Mubarak has resigned!!!!!!!

[Virus]

I wasn't aware that Libya spent much time in alliance with the US. I seem to recall some exchanges of bombing raids and the like in the 80s. Despite this libya has a modicum of stability much to the regret of any who actualy has to talk to Gaddafi.

Relations with Libya were normalized after Qaddafi abandoned his WMD program and ceased sponsorship of terror.

He's been running the place for the last 30 years. It seems likely that he has something to do with it's current social and economic situation.

The branches of the government and millitary are in shambles due to incompetence, corruption and nepotism. The economy is a mess. The country produces nothing save tourism. A business elite consists of a handful of families that are cozy with the government and a myriad of convoluted laws and corrupt officials make it difficult to compete. Education has been neglected, illiteracy is high, especially amongst women. Economic development has been neglected. The state-owned press has been on a tight leash but given free reign to print outlandish conspiracies about Israel to focus people's hatred elsewhere. There aren't enough jobs for the skyrocketing population and many of the jobs that are there are pointless busywork the government gave the middle classes to keep them happy.

I agree that the network of corruption, grease and favors all flows from Mubarak. The top positions in the ministries and the military were given out by Mubarak as rewards for loyalty and they've just dumped him overboard to save their skins and win over the public. But the network of corruption exists in all Arab countries. It's the way their society works.

The crusaders might dissagree.

Yeah great example.

 

[JihadJane]

I'm pretty sure joining the EU doesn't work like confessional. It doesn't magically wipe the slate clean. Europeans are always rather quick to dredge up crimes that the USA committed generations ago. Europe's criminal record is far more extensive.

The USA's crimes are really just a continuations of Europe's crimes.

 

[I Ratant]

Which are the extensions of the crimes of the Egyptians and Hittites and Assyrians and those ugly monsters in the next cave over the hill that kill -our- mastodons and hairy rhinos and cave bears and similodons.

 

[JihadJane]

Which are the extensions of the crimes of the Egyptians and Hittites and Assyrians and those ugly monsters in the next cave over the hill that kill -our- mastodons and hairy rhinos and cave bears and similodons.

No.

 

[Toontown]

Even setting aside the fact that a direct invasion where there are no popular uprisings happening is quite a bit different from aiding existing mass uprisings...

How so? Crushed or not, the Iraqi rebels had demonstrated sufficient desire to be rid of the Ba'ath regime. Desire enough to die for it. And the U.S. coalition was "willing" at that point.

A fight is a fight, irrespective of the cosmetic differences you seem to put so much stock in.

the reason we didn't intervene in the 1991 revolts was not because of people on the left, but people on the right. Such as some guy named Dick Cheney.

I see. The lefties were for overthrowing the Ba'ath regime before they were against it?

And Cheney was against it before he was for it? Must have had something to do with the elder Bush calling on the Iraqis, particularly the army, to deal with Saddam's regime on their own dime. And that was when the lefties were in favor of stepping in to a civil war? But then later they were against invading a much weaker Ba'ath regime, degraded by a decade of sanctions? Was that because the uprisings had been crushed, or because the lefties were happy with the sanctions?

Frankly, the only consistent thread I see in the left's persnickety preferences was a stubborn determination to be opposed to whatever a Bush did or did not do. Take away that factor, and the left's "stragedy" was just random flak, justified in various arbitrary ways, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Except they hadn't actually left the region yet. They hadn't even left Iraq yet, when the revolts happened.

How many were still there? Enough to bring a swift end to Saddam's regime, or just enough to get into a quagmire civil war? How much time did Bush have? Enough time to get U.N. approval? Was U.N. approval not important to the lefties at that time? If not, why was it later considered so important that UNSCR 1441 was deemed by the left to be insufficient?

 

[I Ratant]

No.

.
Glad you straightened that out.

 

[JihadJane]

.
Glad you straightened that out.

You're welcome!

 

[FireGarden]

How so? Crushed or not, the Iraqi rebels had demonstrated sufficient desire to be rid of the Ba'ath regime. Desire enough to die for it. And the U.S. coalition was "willing" at that point.

A fight is a fight, irrespective of the cosmetic differences you seem to put so much stock in.



I see. The lefties were for overthrowing the Ba'ath regime before they were against it?

The lefties were for taking out Saddam when the Iraqi people themselves were fighting Saddam.

And Cheney was against it before he was for it?

What Cheney was against: "I would guess if we had gone in there, we would still have forces in Baghdad today."

Whereas the lefties were for supporting the uprising. Not for American troops to march in and occupy the country -- which, as you said, Cheney was for after being against.

How many were still there? Enough to bring a swift end to Saddam's regime, or just enough to get into a quagmire civil war? How much time did Bush have? Enough time to get U.N. approval? Was U.N. approval not important to the lefties at that time? If not, why was it later considered so important that UNSCR 1441 was deemed by the left to be insufficient?

Enough to shoot down Saddam's helicopters and give his enemies a fighting chance. But...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War#The_end_of_active_hostilities

In Iraqi territory that was occupied by the coalition, a peace conference was held where a ceasefire agreement was negotiated and signed by both sides. At the conference, Iraq was approved to fly armed helicopters on their side of the temporary border, ostensibly for government transit due to the damage done to civilian infrastructure. Soon after, these helicopters and much of the Iraqi armed forces were used to fight a Shi'ite uprising in the south.

That was an odd thing. Iraq was allowed to fly armed helicopters because of damage to infrastructure. All America had to do was keep the pressure on a little longer. But Bush senior was worried about what junior achieved: an Iraqi government that is friendly with Iran.

 

[leftysergeant]

I said they had a "modicum of stability". They still have enormous problems with corruption, nepotism, overpopulation, poor education, poor economic development and illiteracy to name just a few things.

"Soon, you'll achieve the stability you strive for/

In a place among the fossils of our times."

 

[WildCat]

The lefties were for taking out Saddam when the Iraqi people themselves were fighting Saddam.

Evidence?

 

[Toontown]

The lefties were for taking out Saddam when the Iraqi people themselves were fighting Saddam.

Without a U.N. resolution? Without domestic support for a long war and occupation?

How, exactly? How did the all-knowing Left plan to help the forlorn rebels prevail against the still-powerful Iraq military? Did you plan to talk the Republican Guard to death, like you're trying to do to me?

What Cheney was against: "I would guess if we had gone in there, we would still have forces in Baghdad today."

He was right. We do have forces in Baghdad today, and we still have forces in Korea after half a century. We had forces in Japan and Germany for more than a decade.

At the time in question, there was no consensus for having troops in Baghdad today. And you know that. You're talking out your ass.

Whereas the lefties were for supporting the uprising. Not for American troops to march in and occupy the country -- which, as you said, Cheney was for after being against.

And the lefties were for before being against. For the completely arbitrary reason that the uprising the lefties ostensibly wished to "support" had been crushed in record time, leaving no actual opportunity to "support" it. And then, when the opportunity for a multinational liberation came, the lefties were against it.

Exactly how did the lefties propose to "support" the uprising, without the extensive use of military force? How was this uprising to succeed with the army against it?

Bush did not call for suicide. Bush called for the Iraqi army to take the side of the people, as the Egyptian army did.

Bush senior was worried about what junior achieved: an Iraqi government that is friendly with Iran.

Evidence, please.

Isn't it true that Bush, because he had no domestic consensus or U.N. authorization or promise of international support to occupy Iraq, chose instead to avoid weakening Iraq's armed forces to the point where they could easily be overwhelmed by Iran?

You wouldn't be trying to pull the wool over our eyes, would you? Tell me you're not trying to do that.

 

[FireGarden]

Evidence?

I'm talking about the lefties in this thread, such as myself when I said the Iraq uprising wasn't America's greatest hour.

He was right. We do have forces in Baghdad today, and we still have forces in Korea after half a century. We had forces in Japan and Germany for more than a decade.

At the time in question, there was no consensus for having troops in Baghdad today. And you know that. You're talking out your ass.

And the lefties were for before being against.

Are you deliberately overlooking the distinction I made?
Supporting the uprising doesn't mean occupying Iraq. That would be described as 'invading Iraq'. When I am for that policy, I will use those words. I promise.

Cheney has changed his mind about occupying Iraq. Supporting the uprising isn't the same as occupying Iraq. So the lefties were for one thing before being against something different. Not that there's anything wrong with changing your mind -- you don't insult Cheney the way you do the lefties.

For the completely arbitrary reason that the uprising the lefties ostensibly wished to "support" had been crushed in record time, leaving no actual opportunity to "support" it.

Exactly how did the lefties propose to "support" the uprising, without the extensive use of military force? How was this uprising to succeed with the army against it? Bush did not call for suicide. Bush called for the Iraqi army to take the side of the people, as the Egyptian army did.

Perhaps you could give us his exact words rather than paraphrasing.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Back to Egypt and Mubarak, it appears that numerous factions in Egypt are for nipping a dynastic formation, a la Assad family in Syria, in the bud. With that as a unifying factor, getting rid of Mubarak is the easy part.

It leaves very open what and who will fill the void.

 

[Skeptic]

Most Israelies, I would say, agree with what most Americans here are saying: it could be a great thing for Egypt if it works out, but the fear is that it will be another Iran. Hamas, after all, was also elected democratically, as were Castro, Chavez, etc., etc., etc.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

Evidence?

There were liberal hawks during Desert Storm and in the aftermath disappointed in reticent actions of preserving the borders instead of assisting the rebellions. However it was a liberal minority. Liberals in general were staunchly anti-war at the time. The perception was that the war was largely a defense of oil reserves rather than one of securing Kuwaiti freedoms. That the previous actions of Desert Shield were also perceived to be a defense of the oil reserves of our ally Saudi Arabia did not help such perceptions. I do not recall any actual liberal support for Hussein but do not discount the possibility that some actually did. Something G. H. Bush could have done with his speaches in my opinon was to invoke "freedoms" and "democracy" rather than "sovereign" and "territory." I doubt the stigma of it being an oil war would have been impossible to avoid no matter what though. Its hard to argue that our alliances with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were not heavily influenced by the oil trade. The same was said of our involvement in Somalia at the time in regards to supporting Siad Barre, two thirds of Somalia territory being slated as oil concessions to American oil companies in deals with Siad Barre. Djibouti and South Ossetian wars during this time period were considered major issues of democracy and minority respect but had no US oil interests, and little to no US intervention. The Yugoslavian conflict is the middle ground in this. It was of humanitarian interests, lacked US oil concerns, but still managed US intervention. I think the general liberal dogma at the time of the Persian Gulf War was that the US should broker peace deals, not directly interfere in territorial conflicts. Henry Gonzalez a House Democrat of the time even introduced impeachment legislation for G. H. Bush over the Iraqi operations. Of course, he claimed in the 1991 January 16 impeachment articles that no children had yet been killed by Iraqi forces and that US military intervention will assure that. Considering that Iraqi forces had bombed Kuwait City months before I find this claim a bit dubious. Selling military action as a defense of humanitarian ideals and territorial borders is difficult when there are clear oil advantages being protected.

To be clear, I am not making a specific judgement in this post, just pointing out the perception and the airs of the time. I have not seen much stating that many liberals were even much aware of the Kuwaiti and Shia rebellions of 1991, the rhetoric was mostly focussed on the "No Blood For Oil" message.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

Back to Egypt and Mubarak, it appears that numerous factions in Egypt are for nipping a dynastic formation, a la Assad family in Syria, in the bud. With that as a unifying factor, getting rid of Mubarak is the easy part.

It leaves very open what and who will fill the void.

The issue is very open ended at the moment. There is growing disconect between the protestors and military forces. The protestors are saying they want to see all of Mubarak's people gone. The military is focussed on normalizing acitivity. The next few days could easily spark in many directions. Regardless of how it turns out in the end, it will be interesting times for Egypt. Does Egypt have some of Constitution at this juncture? I doubt we will see a complete removal of the systems currently in place, but constitutional formation or reform is often a sign of actual change instead of New Boss Same As The Old Boss.

 

[Thunder]

Most Israelies, I would say, agree with what most Americans here are saying: it could be a great thing for Egypt if it works out, but the fear is that it will be another Iran. Hamas, after all, was also elected democratically, as were Castro, Chavez, etc., etc., etc.

excuse me????

Fidel Castro was democratically elected ruler of Cuba?

 

[WildCat]

I'm talking about the lefties in this thread, such as myself when I said the Iraq uprising wasn't America's greatest hour.

I don't recall any "lefties" calling for military intervention back in '91. I do recall many on the right were furious we didn't remove Saddam from power then The counterargument to that, which Bush I agreed with, was that the coalition would break apart if we had. Indeed, if that was the stated goal at the beginning there wouldn't have been a coalition at all.

Are you deliberately overlooking the distinction I made?
Supporting the uprising doesn't mean occupying Iraq. That would be described as 'invading Iraq'. When I am for that policy, I will use those words. I promise.

We "supported the uprising" by implementing no-fly zones in the north and south. It turned out Saddam didn't need aircraft to brutally repress any rebellion.

What do you think we should have done in support? Air strikes on Baghdad?

 

[Virus]

Didn't the lefties oppose the Gulf War in the first place? I know people like Noam Chomsky were calling it an imperialist adventure. Didn't they say it was based on a lie about Iraqi troops killing babies in incubators? So that means the lefties were against it before they were for it before they were against it again.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

Didn't the lefties oppose the Gulf War in the first place? I know people like Noam Chomsky were calling it an imperialist adventure. Didn't they say it was based on a lie about Iraqi troops killing babies in incubators? So that means the lefties were against it before they were for it before they were against it again.

Yes, the left was against the Persian Gulf War. It was viewed as American Imperialism. The meme was "No Blood For Oil" and "New World Order." The incubator thing is something I have never heard before. I have heard that the claims of nuclear weapons were lies, I have heard that Kuwait was the aggressor by engaging in US mandated economic warfare against OPEC, I have heard it was an attempt at American Colonialism. As pointed out earlier, the articles of impeachment said that no children have been killed by Iraqis in the conflict, but it made no mention of babies in incubators. Where does the babies in incubators thing come from?