3 ms·

One big difference is that Iran's Revolutionary Guard isn't directly financed by the US State Department to the tune of $1.6 billion. That dollar amount is beco

by alexqgb 16y ago

One big difference is that Iran's Revolutionary Guard isn't directly financed by the US State Department to the tune of $1.6 billion. That dollar amount is becoming increasingly public here in the US. If the Police in Egypt start running around with machetes and hunting down dissidents to murder them like they did in Iran, the American government is going to have a hard time maintaining the completely bullshit "Mubarak is our Partner in Peace" line. That's doubly true when you consider the obscene amount of blood and treasure poured into Iraq under the premise that the US is "investing in Arab democracy."

cturner 16y ago
The partner in peace line is appropriate. Egypt is active in working towards regional peace. Consider how Egypt could instead by run. It could be led by religious group and be something like Iran. Or it could be led by the stereotype arab despot - constantly picking fights with Israel to create a distraction and channel the country's hatred at somebody outside the borders. Mubarak doesn't set a high bar, but if all the middle east leaders were merely as good as him, the region would be a much better place.
- redthrowaway 16y ago
  >if all the middle east leaders were merely as good as him, the region would be a much better place. No it wouldn't. It might be a better place for Israel, but it would still be a terrible place for Arabs. Egyptians are rebelling for a reason: They have no jobs, and no food. They are kept under the heel of a brutal dictatorship. So are Saudis and Yemenis and everyone else the West likes. The US props up the Egyptian dictatorship because Mubarak is pro-west and willing to work with the international community re: Israel. That doesn't make him good. He's still a brutal dictator, in charge of a corrupt regime. It's no secret that Islamic fundamentalism originated in Egypt, and it's no wonder why. Now, that's not to say the Lebanese or Syrians or Palestinians have it any better. The Iranians do, but that's a separate issue. The point is, the US needs to pull its head out of its ass in regards to foreign policy and stop propping up brutal dictators who happen to have a convergence of short-term interests with the west. From Hussein to Pinochet to Suharto to the Shah to the Sauds to Noriega to Pap & Baby Doc to Trujillo to Batista to at least a dozen others, the United States has, for the better part of a century, installed or backed countless brutal dictators the world round. First in the name of the fight against communism, then drugs, then oil, the US has always found a way to ensure people are tortured and murdered if it furthers their aims. This might come across as an anti-American rant. It isn't. It is, however, a rant against the willful ignorance of those who think the United States acts in anything other than its own interests, or that it gives a rats ass about the suffering caused by its actions. The Arab world, and the world as a whole, would be far better served if the US and Iran let the arab people determine their own future. Unfortunately, that would mean the end to cheap oil, so it won't happen.
  - cturner 16y ago
    This might come across as an anti-American rant. Well - a lot of your comment is worded as though it's a contradition to what I said, where it isn't. It's difficult to participate in a conversation where you're getting hit over the head with a world view like that.
    - redthrowaway 16y ago
      I'm not trying to hit anyone over the head with a worldview, merely trying to dispel the notion that "friendly" governments in the middle east are somehow "good". Your assertion that Egypt is "committed to peace", and therefor good for the region, is mistaken. The government of Egypt is committed to peace inasmuch, and only inasmuch, as it is committed to self-preservation through currying Western (primarily US) favour. The same can be said for most of the other so-called "good" middle-eastern countries, with the possible exception of Turkey. Your claim that I denied was that the middle east would be better with more Mubaraks. I claimed, I believe with good evidence, that the existence of Mubaraks in the middle east is precisely what prevents the region from being peaceful and prosperous. To the extent that I editorialized is simply the extent to which I felt it necessary to explain why the Mubaraks of the world exist. If my worldview, namely that the US acts in its own interests without regard to the wellbeing of the people its policies affect is one you have a problem with, then by all means tell me why. If, on the other hand, you take offense to my claim that the United States knowingly and willfully installs, props up, prolongs, and supports brutal, tortuous, and murderous dictatorships around the world, then you have a great deal of reality to conquer if you wish to dispute it.
      - cturner 16y ago
        I'm not trying to hit anyone over the head with a worldview, merely trying to dispel the notion that "friendly" governments in the middle east are somehow "good". Your assertion that Egypt is "committed to peace", and therefor good for the region, is mistaken. I didn't say committed to peace, so it's pretty low to quote me. I also didn't say friendly. I did say good, but not in the context you use. If, on the other hand, you take offense to my claim I explained what offended me, but you charged through again.

by alexqgb 16y ago

cturner 16y ago

The partner in peace line is appropriate. Egypt is active in working towards regional peace. Consider how Egypt could instead by run. It could be led by religious group and be something like Iran. Or it could be led by the stereotype arab despot - constantly picking fights with Israel to create a distraction and channel the country's hatred at somebody outside the borders. Mubarak doesn't set a high bar, but if all the middle east leaders were merely as good as him, the region would be a much better place.

redthrowaway 16y ago
>if all the middle east leaders were merely as good as him, the region would be a much better place. No it wouldn't. It might be a better place for Israel, but it would still be a terrible place for Arabs. Egyptians are rebelling for a reason: They have no jobs, and no food. They are kept under the heel of a brutal dictatorship. So are Saudis and Yemenis and everyone else the West likes. The US props up the Egyptian dictatorship because Mubarak is pro-west and willing to work with the international community re: Israel. That doesn't make him good. He's still a brutal dictator, in charge of a corrupt regime. It's no secret that Islamic fundamentalism originated in Egypt, and it's no wonder why. Now, that's not to say the Lebanese or Syrians or Palestinians have it any better. The Iranians do, but that's a separate issue. The point is, the US needs to pull its head out of its ass in regards to foreign policy and stop propping up brutal dictators who happen to have a convergence of short-term interests with the west. From Hussein to Pinochet to Suharto to the Shah to the Sauds to Noriega to Pap & Baby Doc to Trujillo to Batista to at least a dozen others, the United States has, for the better part of a century, installed or backed countless brutal dictators the world round. First in the name of the fight against communism, then drugs, then oil, the US has always found a way to ensure people are tortured and murdered if it furthers their aims. This might come across as an anti-American rant. It isn't. It is, however, a rant against the willful ignorance of those who think the United States acts in anything other than its own interests, or that it gives a rats ass about the suffering caused by its actions. The Arab world, and the world as a whole, would be far better served if the US and Iran let the arab people determine their own future. Unfortunately, that would mean the end to cheap oil, so it won't happen.
- cturner 16y ago
  This might come across as an anti-American rant. Well - a lot of your comment is worded as though it's a contradition to what I said, where it isn't. It's difficult to participate in a conversation where you're getting hit over the head with a world view like that.
  - redthrowaway 16y ago
    I'm not trying to hit anyone over the head with a worldview, merely trying to dispel the notion that "friendly" governments in the middle east are somehow "good". Your assertion that Egypt is "committed to peace", and therefor good for the region, is mistaken. The government of Egypt is committed to peace inasmuch, and only inasmuch, as it is committed to self-preservation through currying Western (primarily US) favour. The same can be said for most of the other so-called "good" middle-eastern countries, with the possible exception of Turkey. Your claim that I denied was that the middle east would be better with more Mubaraks. I claimed, I believe with good evidence, that the existence of Mubaraks in the middle east is precisely what prevents the region from being peaceful and prosperous. To the extent that I editorialized is simply the extent to which I felt it necessary to explain why the Mubaraks of the world exist. If my worldview, namely that the US acts in its own interests without regard to the wellbeing of the people its policies affect is one you have a problem with, then by all means tell me why. If, on the other hand, you take offense to my claim that the United States knowingly and willfully installs, props up, prolongs, and supports brutal, tortuous, and murderous dictatorships around the world, then you have a great deal of reality to conquer if you wish to dispute it.
    - cturner 16y ago
      I'm not trying to hit anyone over the head with a worldview, merely trying to dispel the notion that "friendly" governments in the middle east are somehow "good". Your assertion that Egypt is "committed to peace", and therefor good for the region, is mistaken. I didn't say committed to peace, so it's pretty low to quote me. I also didn't say friendly. I did say good, but not in the context you use. If, on the other hand, you take offense to my claim I explained what offended me, but you charged through again.