3 ms·

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 someh

by 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.

redthrowaway 16y ago
Sorry, "committed to peace" came from elsewhere; your words were "active in working towards regional peace". I'm not sure how these differ, but given your opposition to my previous characterization, I would be interested in hearing your views on the matter. As for "good", you implied that a propagation of Mubaraks would be a good thing. If I'm reading that wrong, again, feel free to correct me. "I explained what offended me, but you charged through again." I'm not sure where your offense comes from. I specified which part of your claim I was attempting to refute; I took no stance on the "Mubarak is better than the alternative" side. Certainly, there are much worse options out there. I took issue, however, with your claim that a middle east of Mubaraks would be better than the current situation. While this may or may not be true, it should not be a goal of any thinking, compassionate individual. Feel free to contradict that, as well.
- cturner 16y ago
  On peace - the style of Egyptian diplomacy is a bit like a typical Western European country. They try to get their neighbours to get along with one another. As for "good", you implied that a propagation of Mubaraks would be a good thing. If I'm reading that wrong, again, feel free to correct me. I don't agree with this idea you wrote about, "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." You're describing there places as thought they're frustrated democracies. I don't see it - I see powder kegs. When Eastern Europe broke up, the only significant school of thought against the current system was a western style parliamentary dictatorship. They were ethnically homogenous countries. There weren't strong crusade narratives amongst the people. Whereas in the middle east, there's a strong attraction towards religious dictatorship, plenty of ethnic diversity, and plenty of people willing to die for the cause. I'm not sure where your offense comes from. It's the thing where I'm being attacked for things I didn't say. I took issue, however, with your claim that a middle east of Mubaraks would be better than the current situation. OK. I'm not attached to it.

by cturner 16y ago

redthrowaway 16y ago

Sorry, "committed to peace" came from elsewhere; your words were "active in working towards regional peace". I'm not sure how these differ, but given your opposition to my previous characterization, I would be interested in hearing your views on the matter. As for "good", you implied that a propagation of Mubaraks would be a good thing. If I'm reading that wrong, again, feel free to correct me. "I explained what offended me, but you charged through again." I'm not sure where your offense comes from. I specified which part of your claim I was attempting to refute; I took no stance on the "Mubarak is better than the alternative" side. Certainly, there are much worse options out there. I took issue, however, with your claim that a middle east of Mubaraks would be better than the current situation. While this may or may not be true, it should not be a goal of any thinking, compassionate individual. Feel free to contradict that, as well.

cturner 16y ago
On peace - the style of Egyptian diplomacy is a bit like a typical Western European country. They try to get their neighbours to get along with one another. As for "good", you implied that a propagation of Mubaraks would be a good thing. If I'm reading that wrong, again, feel free to correct me. I don't agree with this idea you wrote about, "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." You're describing there places as thought they're frustrated democracies. I don't see it - I see powder kegs. When Eastern Europe broke up, the only significant school of thought against the current system was a western style parliamentary dictatorship. They were ethnically homogenous countries. There weren't strong crusade narratives amongst the people. Whereas in the middle east, there's a strong attraction towards religious dictatorship, plenty of ethnic diversity, and plenty of people willing to die for the cause. I'm not sure where your offense comes from. It's the thing where I'm being attacked for things I didn't say. I took issue, however, with your claim that a middle east of Mubaraks would be better than the current situation. OK. I'm not attached to it.