Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

halonachos wrote:
So yeah dogma I have a lot of sources while you have listed absolutely none besides the fact that one of them may of had a typo in it. UNICEF reported those statistics, the Egyptian government reported those statistics, and the NPR reported those same statistics.

No, you have one source, the DHS report, that has been cited by multiple organizations; including UNICEF.

Not the Egyptian government though, they don't report this sort of data.

halonachos wrote:
Religious Tolerance.org reports the same statistics, but list it as 'never married' instead of 'ever married'. Like I said, probably a typo unless it takes only one written report to negate several other written reports.

Again, there is only one written report.

However, on closer examination, you are correct, it is a typo. That said, we don't have any insight on total rates of circumcision (which is different from mutilation). The 2009 DHS is more reliable than the 2003, but still seems to over report the practice based on what I've seen in various scholarly articles. If you want some alternative sources, just put "Egypt Women's Rights" into J-Store.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:
I'm still calling Saudi Arabia for Mubarak's new home.

I still think they might not want someone that is so unpopular amongst Arabs.

Libya might take him though.

halonachos wrote:It does make the civil reform more important, but if you notice they banned FGM back in the 90's and tried before that as well. In fact they just recently dropped from 97% to in the 70% area because Mubarak's wife championed that cause.

Its starting to change, but it needs to stop.

Sure, and I'm not saying democratisation will necessarily lead to the protection of minorities. It's just that between relying on democracy or the good will of the dictator's wife, I'd pick democracy every time.

Anywho, Mubarak plans to back down in September I guess. I think that the timeline is for the best seeing as though it will allow them to keep stability while the opposing political factions select a leader. The Egyptians need to face it, they don't have a ready leader to replace Mubarak and they need time to find one. We already saw the army start to back away from Mubarak so I can doubt that they will carry out any massacres for him.

Yeah, September elections would give time for political parties to form, and would be a good solution. The issue then becomes if Egyptians are willing to trust Mubarak will step down.

I guess we'll know that by Friday.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:I still think they might not want someone that is so unpopular amongst Arabs.

Libya might take him though.

Would Libya take someone who's so popular with Americans?

Saudi Arabia supported him through the protests so they may take him.

As far as J-Stor goes, my university has a subscription according to J-Stor but not according to my university.

Sometimes I hate state-run universities.

sebster wrote:
Would Libya take someone who's so popular with Americans?

Maybe, but I feel like Libya might have more leeway in that Qaddafi has been pretty good at extracting concessions from the West. It may well be seen as nothing more than a political turn.

No matter where he goes, he is going to run into the problem of being a Western pawn that no one in the West wants to take in.

Obama has said Mubarak must go.

Half price?

Apparently the Mubarak family has about £25 million stashed away so I wouldn't feel too sorry for them.

Depends on where they get to go.

The tried to get him to go to Riyadh, he said, "no no no"

dogma wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Rare jewels they are, this is true. But a more common occurence is a comprehensible one.

It isn't just the internet, most arguments made by most people are terrible.

Agreed. Just watch a married couple or siblings...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:The tried to get him to go to Riyadh, he said, "no no no"

So when do we start placing bets?

He's going to hell, that's my bet.

sexiest_hero wrote:He's going to hell, that's my bet.

Didn' you hear? According to Jack Chick, all you need to do is accept Jesus into your life, and you will be forgiven EVERYTHING no matter how evil you were in life!!!!!one!!!111!

Not good

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/egyptian-protestors-fear-chaos-mubarak-steps/story?id=12820590

We just got back to the hotel after trying to film on the bridge into Tahrir Square.


More Video
Watch: Egypt President Announcement
Watch: Mubarak's 30-Year Reign Ends
Watch: Obama: Transition In Egypt 'Must Begin Now'An angry mob surrounded us and chased us into the car shouting that they hate America. They kicked in the car doors and broke our windshield as we drove away.

Frazzled wrote:Not good

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/egyptian-protestors-fear-chaos-mubarak-steps/story?id=12820590

We just got back to the hotel after trying to film on the bridge into Tahrir Square.


More Video
Watch: Egypt President Announcement
Watch: Mubarak's 30-Year Reign Ends
Watch: Obama: Transition In Egypt 'Must Begin Now'An angry mob surrounded us and chased us into the car shouting that they hate America. They kicked in the car doors and broke our windshield as we drove away.

Unsurprising that the protests might turn somewhat anti American, they're been pretty coy so far. You don't support the dictator they are trying to overthrow for 30 years without catching some blame from the mobs. Mobs don't really think too logically. Hopefully they'll calm down before major clashes between protest groups.

Seeing as Mubarak has been supported by the US for so long, I'm surprised that there wasn't greater evidence of Anti-american sentiments during the protests.

Now they're actually fighting, that's great.

halonachos wrote:Now they're actually fighting, that's great.

Fighting who?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Not good

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/egyptian-protestors-fear-chaos-mubarak-steps/story?id=12820590

We just got back to the hotel after trying to film on the bridge into Tahrir Square.


More Video
Watch: Egypt President Announcement
Watch: Mubarak's 30-Year Reign Ends
Watch: Obama: Transition In Egypt 'Must Begin Now'An angry mob surrounded us and chased us into the car shouting that they hate America. They kicked in the car doors and broke our windshield as we drove away.

abc wrote:As we were trying to film on the bridge into Tahrir Square an angry mob of pro-Mubarak protesters surrounded us and chased us into the car, shouting that they hated us and America.

Wow, sort of left that bit out didn't you?

The pro-Mubarak crowd is fighting the anti-Mubarak crowd.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

halonachos wrote:Now they're actually fighting, that's great.

Fighting who?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Not good

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/egyptian-protestors-fear-chaos-mubarak-steps/story?id=12820590

We just got back to the hotel after trying to film on the bridge into Tahrir Square.


More Video
Watch: Egypt President Announcement
Watch: Mubarak's 30-Year Reign Ends
Watch: Obama: Transition In Egypt 'Must Begin Now'An angry mob surrounded us and chased us into the car shouting that they hate America. They kicked in the car doors and broke our windshield as we drove away.

abc wrote:As we were trying to film on the bridge into Tahrir Square an angry mob of pro-Mubarak protesters surrounded us and chased us into the car, shouting that they hated us and America.

Wow, sort of left that bit out didn't you?

Actually, thats at the bottom of what he posted. Please read peoples posts. I highlighted it in the hopes that you could battle your way through three sentences to see it.

Are we really surprised that they don't like America?

I mean, they have every reason to be hostile to us.

Using broad general strokes here, they hate America because of meddling. Everyone hates Americans for the meddling, but 30 years ago, it was meddling for the sake of the entire crazy unstable region there had to be some solid power bases with a strong military.

Looking at the state of things 30 years ago, America had a pretty valid reason to meddle in a region that teeters on the verge of self destructing and taking plenty of others with it in its petty, irrational primitive religious and traditional tribal feuds.

Someone has to police the region traditionally full of extremist fanatic wingnuts and corrupt violent dictators in power. Who's fault is it that that whole part of the world is unstable and cannot be trusted to police themselves in a greater international community scale where WMDs exist and armed zealots and stupid religious feuds are commonplace?

Who's fault is it that some meddling had to be done to put someone in power who would be a strong ally, and reasonable in Arab-Israel relations? Who made that necessary? If the kids were behaving back then, the parents wouldn't have had to appoint a babysitter, wasted our money creating and backing strong militarys, and yeah, getting a puppet out of it who would be flexible enough to deal with on an international politics level. The world as a whole needed some stabilizing powerful force in that region, it wasn't just the United States needing it (just the U.S. foots most of the bill, as usual, and gets all the hate for it).

Maybe el presidente was a solution to a difficult situation at the time the U.S. backed his rise to power, but 30 years ago is not today, and hating Americans for the current state of Egypt is irrational like hating England for the current state of America. It's not our fault our government is the way it is, England funded the colonies.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Actually, thats at the bottom of what he posted. Please read peoples posts. I highlighted it in the hopes that you could battle your way through three sentences to see it.

I was pointing out that the anti-American attacks were coming from a pro-Mubarak group (which in hindsight is unsurprising given Obama's call). It was in the very link he posted.

Maybe you could take a page from your own book?

yeenoghu wrote:Using broad general strokes here, they hate America because of meddling. Everyone hates Americans for the meddling, but 30 years ago, it was meddling for the sake of the entire crazy unstable region there had to be some solid power bases with a strong military.

Looking at the state of things 30 years ago, America had a pretty valid reason to meddle in a region that teeters on the verge of self destructing and taking plenty of others with it in its petty, irrational primitive religious and traditional tribal feuds.

Someone has to police the region traditionally full of extremist fanatic wingnuts and corrupt violent dictators in power. Who's fault is it that that whole part of the world is unstable and cannot be trusted to police themselves in a greater international community scale where WMDs exist and armed zealots and stupid religious feuds are commonplace?

Have you read anything, ever, on the history of the middle east? Because the reality is absolutely nothing like the one you've painted, and no half reasonable expert would ever claim US meddling has been a stabilising force in the region.

Nor did US meddling begin 30 years ago, nor did meddling begin with the US. In short, everything you wrote was entirely wrong.

Maybe el presidente was a solution to a difficult situation at the time the U.S. backed his rise to power, but 30 years ago is not today, and hating Americans for the current state of Egypt is irrational like hating England for the current state of America. It's not our fault our government is the way it is, England funded the colonies.

That doesn't make any sense. The US has 200 years of history since independance, and that was from a dispute over taxation and voting rights. You're comparing that to hostility in a country where the tyrant hasn't even been overthrown yet, and who enforced his rule through torture, and received US support and direct aid throughout.

The plain and simple truth is that it's been remarkable there's been so little anti-US sentiment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:Actually, thats at the bottom of what he posted. Please read peoples posts. I highlighted it in the hopes that you could battle your way through three sentences to see it.

Except that if you'd read the post and saw it was pro-Mubarak forces that attacked the car, then you'd have known your post about how anti-US sentiment is understandable given US support for Mubarak made little to no sense.

It's okay, you goofed. We all do it. The impressive thing now would be to put your hand up, admit it and move on.

sebster wrote:
Have you read anything, ever, on the history of the middle east? Because the reality is absolutely nothing like the one you've painted, and no half reasonable expert would ever claim US meddling has been a stabilising force in the region.

Well, Bernard Lewis would, but he is basically the Victor Davis Hanson of the Middle East.

That is to say, he knows his history, but he draws very stupid conclusions from that knowledge.

We've done some things with the whole Middle-Eastern area, but most of them involved giving weapons or training.

For example we sold weapons to both Iraq and Iran, when the Shah was removed our mechanics tore the systems out of the F-14's we had sold them. We gave the Taliban stinger missiles so they could shoot down Hind's.

We really, really need to stop that.

I heard the U.S. provides approximately 1/3 of the military budget there. I wonder who we can bill for that when people start talking about why the national debt is so high.

At least the military is behaving themselves from the (albeit few) BBC world news shorts I have seen. Through what seems to be inactive readiness instead of direct action they are showing that they are pretty much on the people's side. The question to me is what they are going to do with the power vaccuum. I heard one protester say something along the lines of "we don't care who is in power, just we want a democracy". Okay fair enough. Now what?

My take on history may be the equivalent of a U.S. high school no child left behind America First brainwashing but some things are pretty clear. That didn't work very well for the U.S.S.R. when it fell apart either. Change is great, but they kind of just thrust this on the rest of the world at a time of their chosing with a 'damn the consequences' attitude. No country that big and crucially located can ignore that the world is watching. A stable and predictable government there, no matter how bad, is better than an unstable rule of anarchy. Maybe they'll have a TV gameshow to decide who their next president should be, they have about 2 days to decide after all. If they don't have someone ready to step in, the Military would seem to be the defacto interim power. That's such a move foreward!

Incidentally, why should the U.S. not support a regime on account that it uses torture? All regimes use torture, some just invent other words for it. A policeman in Chicago recently got a whopping 4 year sentence because he was found to have used electrodes to get false confessions from people, would that mean the federal governments should disown chicago?

yeenoghu wrote:I heard the U.S. provides approximately 1/3 of the military budget there. I wonder who we can bill for that when people start talking about why the national debt is so high.

At least the military is behaving themselves from the (albeit few) news shorts I have seen. Through what seems to be inactive readiness instead of direct action they are showing that they are pretty much on the people's side. The question to me is what they are going to do with the power vaccuum. I heard one protester say something along the lines of "we don't care who is in power, just we want a democracy". Okay fair enough. Now what?

oops. That didn't work very well for the U.S.S.R. when it fell apart either.

Incidentally, why should the U.S. not support a regime on account that it uses torture? All regimes use torture, some just invent other words for it. A policeman in Chicago recently got a whopping 4 year sentence because he was found to have used electrodes to get false confessions from people, would that mean the federal governments should disown chicago?

You have no idea about the world of hurt Dogma, Shuma, and Sebster are going to bring you.

I am just bringing one guys opinion based on what I have seen in the news. Like it or dislike it, I doubt if I am the only one who feels this way and has only the facts I see presented. Maybe I'm the voice of ignorant american point of view, but if I am drawing these conclusions from the footage I get to see and the things I've been shown to read, maybe I can be the whipping boy for American ignorance I don't mind. It's only been a week since half of this country could even find egypt on a map for all I know.

yeenoghu wrote:Using broad general strokes here, they hate America because of meddling. Everyone hates Americans for the meddling, but 30 years ago, it was meddling for the sake of the entire crazy unstable region there had to be some solid power bases with a strong military.

Looking at the state of things 30 years ago, America had a pretty valid reason to meddle in a region that teeters on the verge of self destructing and taking plenty of others with it in its petty, irrational primitive religious and traditional tribal feuds.

Someone has to police the region traditionally full of extremist fanatic wingnuts and corrupt violent dictators in power. Who's fault is it that that whole part of the world is unstable and cannot be trusted to police themselves in a greater international community scale where WMDs exist and armed zealots and stupid religious feuds are commonplace?

Who's fault is it that some meddling had to be done to put someone in power who would be a strong ally, and reasonable in Arab-Israel relations? Who made that necessary? If the kids were behaving back then, the parents wouldn't have had to appoint a babysitter, wasted our money creating and backing strong militarys, and yeah, getting a puppet out of it who would be flexible enough to deal with on an international politics level. The world as a whole needed some stabilizing powerful force in that region, it wasn't just the United States needing it (just the U.S. foots most of the bill, as usual, and gets all the hate for it).

Maybe el presidente was a solution to a difficult situation at the time the U.S. backed his rise to power, but 30 years ago is not today, and hating Americans for the current state of Egypt is irrational like hating England for the current state of America. It's not our fault our government is the way it is, England funded the colonies.

Ladies and gentleman, the new fateweaver.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:We've done some things with the whole Middle-Eastern area, but most of them involved giving weapons or training.

For example we sold weapons to both Iraq and Iran, when the Shah was removed our mechanics tore the systems out of the F-14's we had sold them. We gave the Taliban stinger missiles so they could shoot down Hind's.

We really, really need to stop that.

I'm playing league of legends between bouts of homework. He's spared.