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.

Heh.

Would "more weird than usual" have been more accurate?

olympia wrote:Rather than support a SECULAR, PRO-DEMOCRACY movement in Egypt, the U.S. continues to back the dynastic regime of Mubarak. In short, the U.S. talks alot of gak about supporting democracy but when the rubber hits the road that's all it is.

It's only secular if you aren't paying any attention to the key players in Egypt. Much like with the Shah in Iran, there is a very hardcore group of fanatics in Egypt and if you don't think they're forming the core of these "pro-democracy" riots, well, you got another thing coming.

mattyrm wrote:I've had ten pints so ill merely say .....

So you wake up, have breakfast, then post?

Kilkrazy wrote:

halonachos wrote:I wasn't saying anything about why its important(Suez Canal) or trying to say it isn't important. All I was saying is that people need to back off of america, we do promote democracies and then get hit with criticism then we don't do something and we get hit with criticism.

I for one am tired of it.

The USA promotes/supports democracies like Iraq and also repressive autocratic regimes like Saudi Arabia.

I make no comment on whether this is right or wrong.

You should recognise the facts, though.

I do recognise the facts and the fact is we still receive a lot of criticism no matter what we do. But its not like we're any different from any other country in terms of that aspect.

I also agree with previous statements about who would replace the current government figures. Hell even Churchill didn't want Stalin assassinated because he was afraid of what would replace him.

I do think suspending INternet access is going a bit far though...

I heard about that and I am wondering why they shut it down. They might shut down phone service at some point if things get worse in an attempt to stop communication about protests and rallies.

With luck Mubarak will get thrown on his ass and killed, or will flee to Saudi Arabia allowing a pro democratic reform movement to take hold that is wary of the muslim brotherhood which has been fairly sidelined in the largescale protests so far. I don't value our governments tainted support of a repressive undemocratic regime that we don't actually need for much other then a place to put some planes and send people for torture.

ShumaGorath wrote:I don't value our governments tainted support of a repressive undemocratic regime that we don't actually need for much other then a place to put some planes and send people for torture.

That's a pretty naive comment.

whatwhat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I don't value our governments tainted support of a repressive undemocratic regime that we don't actually need for much other then a place to put some planes and send people for torture.

That's a pretty naive comment.

Not particularly. I understand its implications, I just don't care about them. Theres realpolitik and theres idealism, I live in the grey area. Egypt's efforts for peace between israel and palestine are utterly meaningless, and it's military institutions are likely to remain fairly unchanged through a governmental transition so it's only other meaningful function as local pro American counterterrorism operation will likely remain somewhat unblemished.

Indeed it is, I admit I have a very realist view of international relations (the type of view championed by Machiavelli and Hobbes), and I have to admit....Egypt is much more important than that. It is a key US ally in the region, and one that has the beautiful resource of stability. Right now, the anti-government protesters are unified in their hatred of the government, but once they achieve that goal? Well who knows what'll happen then? We know that they have different factions, and there's a fair chance that some of those factions may want to take control for themselves. If the government of Egypt falls, we could see what was once a nice stable state collapse from that, and to be honest....that will just lead to probably a worse situation than the one we're in now.

So what's better, sticking to some high and mighty ideals, or keeping some stability in a very volatile region? Me? I'm willing to say 'screw ideals, let's go the path that means less chaos'.

I bet if the US did any stronger intervention you'd see a thread here where people bitched that the US is being too interventionist.

Melissia wrote:I bet if the US did any stronger intervention you'd see a thread here where people bitched that the US is being too interventionist.

It's hard to get more interventionist at this point, I mean, I guess we could invade a third country in the mideast, it's not like our citizens could find this one on a map either.

ShumaGorath wrote:It's hard to get more interventionist at this point

Live in hyperbole much?

ChrisWWII wrote:Indeed it is, I admit I have a very realist view of international relations (the type of view championed by Machiavelli and Hobbes), and I have to admit....Egypt is much more important than that. It is a key US ally in the region, and one that has the beautiful resource of stability. Right now, the anti-government protesters are unified in their hatred of the government, but once they achieve that goal? Well who knows what'll happen then? We know that they have different factions, and there's a fair chance that some of those factions may want to take control for themselves. If the government of Egypt falls, we could see what was once a nice stable state collapse from that, and to be honest....that will just lead to probably a worse situation than the one we're in now.

So what's better, sticking to some high and mighty ideals, or keeping some stability in a very volatile region? Me? I'm willing to say 'screw ideals, let's go the path that means less chaos'.

Were you for the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:It's hard to get more interventionist at this point

Live in hyperbole much?

It was a joke, it's pretty clear that we actually could invade several more countries. We could sell another few billion worth of weapons to authoritarian undemocratic regimes. We could continue to implicitly and financially support a repressive and land grabbing ethnic group and simply stop censuring them when they continuously violate human rights. Hell, we could just seize pakistans nukes and airstrike Iran until it loses the ability to ever try make them again.

That said though, it's hard to argue that were not being ludicrously interventionist when we're spending roughly 25% of the planets military budget on reshaping the mideast to our preferences.

One key thing that you need to understand is that a big reason the US's military budget is so high is because the US is literally paying to defend way more than itself. It's the reason Europe gets away with such a low military budget per nation, and probably why Japan, South Korea, Germany and Taiwan don't have nukes. They know that the US will defend them, and the US is PAYING to defend them. That really is a very, very important reason when you start crying that the US is spending so much money on 'national defense'.

ShumaGorath wrote:That said though, it's hard to argue that were not being ludicrously interventionist when we're spending roughly 25% of the planets military budget on reshaping the mideast to our preferences.

I don't really have a problem with that.

I kind of like spreading progress around.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:I bet if the US did any stronger intervention you'd see a thread here where people bitched that the US is being too interventionist.

QFT.

ChrisWWII wrote:Attacking the PRC to try and 'liberate' its population.

Your point aside. Why did you put 'liberate' in quotes in that sentence?

I don't really have a problem with that.

I kind of like spreading progress around.

Progress like the kind in Iraq where we've replaced a corrupt but stable authoritarian regime with a massive ethno sectarian conflict, utterly corrupt and unqualified power grabbing tribal chiefs and US puppets, and a massive recruitment network for extremist Shia and Sunni militants?

Or the kind in afghanistan where we've replaced taliban rule and dysfunctional and non existant state government with taliban rule and a dysfunctional and repressive state government that has good odds of collapsing when we leave putting them right back to square 1 + several billion in missing development aid?

Or hey the kind in Iran where the government cracked down on democratic protests, is continuing to fund a nuclear programme, and now has defacto control over elements within the Iraqi parliament?

What about Israel, which when it's not shooting people on aid ships is killing hundreds of children to stop rockets that have killed all of what? 16 people in the last decade?

How about yemen, AKA afghanistan 2? Or sudan, AKA afghanistan 3 but with pirates?

All our money sure is going to some great progress.

ShumaGorath wrote: it's not like our citizens could find this one on a map either.

But you are a citizen and you could find it, but our citizens couldn't find it on a map, but you are a citizen and you could. This is very confusing, why do you think so little of you self?

Ahtman wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote: it's not like our citizens could find this one on a map either.

But you are a citizen and you could find it, but our citizens couldn't find it on a map, but you are a citizen and you could. This is very confusing, why do you think so little of you self?

Egypt is the one shaped like a boot right?

whatwhat wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:Attacking the PRC to try and 'liberate' its population.

Your point aside. Why did you put 'liberate' in quotes in that sentence?

A result of me typing and beginning to have my mind detiorate lsightly thanks to it being 2 in the morning over here.

whatwhat wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:Attacking the PRC to try and 'liberate' its population.

Your point aside. Why did you put 'liberate' in quotes in that sentence?

Probably because removing governance does not remove oppression, and more often then not accelerates it. The removal or oppression or foreign influence being important to the concept of liberation.

ChrisWWII wrote:

whatwhat wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:Attacking the PRC to try and 'liberate' its population.

Your point aside. Why did you put 'liberate' in quotes in that sentence?

A result of me typing and beginning to have my mind detiorate lsightly thanks to it being 2 in the morning over here.

I see. I thought it may have had something to do with your political views on the PRC. Nevermind.

ShumaGorath wrote:

whatwhat wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:Attacking the PRC to try and 'liberate' its population.

Your point aside. Why did you put 'liberate' in quotes in that sentence?

Probably because removing governance does not remove oppression, and more often then not accelerates it. The removal or oppression or foreign influence being important to the concept of liberation.

Do you answer for all people or just ChrisWWII?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote: it's not like our citizens could find this one on a map either.

But you are a citizen and you could find it, but our citizens couldn't find it on a map, but you are a citizen and you could. This is very confusing, why do you think so little of you self?

Egypt is the one shaped like a boot right?

I thought it was that island off the coast of Germany.

As far as my political view on the PRC go, I view the PRC as just as valid a form of government as other governments around the world. I don't view there people as being opressed anymore than I view myself as being opressed. In fact, I have a form of respect for the PRC since things actually get done with a more dictatorial form of government. All bets are off as to whether or not those things are good, but at least something is getting done.

whatwhat wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:

whatwhat wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:Attacking the PRC to try and 'liberate' its population.

Your point aside. Why did you put 'liberate' in quotes in that sentence?

A result of me typing and beginning to have my mind detiorate lsightly thanks to it being 2 in the morning over here.

I see. I thought it may have had something to do with your political views on the PRC. Nevermind.

ShumaGorath wrote:

whatwhat wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:Attacking the PRC to try and 'liberate' its population.

Your point aside. Why did you put 'liberate' in quotes in that sentence?

Probably because removing governance does not remove oppression, and more often then not accelerates it. The removal or oppression or foreign influence being important to the concept of liberation.

Do you answer for all people or just ChrisWWII?

Only ChrisWWII.

ShumaGorath wrote:

whatwhat wrote:Do you answer for all people or just ChrisWWII?

Only ChrisWWII.

Then I shall insist my religious friends pray for his soul.

ChrisWWII wrote:As far as my political view on the PRC go, I view the PRC as just as valid a form of government as other governments around the world. I don't view there people as being opressed anymore than I view myself as being opressed. In fact, I have a form of respect for the PRC since things actually get done with a more dictatorial form of government. All bets are off as to whether or not those things are good, but at least something is getting done.

This is a whole different subject but that view would explain the quotation marks if they were intended. I wont get into it and derail this thread, but I will say I disagree with your views. The chinese government is one of the most oppressive on earth.

And I welcome your disagreement, and applaud you for your decisions to not derail the topic. I will point out that Shuma's statement is not actually representative of my beliefs, and I firmly disagree that liberation is merely the removal of foreign influences from a nation.

ShumaGorath wrote:All our money sure is going to some great progress.

It's worth a shot.

ChrisWWII wrote:And I welcome your disagreement, and applaud you for your decisions to not derail the topic. I will point out that Shuma's statement is not actually representative of my beliefs, and I firmly disagree that liberation is merely the removal of foreign influences from a nation.

I also used the term opression.

–verb (used with object), -at·ed, -at·ing.
1.
to set free, as from imprisonment or bondage.
2.
to free (a nation or area) from control by a foreign or oppressive government.
3.
to free (a group or individual) from social or economic constraints or discrimination, esp. arising from traditional role expectations or bias.
4.
to disengage; set free from combination, as a gas.
5.
Slang . to steal or take over illegally: The soldiers liberated a consignment of cigarettes.

It has a few meanings, but I'm sure you were both aware of that.

This is a whole different subject but that view would explain the quotation marks if they were intended. I wont get into it and derail this thread, but I will say I disagree with your views. The chinese government is one of the most oppressive on earth.

On what scale?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:All our money sure is going to some great progress.

It's worth a shot.

Don't ever go to vegas.