The US isn't broke, if it was we would all be in serious trouble! They're in a far worse state than us, their deficit is 10% of GDP compared to our 9%, Ireland's 30+% and china's 1%! It's critical to global interest that they are healthy. I agree that the obvious way of them to sort things out involves the middle-east and soldiers.
As for China not having a leading global bland, that will be resolved this decade.
[cite]Posted By: AshTray[/cite]I see, sorry I misread your post. I still don't see why Britain's rule, which ceased many years ago, has anything to do with recent events in Iraq. The problems there have less to do with there being 2 languages and a 'diverse population' and more to do with being ran by a murdering tyrant for 30 odd years. The Allies biggest mistake was not removing during the first Gulf conflict, allowing him to develop chemical weaponry and kill many more Iraqi citizens.
No, it's not British rule - you are right - that ended a long time ago, it's the nature of the nation which was set up - if you have two languages and a load of people from 2 fundamentalist branches of the same religion fighting over power, it's unlikely to end well. The murdering tyrant was not a problem for a long time - as far as the US was concerned, he actually brought stability to the region (at a high cost to the general population).
[cite]Posted By: razil[/cite]isn't a lot of this about currency reallignment which is being prevented from ocurring by the Chinese who are keeping theirs artificially low?
Well, that is one thing that is upsetting the US at the moment.
not forgetting that their could soon be great unrest in China against the restrictive regime, their main future competitor being India who have a more liberal regime and relative democracy could balance them out or at least inspire Chinese civil rights campaigns.
I can see a trade war happening more than a military one personally, as countries seek to protect themselves against cheap imports and high commodity costs such as oil
What is interesting about the mid east revolutions occurring is that they seem to be against oppressive dictatorships generally be they islamic or military, and the domino effect that seems to be happening. The worry would be that fundamentalists would somehow then take over but since the result would be something like the Taliban I can't see that happening. Perhaps more likely is civil war, although possibly some of these nations now do have the hunger for some kind of democratic model.
Some of the influence seems to be coming from new information freedoms from technology despite state attempts to stifle this. Perhaps this could also eventually affect China once again.
The Egyptian riots are still going on. It wasn't purely a matter of democracy v military rule - money, wages and the price of living were hugely important to it. Similarly, the riots in China came about as a result of enormous rises in the price of food.
Palestinians voted for Hamas in 2006 when they had the choice.
Riots are still continuing in Yemen, Algeria and Iran, there's a precarious ceasefire in Jordan, and there seems to be serious violence in Bahrain (which, as I said above, seems to show that the state can shut down media coverage if it tries hard enough). It's not over yet, and we have no idea what will result out of it.
I don't have any reason (beyond Mubarak's scaremongering) to believe that groups like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt are significantly worse than, say, the current government of Turkey. Islamists are not necessarily dangerous to the West. Radical Islam, like radical Christianity, could be worrying, of course. Indeed, if Egypt can end up something like Turkey, that would be a reasonable result imo. Strong army, secular, democratic constitution, but allowing for an Islamic identity.
Don't you think its important to distinguish between these states though in terms of economic but also political culture development, I do take your point, Turkey does seem to be a least worst situation but they have a fair bit of unpublicised ethnic unrest also. The Palestinian thing is interesting, although don't you think some of that is reactionary to Israel and indeed new found freedoms, similar to radicals in Russia who were soon replaced by more conservative groups.
[cite]Posted By: razil[/cite]Don't you think its important to distinguish between these states though in terms of economic but also political culture development, I do take your point, Turkey does seem to be a least worst situation but they have a fair bit of unpublicised ethnic unrest also. The Palestinian thing is interesting, although don't you think some of that is reactionary to Israel and indeed new found freedoms, similar to radicals in Russia who were soon replaced by more conservative groups.
Oh, I'm not saying Turkey is a shining example, just think it's relatively stable and with an Islamic but unthreatening identity. If Egypt ends up like that, then it's an improvement on where they are now
Hmmm, the Gazans didn't fare too well after voting for Hamas, reaction or no reaction, and similar factors may be at play eventually in other Arab states that go down the democratic road - extreme poverty, a young, angry population and an external threat. All of these would be true of most Arab states, especially if America starts to get involved.
I'm sorry, but I have to ask which radicals you're talking about in Russia
Also you have to factor in that Eygpt and Iran follow, unless I am mistaken, different streams of Islam. Sunni and Shia may seem to outsider to have few differences but just as catholics and protestants within Christianity do not always see eye to eye the two have different political outlooks making the import of the Iranian idea of Islam to Egypt and elsewhere less likely.
All of the knowledge I find in this thread facinating.
Can I ask how you all became so knowledgeable.
The stuff relating to turkey is really great.
Nolly/bournemouth
Please be mindful not to get the thread sunk, I don't see anything wrong it what Nolly posted so if you do start to bicker don't cause us to lose this thread, its a good reasoned debate so far that has managed to examine a very delicate topic
I have no axe to grind on the middle east but find it alarming that isreal can have weapons of mass desrtuction can hold court in gaza and they get a green light to do so,for all peoples worrys about these muslim countrys cant think of many wars they have waged on the west ?
[cite]Posted By: nth london addick[/cite]All of the knowledge I find in this thread facinating.
Can I ask how you all became so knowledgeable.
1. listen to hear what the other person is saying and try to understanding their view rather than for an opportunity to immediately disagree. You can still disagree but listen first.
2. Read stuff you disagree with ie papers/books with a different political view. Don't stick with the Guardian/Sun/Mirror/Telegraph/Mail because they say what you want to hear.
3. Listen to Radio Four not Talksport
4. Don't expect any problem to have an easy solution that can be implemented overnight and expressed in one sentence. It is rarely ever that easy and often the more you find out the harder it becomes. Soundbites like "throw away the key" sound good in the pub but just aren't thought out. If it was that easy then someone would have done it already
5. Don't drink ColaCola. It is part of the American plan to control the world.
Yes, Henry. There's also a hugely important racial difference between Arabs and Persians/Iranians (I don't know what their ethnic group is called). What happens in Egypt may be a motivating factor in Iran, but Iran (like Turkey, Pakistan or Indonesia) are not regional leaders in the Middle East. What happens in Egypt will have the greatest resonance in the Arab world, but what happens in Iran may be more important for the West.
Another difference between Egypt and Turkey (one that may make a militaristic, democratic, Islamic and possibly secular state more stable than even Turkey) is the fact that I can't think of any significant ethnic tensions in Egypt, or a history of race riots. Turkey has the Kurds and, in the past, the Armenians. Egypt would have a significant number of Palestinian immigrants, but I can't recall a persistent, violent history between the two groups (like, say, would be the case in Jordan). Maybe that's just my memory/media coverage playing up
[cite]Posted By: nolly[/cite]I have no axe to grind on the middle east but find it alarming that isreal can have weapons of mass desrtuction can hold court in gaza and they get a green light to do so,for all peoples worrys about these muslim countrys cant think of many wars they have waged on the west ?
Whether it is right or wrong is another strand to this debate.
However the thinking in allowing Israel to have nuclear weapons and not other Arab countries is that it deters other Arab countries from attacking Israel thus preserving some sort of peace in the Middle East as a whole and preventing the internal spats over Gaza etc from escalating.
[cite]Posted By: nolly[/cite]I have no axe to grind on the middle east but find it alarming that isreal can have weapons of mass desrtuction
It's a bit like the debate about Trident here. I'm sure Israelis wish they didn't feel threatened by rockets coming in on top of their towns and cities, or nuclear weapons programmes in Iraq and now Iran, but they do and so they react, build up weapons stockpiles, and train all their citizens to be soldiers as a deterrent. And despite the knowledge that they'll always come out on the worse side of it, like many terrorist organisations before them, Hamas seem willing to continue the fight (and do some really scummy things like have a weapons factory in the same building as a school or hospital).
It's not a topic I like discussing because most people seem to have strong opinions one way or the other. My opinion is that neither are right, they're both very, very wrong and it's a truly depressing situation.
At any rate, Israel is - for once - somewhat irrelevant to the current situation in the Midde East. But it means there's another 'known unknown' to add to the pile: how will Israel react to the new government in Egypt (similarly Jordan if/when that crops up again), and how will they approach Israel?
Its what you choose to believe --or not---its our limited freedom to choose.
as said last night Weilders being done for his wafflings about Islam and then on another channel(Dispatches) the program actually showing Imans in islamic schools saying Hindus drink cows piss !! Seeming to (why aint they nicked for that ?)prove at least some of what he is saying is true-----then on another channel Wikileaks going on about freedom of speach(who for actually?) when leaking Government emails is ok but tapping celebs (who support wikileaks) aint.
Its ok to be a democracy as long as its the correct type acording to the USA !
Its a disgrace the way the USA supports Isreal in everything and a disgrace that radical islam isnt outed by all in the UK.
Hammas were elected ------the National Socialists were elected in Germany----BNP have two Euro MPs------Wielders in Holland has 23 MPs and 16% of the vote--------democracy dosnt always work,but its better than nearly all the alternatives.
My opinion is that neither are right, they're both very, very wrong and it's a truly depressing situation.
Absolutely IA ... but now the situation is in place it makes it harder to turn it around ... not impossible, but more difficult. We need determination on both sides and someone very strong to bring the 'strands' together ... at least someone better than the current 'Middle East Ambassador'.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]Also you have to factor in that Eygpt and Iran follow, unless I am mistaken, different streams of Islam. Sunni and Shia may seem to outsider to have few differences but just as catholics and protestants within Christianity do not always see eye to eye the two have different political outlooks making the import of the Iranian idea of Islam to Egypt and elsewhere less likely.
This is right Henry. They hate one another. Iran wants to export its strand of Islam and the Sunnis are set against this.
Egypt has massive potential as a democratic state. My worry is that with the world economy not exactly at full throttle, the Egyptian middle classes may jump into the arms of whomsoever offers them the chance of relative affluence. Much of the unrest in Egypt seems to have stemmed from economic hardships. It was far easier for totalitarian regimes like the one of Mubarak to maintain their grip, if the regime delivered decent living standards for a chunk of the population.
So we have a cross roads in Egypt. One way lies the opportunity for a secular democracy via mass emancipation, another way lies a "Mubarak" mark 2 with the Army staying in control (like when Nasser took over), or a third way is by a one time only election heralding an Islamist regime who then close down the democratic process (like what has happened with Hamas in Gaza).
I confess to be completely uncertain of which way it will go. If I was a gambling man, I think that a Nasser mark 2 (supported by the West) might actually prevail. After all they currently hold all the cards.
As for the unrest in Iran, frankly I cannot see Iran going the way of Egypt (and Tunisia). Iran is in the grip of such a strong Islamic clerical elite, unlike Egypt and to imagine they are suddenly going melt away is fanciful in my view.
Always drink coca cola henners the advert says so.
When threads like this come up along with the general election threads some of the knowledge never fails to amaze me I must walk round with my eyes closed.
Must remember to put down the sun, and not think about tits and football so much.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]Also you have to factor in that Eygpt and Iran follow, unless I am mistaken, different streams of Islam. Sunni and Shia may seem to outsider to have few differences but just as catholics and protestants within Christianity do not always see eye to eye the two have different political outlooks making the import of the Iranian idea of Islam to Egypt and elsewhere less likely.
So we have a cross roads in Egypt. One way lies the opportunity for a secular democracy via mass emancipation, another way lies a "Mubarak" mark 2 with the Army staying in control (like when Nasser took over), or a third way is by a one time only election heralding an Islamist regime who then close down the democratic process (like what has happened with Hamas in Gaza).
I confess to be completely uncertain of which way it will go. If I was a gambling man, I think that a Nasser mark 2 (supported by the West) might actually prevail. After all they currently hold all the cards.
I have a couple of friends in Cairo (locals) and they are relatively confident that we will see your first option 'secular democracy' ... but they are not so confident it will happen quickly. In the meantime, they are not too concerned with the military staying in place ... better that than no-one.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]Also you have to factor in that Eygpt and Iran follow, unless I am mistaken, different streams of Islam. Sunni and Shia may seem to outsider to have few differences but just as catholics and protestants within Christianity do not always see eye to eye the two have different political outlooks making the import of the Iranian idea of Islam to Egypt and elsewhere less likely.
This is right Henry. They hate one another.
Not sure if they hate each other. Some sunni may hate some shia and vice versa, but just as most Catholics don't hate protestants or the other way around, in most places the two get along fine.
yes lots of examples of when they don't and there is friction but not everywhere.
[cite]Posted By: IA[/cite]Yes, Henry. There's also a hugely important racial difference between Arabs and Persians/Iranians
I wasn't thinking of the racial difference although that is there. More the religious variation within Islam. It is not one homogeneous religion with one shared view.
Although Israel is a whole another question it is related. The US backs Egypt because it is at peace with Israel after three bloody noses in 48, 67 and 73. Obama is trying to broker a peace deal in the middle east because if he can achieve that it would turn off the fire that is being stoked up under the whole region.
[cite]Posted By: stonemuse[/cite]I have a couple of friends in Cairo (locals) and they are relatively confident that we will see your first option 'secular democracy' ... but they are not so confident it will happen quickly. In the meantime, they are not too concerned with the military staying in place ... better that than no-one.
Oh I am sure as things are currently, they will be happy with the military being in temporary control.
History is littered with Military regimes which come to power to hold a strong line against anarchy or the forces of darkness. The challenge for the Military is to stand back and allow free elections to take place and then to accept the outcome, even if the result is not what they desire.
Comments
As for China not having a leading global bland, that will be resolved this decade.
No, it's not British rule - you are right - that ended a long time ago, it's the nature of the nation which was set up - if you have two languages and a load of people from 2 fundamentalist branches of the same religion fighting over power, it's unlikely to end well. The murdering tyrant was not a problem for a long time - as far as the US was concerned, he actually brought stability to the region (at a high cost to the general population).
Well, that is one thing that is upsetting the US at the moment.
I can see a trade war happening more than a military one personally, as countries seek to protect themselves against cheap imports and high commodity costs such as oil
Some of the influence seems to be coming from new information freedoms from technology despite state attempts to stifle this. Perhaps this could also eventually affect China once again.
Palestinians voted for Hamas in 2006 when they had the choice.
Riots are still continuing in Yemen, Algeria and Iran, there's a precarious ceasefire in Jordan, and there seems to be serious violence in Bahrain (which, as I said above, seems to show that the state can shut down media coverage if it tries hard enough). It's not over yet, and we have no idea what will result out of it.
I don't have any reason (beyond Mubarak's scaremongering) to believe that groups like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt are significantly worse than, say, the current government of Turkey. Islamists are not necessarily dangerous to the West. Radical Islam, like radical Christianity, could be worrying, of course. Indeed, if Egypt can end up something like Turkey, that would be a reasonable result imo. Strong army, secular, democratic constitution, but allowing for an Islamic identity.
Given your comments relating to racism on the recent traveller threads Nolly would you please elaborate quite what you mean by this?
Oh, I'm not saying Turkey is a shining example, just think it's relatively stable and with an Islamic but unthreatening identity. If Egypt ends up like that, then it's an improvement on where they are now
Hmmm, the Gazans didn't fare too well after voting for Hamas, reaction or no reaction, and similar factors may be at play eventually in other Arab states that go down the democratic road - extreme poverty, a young, angry population and an external threat. All of these would be true of most Arab states, especially if America starts to get involved.
I'm sorry, but I have to ask which radicals you're talking about in Russia
Can I ask how you all became so knowledgeable.
The stuff relating to turkey is really great.
Nolly/bournemouth
Please be mindful not to get the thread sunk, I don't see anything wrong it what Nolly posted so if you do start to bicker don't cause us to lose this thread, its a good reasoned debate so far that has managed to examine a very delicate topic
1. listen to hear what the other person is saying and try to understanding their view rather than for an opportunity to immediately disagree. You can still disagree but listen first.
2. Read stuff you disagree with ie papers/books with a different political view. Don't stick with the Guardian/Sun/Mirror/Telegraph/Mail because they say what you want to hear.
3. Listen to Radio Four not Talksport
4. Don't expect any problem to have an easy solution that can be implemented overnight and expressed in one sentence. It is rarely ever that easy and often the more you find out the harder it becomes. Soundbites like "throw away the key" sound good in the pub but just aren't thought out. If it was that easy then someone would have done it already
5. Don't drink ColaCola. It is part of the American plan to control the world.
Another difference between Egypt and Turkey (one that may make a militaristic, democratic, Islamic and possibly secular state more stable than even Turkey) is the fact that I can't think of any significant ethnic tensions in Egypt, or a history of race riots. Turkey has the Kurds and, in the past, the Armenians. Egypt would have a significant number of Palestinian immigrants, but I can't recall a persistent, violent history between the two groups (like, say, would be the case in Jordan). Maybe that's just my memory/media coverage playing up
Whether it is right or wrong is another strand to this debate.
However the thinking in allowing Israel to have nuclear weapons and not other Arab countries is that it deters other Arab countries from attacking Israel thus preserving some sort of peace in the Middle East as a whole and preventing the internal spats over Gaza etc from escalating.
This still has a way to go and may yet surprise everyone with the outcome
It's a bit like the debate about Trident here. I'm sure Israelis wish they didn't feel threatened by rockets coming in on top of their towns and cities, or nuclear weapons programmes in Iraq and now Iran, but they do and so they react, build up weapons stockpiles, and train all their citizens to be soldiers as a deterrent. And despite the knowledge that they'll always come out on the worse side of it, like many terrorist organisations before them, Hamas seem willing to continue the fight (and do some really scummy things like have a weapons factory in the same building as a school or hospital).
It's not a topic I like discussing because most people seem to have strong opinions one way or the other. My opinion is that neither are right, they're both very, very wrong and it's a truly depressing situation.
At any rate, Israel is - for once - somewhat irrelevant to the current situation in the Midde East. But it means there's another 'known unknown' to add to the pile: how will Israel react to the new government in Egypt (similarly Jordan if/when that crops up again), and how will they approach Israel?
as said last night Weilders being done for his wafflings about Islam and then on another channel(Dispatches) the program actually showing Imans in islamic schools saying Hindus drink cows piss !! Seeming to (why aint they nicked for that ?)prove at least some of what he is saying is true-----then on another channel Wikileaks going on about freedom of speach(who for actually?) when leaking Government emails is ok but tapping celebs (who support wikileaks) aint.
Its ok to be a democracy as long as its the correct type acording to the USA !
Its a disgrace the way the USA supports Isreal in everything and a disgrace that radical islam isnt outed by all in the UK.
Hammas were elected ------the National Socialists were elected in Germany----BNP have two Euro MPs------Wielders in Holland has 23 MPs and 16% of the vote--------democracy dosnt always work,but its better than nearly all the alternatives.
Absolutely IA ... but now the situation is in place it makes it harder to turn it around ... not impossible, but more difficult. We need determination on both sides and someone very strong to bring the 'strands' together ... at least someone better than the current 'Middle East Ambassador'.
This is right Henry. They hate one another. Iran wants to export its strand of Islam and the Sunnis are set against this.
Egypt has massive potential as a democratic state. My worry is that with the world economy not exactly at full throttle, the Egyptian middle classes may jump into the arms of whomsoever offers them the chance of relative affluence. Much of the unrest in Egypt seems to have stemmed from economic hardships. It was far easier for totalitarian regimes like the one of Mubarak to maintain their grip, if the regime delivered decent living standards for a chunk of the population.
So we have a cross roads in Egypt. One way lies the opportunity for a secular democracy via mass emancipation, another way lies a "Mubarak" mark 2 with the Army staying in control (like when Nasser took over), or a third way is by a one time only election heralding an Islamist regime who then close down the democratic process (like what has happened with Hamas in Gaza).
I confess to be completely uncertain of which way it will go. If I was a gambling man, I think that a Nasser mark 2 (supported by the West) might actually prevail. After all they currently hold all the cards.
As for the unrest in Iran, frankly I cannot see Iran going the way of Egypt (and Tunisia). Iran is in the grip of such a strong Islamic clerical elite, unlike Egypt and to imagine they are suddenly going melt away is fanciful in my view.
When threads like this come up along with the general election threads some of the knowledge never fails to amaze me I must walk round with my eyes closed.
Must remember to put down the sun, and not think about tits and football so much.
dont mate.....that's where all the world's problems started.
I have a couple of friends in Cairo (locals) and they are relatively confident that we will see your first option 'secular democracy' ... but they are not so confident it will happen quickly. In the meantime, they are not too concerned with the military staying in place ... better that than no-one.
Not sure if they hate each other. Some sunni may hate some shia and vice versa, but just as most Catholics don't hate protestants or the other way around, in most places the two get along fine.
yes lots of examples of when they don't and there is friction but not everywhere.
I wasn't thinking of the racial difference although that is there. More the religious variation within Islam. It is not one homogeneous religion with one shared view.
Although Israel is a whole another question it is related. The US backs Egypt because it is at peace with Israel after three bloody noses in 48, 67 and 73. Obama is trying to broker a peace deal in the middle east because if he can achieve that it would turn off the fire that is being stoked up under the whole region.
Oh I am sure as things are currently, they will be happy with the military being in temporary control.
History is littered with Military regimes which come to power to hold a strong line against anarchy or the forces of darkness. The challenge for the Military is to stand back and allow free elections to take place and then to accept the outcome, even if the result is not what they desire.