Tunisia and Egypt play dominoes?

[Meshugger]

Of course, the uncomfortable thing for a lot of folks is the slowly dawning realisation that Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld had a point...

 

Haha. WTF!?

 

That's right, he's committed heresy. Burn the witch.

 

Why not have a think, y'know, an original thought? One not prescribed by your almost certainly libtard peer group? Maybe challenge them and explore a perspective you don't normally share?

 

I do it now and then. Sometimes I even realise my point of view on a subject was skewed. Why not check it out?

 

Oh, stop being such a tease. I want to know what the point was

[Walsingham]

I tend to think that the democratisation of mass communication is the most important factor

 

Interesting angle. How would this explain the failure of revolts in several places? Does it correlate with the spread of such comms? I've no idea. If so, get a paper out about it, double quick.

[Gorth]

I tend to think that the democratisation of mass communication is the most important factor

 

Interesting angle. How would this explain the failure of revolts in several places? Does it correlate with the spread of such comms? I've no idea. If so, get a paper out about it, double quick.

It looks more like that the amount of popular access to outside influences (media, trade, etc.) improves the chances of success and the degree of motivation. Ideas can indeed be dangerous. Iran and Saudi Arabia are likely way down on the list of candidates for system changes.

[Humodour]

Of course, the uncomfortable thing for a lot of folks is the slowly dawning realisation that Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld had a point...

 

Haha. WTF!?

 

That's right, he's committed heresy. Burn the witch.

 

Why not have a think, y'know, an original thought? One not prescribed by your almost certainly libtard peer group? Maybe challenge them and explore a perspective you don't normally share?

 

I do it now and then. Sometimes I even realise my point of view on a subject was skewed. Why not check it out?

 

What caused your change to bitter knee-jerk extremism? You used to be reasonably sensible and moderate.

[213374U]

I tend to think that the democratisation of mass communication is the most important factor

 

Interesting angle. How would this explain the failure of revolts in several places? Does it correlate with the spread of such comms? I've no idea. If so, get a paper out about it, double quick.

It looks more like that the amount of popular access to outside influences (media, trade, etc.) improves the chances of success and the degree of motivation. Ideas can indeed be dangerous.

Yeah... the idea that the revolution can actually triumph being the most dangerous of all. Impossible to say for certain, but I doubt things would have gone this far if Ben Ali had managed to stay in power. Is it 1848 all over again?

Edited February 22, 2011 by 213374U

[Rostere]

Rostere, I don't want to jump all over you with boots here. However, we've seen precisely one regime change thus far. From a force-based* one man state to a military junta. Elsewhere we've seen popular uprisings smacked down like a drunk donkey. The faith certain people - not necessarily you - have in bloodless replacements of dictators is like a faith in miraculous healing in its persistence, lack of any logical reasoning, and paucity of examples. Whereas the notion that regimes can be** changed by invasion is backed by the whole of human history.

 

As I see things, there have been two dictators deposed (in Tunisia and Egypt), in two countries now set to have free elections. If you suggest that bloodless demonstrations are pointless, I suggest you give the following a thorough look:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_revolution

 

You being British I assume you have some knowledge of Gandhi, who together with the non-violent revolutionaries in the former Soviet Union would be reason enough to support the idea of avoiding excessive force in these very delicate situations.

 

I do not doubt that regimes can be changed by military intervention, however the collateral damage in addition to the risk of a backlash are much greater. But let's not stray too far from my original point: that a revolution backed with arms from a Western country would fail because of it's own illegitimacy, and generate more casualties. To me, this is quite obvious. It also seems to be an aspect of the whole business advocates of war and violence never think of.

[Walsingham]

Rostere, I don't want to jump all over you with boots here. However, we've seen precisely one regime change thus far. From a force-based* one man state to a military junta. Elsewhere we've seen popular uprisings smacked down like a drunk donkey. The faith certain people - not necessarily you - have in bloodless replacements of dictators is like a faith in miraculous healing in its persistence, lack of any logical reasoning, and paucity of examples. Whereas the notion that regimes can be** changed by invasion is backed by the whole of human history.

 

As I see things, there have been two dictators deposed (in Tunisia and Egypt), in two countries now set to have free elections. If you suggest that bloodless demonstrations are pointless, I suggest you give the following a thorough look:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_revolution

 

You being British I assume you have some knowledge of Gandhi, who together with the non-violent revolutionaries in the former Soviet Union would be reason enough to support the idea of avoiding excessive force in these very delicate situations.

 

I do not doubt that regimes can be changed by military intervention, however the collateral damage in addition to the risk of a backlash are much greater. But let's not stray too far from my original point: that a revolution backed with arms from a Western country would fail because of it's own illegitimacy, and generate more casualties. To me, this is quite obvious. It also seems to be an aspect of the whole business advocates of war and violence never think of.

 

Having done you the courtesy of reading that link I'm even less convinced than I was to begin with. Not least because your central thesis is repeated at the top of the page, with a sonorous 'citation needed' after it.

 

The three exemplars your employ are defunct on separate distinct counts:

 

1. I can't believe anyone is so naive that they really believe there will be free and fair elections on schedule in Tunisia and Egypt at this stage.

 

2. Being British I know that Ghandi himself asserted that nonviolent revolution in India was predicated on the fact that while colonialism was corrupt and violent, the British people fundamentally weren't, and would eventually respond to nonviolent protest without simply slaughtering everyone. Which is quite pleasing, even if it was intended to support his efforts by flattering us.

 

3. The communist dictatorships always based their legitimacy both on physical force, economic prosperity for all, and on intellectual philosophy in the form of marxism. The latter two supports collapsed when (with the notable exception of our esteemed colleague) everyone actually living under it realised everything they owned was crappy, and the intellectual justification was bollocks. Whereas a state predicated solely on macchiavellian use of ultraviolence, such as Burma or Sudan, sails confidently on.

 

~

 

With reference to your last point I have never said that violent revolution was anything more than a recipe for civil war. And civil wars are incredibly violent.

 

I'm utterly baffled by your assertion that violent regime change doesn't work, since nonviolent regime change is a new phenomenon in human history. Which begs the question of how regimes changed prior to this. Perhaps in a game of pazaak?

[Zoraptor]

I tend to think that the democratisation of mass communication is the most important factor

 

Interesting angle. How would this explain the failure of revolts in several places? Does it correlate with the spread of such comms? I've no idea. If so, get a paper out about it, double quick.

Depends what you mean by 'failure' of revolt. Generally where there is a 'failure' (and in many cases I suspect it is more like a delay rather than an outright failure) there is some sort of other circumstance effecting things- like the presence of very strongly motivated pro-government people in Iran to balance the anti-government ones, or the general disdain for Israel in Lebanon or Syria that tends to stabilise what should theoretically be fairly unpopular governments, or that there is a potential for just throwing enormous amounts of cash at problems if you're Saudi/ Kuwaiti/ Qatari.

 

The main reason I'd say that the mass communication angle is important is that it evens out one of the really big advantages a repressive regime has traditionally had. If you have someone on a street corner shouting "down with the tyrants" it's a matter of simplicity to bundle them into a car. If someone says the same thing on the internet it is theoretically available to everyone, it's far more difficult to censor and far more difficult to bundle the offenders off to the arabic equivalent of Room 101. Basically it comes down to three factors: it's easier to disseminate the information, it's more difficult to repress the information and- in military terms- it gives protesters an ability to communicate that rivals the ability of police or military in terms of immediacy, even if it is not as robust. So whereas you might be dealing with a few scattered and easy to handle groups previously it is now far easier for those groups to cooperate/ amalgamate and organise.

[Humodour]

Guys, it's worth pointing out that half of Tunisia is now in controlled by the protesters (many military units have defected to them). Notably, the part controlled by the protesters is the part with significant amounts of oil, IIRC.

 

Libya's dictatorship has already lost. Now the question is: how many people will it decide to kill as it dies, and will Libya fall into civil war?

 

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/23/...E71M0CF20110223

Edited February 23, 2011 by Krezack

[Walsingham]

I tend to think that the democratisation of mass communication is the most important factor

 

Interesting angle. How would this explain the failure of revolts in several places? Does it correlate with the spread of such comms? I've no idea. If so, get a paper out about it, double quick.

Depends what you mean by 'failure' of revolt. Generally where there is a 'failure' (and in many cases I suspect it is more like a delay rather than an outright failure) there is some sort of other circumstance effecting things- like the presence of very strongly motivated pro-government people in Iran to balance the anti-government ones, or the general disdain for Israel in Lebanon or Syria that tends to stabilise what should theoretically be fairly unpopular governments, or that there is a potential for just throwing enormous amounts of cash at problems if you're Saudi/ Kuwaiti/ Qatari.

 

The main reason I'd say that the mass communication angle is important is that it evens out one of the really big advantages a repressive regime has traditionally had. If you have someone on a street corner shouting "down with the tyrants" it's a matter of simplicity to bundle them into a car. If someone says the same thing on the internet it is theoretically available to everyone, it's far more difficult to censor and far more difficult to bundle the offenders off to the arabic equivalent of Room 101. Basically it comes down to three factors: it's easier to disseminate the information, it's more difficult to repress the information and- in military terms- it gives protesters an ability to communicate that rivals the ability of police or military in terms of immediacy, even if it is not as robust. So whereas you might be dealing with a few scattered and easy to handle groups previously it is now far easier for those groups to cooperate/ amalgamate and organise.

 

I still think it's naive on a scale with 1968 to suggest that these revolutions which fail are just a "delay".

 

I also think it may be slightly slanted to say that Saudi et al. fix this by throwing money at it. I think it would be far far more accurate to say that these North Africa revolutions are primarily about money. After all, the guy who started it all by setting fire to himself did so because he was denied the ability to earn his crust, not because of free speech.

 

You make an interesting expansion on your point with speech, but as with our wikileaks debate I suggest that you conflate (I think that's the right word ) speaking and organising. Speech, by its qualities can organise. But it can just as easily do little more than stir emotional excitement to no useful purpose. Viz the students who sat in Tianenmen square for days before the government realised they were just a rabble and squashed them - in some cases quite literally.

[Wrath of Dagon]

there is some sort of other circumstance effecting things- like the presence of very strongly motivated pro-government people in Iran to balance the anti-government ones, or the general disdain for Israel in Lebanon or Syria that tends to stabilise what should theoretically be fairly unpopular governments,

Sometimes you're just incredibly naive and/or biased. The simple and obvious explanation is massive amounts of brute force. You will notice it's the most totalitarian and anti-Western regimes that are proving the most stable.

[Enoch]

there is some sort of other circumstance effecting things- like the presence of very strongly motivated pro-government people in Iran to balance the anti-government ones, or the general disdain for Israel in Lebanon or Syria that tends to stabilise what should theoretically be fairly unpopular governments,

Sometimes you're just incredibly naive and/or biased. The simple and obvious explanation is massive amounts of brute force. You will notice it's the most totalitarian and anti-Western regimes that are proving the most stable.

When you're talking about movements like these, "simple and obvious explanations" is pretty much synonymous with "naive explanations."

 

There's a tendency among some commentators in the West to paint "the middle east" or "the muslim world" with the same brush. The current wave of insurrection has a common inspiration, but each struggle is very different. Because each of these countries are more different than they are the same.

[Zoraptor]

Yes, it's far too complex a situation to put anything down to a single cause and anyone stating causes is really only stating their own opinion of what they think is significant. There's clearly a bunch of different factors and influences at work.

 

At this stage though the obvious 'disprover' of the violence + anti-westernism = stability theory is, well, Libya.

[Walsingham]

I still say it's far too early to say whether Libya will 'fall'*.

 

Very good article on 'who is propping up Ghaddafi' by Frank Gardner, who I like having met him briefly last year when he was still limping about with Al Qaeda bullet wounds in him.

 

 

*One might equally well say rise up.

[Walsingham]

Stratfor.com might start to get annoyed with me eventually, but this was so good I had to pass it on.

 

Libya is a moderately sized oil producer. Its total production is about 1.8 million barrels per day. Under normal circumstances it exports approximately 1.5 million barrels per day, of that, most of which goes to Europe. The problem Libya faces is twofold. First, they only have about 6.5 million people, so they

[Monte Carlo]

Obviously, I choked on my kedgeree the other morning when I heard the BBC Radio 4 crew, the people who died in a ditch opposing the Iraq war, quizzing politicos about why "nothing was being done" about the Mad Dog of Tripoli. So let me get this straight, OK? Toppling sadistic dictators in totalitarian, oil-rich Arab regimes is OK as long as George W Bush didn't order it. OK, just so as long as we're clear on that one.

 

For the record, it was a left-of-centre British government that got into bed with Gaddaffi and released the Lockerbie bomber. The current lot have FUBAR'd our defence budget even more than the last lot. And our liberal media are now, suddenly, sabre-rattling.

 

Sheesh.

[mkreku]

Obviously, I choked on my kedgeree the other morning when I heard the BBC Radio 4 crew, the people who died in a ditch opposing the Iraq war, quizzing politicos about why "nothing was being done" about the Mad Dog of Tripoli. So let me get this straight, OK? Toppling sadistic dictators in totalitarian, oil-rich Arab regimes is OK as long as George W Bush didn't order it. OK, just so as long as we're clear on that one.

 

For the record, it was a left-of-centre British government that got into bed with Gaddaffi and released the Lockerbie bomber. The current lot have FUBAR'd our defence budget even more than the last lot. And our liberal media are now, suddenly, sabre-rattling.

 

Sheesh.

What's up with you and the excessive BS lately?

 

Iraq was NOT in a state of revolution! Saddam, as evil as he was, was NOT ordering his attack helicopters to open fire on demonstrators! The war on Iraq was based on lies, and everyone knows it. Except you, apparently. There's a pretty big difference between starting a war for oil and helping a suffering people. Apparently not to you.

 

And just stop it with this tiresome leftists did this and that BS. You're full of it and it's getting old.

[Monte Carlo]

^ A bit rich coming from a scratched record like you.

 

Saddam was up to his neck in blood. He made Gaddaffi look like an amateur.

[Meshugger]

Saddam gassed a couple of thousand kurds and waged a civil war against the shiites during the times of desert storm. But before operation Iraqi freedom, things were pretty calm. Certainly no big and bloody demonstrations like the ones in Libya at the moment.

 

If Saddam wasn't overthrown, I wonder if the current revolution would've expanded to Iraq as well.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Speaking of Iraq: http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20110224/wl_t...sfullworldyahoo

 

Nonviolent movements had overthrown tyranny in India, South Africa and, more recently, in Eastern Europe, I said. But Na'il was unconvinced. Nonviolence could only work, he said, if the regime was reluctant to use violence against his own people. Saddam had no such compunctions. "If there were a million Gandhi's in Iraq," Na'il said, "Saddam would send the Republican Guard to kill every one of them, and they would do it without any hesitation."

I didn't realize Britain was tyranical, but whatever. Come to think of it, none of those were tyrannies.

[213374U]

Funny how (pop) history tends to paint the guy at the front of the movement as the defining factor for change - when often nothing could be farther from the truth. Gandhi didn't force the British from India, Hitler and Tojo Hideki did. I remember reading some time ago about a letter sent by ol' Winston to the king when he was the First Sea Lord, expressing concern that the exorbitant costs of maintaining the RN were about as high as the British Raj's, and while the Empire may not need the Raj to survive, the same most certainly could not be said about the Navy.

 

On the thought of non-violence, here's a quote from a guy that, unlike today's generations, knew what he was talking about from personal experience: "We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us."

[Volourn]

"Iraq was NOT in a state of revolution! Saddam, as evil as he was, was NOT ordering his attack helicopters to open fire on demonstrators!"

 

Nah. He was doing stuff like that all along. From even before he got power he had no problem with mass murder.

 

 

"But before operation Iraqi freedom, things were pretty calm."

 

Just not true unless your defintion of 'calm' is different than what the word actually means.

 

 

"Iraq was NOT in a state of revolution!"

 

Because, Hussein made sure it with his mass murders. It's not like Iraqis didn't try multiple times.

 

The Iraq war was based on truths.

[Humodour]

I still say it's far too early to say whether Libya will 'fall'*.

 

Um, no, over half of Libya is now completely controlled by the protesters and defecting army units. Only Tripoli, the capital, remains fully under Gaddafi's control.

 

It hasn't been about whether Libya will oust Gaddafi for a while now, it is about when.

[Enoch]

I still say it's far too early to say whether Libya will 'fall'*.

 

Um, no, over half of Libya is now completely controlled by the protesters and defecting army units. Only Tripoli, the capital, remains fully under Gaddafi's control.

 

It hasn't been about whether Libya will oust Gaddafi for a while now, it is about when.

It's also about whether, in the absence of Qaddafi, the protesters and defected military will just keep fighting with each other. Tunisia had an opposition-in-waiting ready to step in. Egypt had the widely-respected military leadership to serve as an interim government. And both had behind-the-scenes guidance from patrons in Western governments. Libya has none of the above-- Qaddafi brooked no opposition, the army is fractured and not particularly popular, and Western influence is minimal apart from the people who buy their oil. If Qaddafi holds on long enough for his opponents to turn on each other, he might have a chance.

Edited February 25, 2011 by Enoch

[Walsingham]

I'm fast beginning to wonder if my emmory is going, or I come from another planet.

 

Iraq wasn't in a state of unrest? Saddam wasn't slaughtering his people?

 

No. I'm going to have to sit and stare at that one later with a mug of tea.