicDeath on Feb 1, 2011 18:35:48 GMT
As reliant as we are on the fossil fuel supply from the middle east, it cracks me up when people trivialize our desperate need to maintain stability in the region. You know, if we'd invest in nuclear power plants, electric cars and alternate energy sources, we wouldn't be in that position in the first place. Your right we wouldn't. We'd just have nuclear bombs waiting to explode and wipe out half the population right on our doorsteps. Nuclear power ftw! Cata
|
|
|
egypt
Feb 1, 2011 22:26:32 GMT
Post by wollstonecraft on Feb 1, 2011 22:26:32 GMT
Your right we wouldn't. We'd just have nuclear bombs waiting to explode and wipe out half the population right on our doorsteps. Nuclear power ftw! Cata Not nuclear bombs, nuclear energy. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are remembered because they serve as the most perfect examples of what can happen when things go wrong (and Jane Fonda was pretty hot too). But things don't often go wrong at nuclear plants and nuclear meltdowns are rarer than you might think. They are far more rare than when things go wrong with nuclear weapons. Compare the two following lists (for kicks and giggles, if nothing else) from our friend, Wikipedia: List of civilian nuclear incidents List of militarty nuclear accidents So, if you are worried about nuclear bombs, worry about nuclear bombs (I've heard that the US has a few of them lying around these days), not nuclear energy. -WSCraft
|
|