If you are debating intervention in Syria ...

[DemonicAppleGuY]

This, I feel, is true to some extent.

But that is, in itself, a conspiracy theory.

You know: unknown forces working behind the scenes in unknown ways for unknown reasons.

I don't think there's anyway to know for sure.

No one can know what they cannot know.

Or do you have some inside knowledge denied to the rest of us? In which case there's wikileaks just waiting to hear from you.

Saying that countries engage in realpolitik is far from a conspiracy theory.

And the reasons are not really unknown and certainly are learn-able or determinable. Universities offer course over world politics, international relations, economics, military strategy, and a number of other things for a reason p:

 

[ReindeerThistle]

I take it that isn't some flippant observation that we're all of us terminal? That would seem a very unlikely thing to say.

But in that case, isn't holding out till "someone finds a cure" a bit of a forlorn hope? As far as I know medical science doesn't suddenly make leaps of discovery like that. (or it only very very rarely does)

Though often enough medical interventions in terminal cases is very often concerned to prolong life. Which is a good thing. Supposing that the quality of life isn't too badly compromised as a result. It's all a bit of a trade-off situation.

He wants to get strong enough to help find a cure. Before he was hospitalized he was doing cooperative work at a cancer center lab.

Our goal, being, we -- his circle of friends and fellow organizers -- is to keep him alive as long as HE wants to.

His fighting spirit is a source of inspiration to many. He gets cards and lettrs from all over the US. Our role in his survival is because the value of one life is greater than the hoarded gold of the wealthiest person on earth.

If you want one sentence that personifies MY beliefs, it's that.

Sent via mobile.

 

[Borachio]

That's a quote (the gold thing) from somewhere, I'm sure. I can't remember where.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

That's a quote (the gold thing) from somewhere, I'm sure. I can't remember where.

Che.

Sounds more romantic when my GF says it to me in Spanish.

Sent via mobile.

 

[Borachio]

That's him!

 

[Commodore]

You're just parroting propaganda. The Egyptians voted for Morsi free elections, free elections the US government pretended to support in public. They didn't like the outcome, so they tacitly approved (and probably gave a wink in the back channels) to the military and they overthrew him. Now they are killing democratic activists, and your media are reporting it as a kind of intractable conflict with neither goodies or badies that brown people often find themselves in.

You're right, they did elect him freely. But then they didn't like what he was doing and protested to demand his resignation. He refused and ordered the police and military to suppress the demonstrations against him. The military chose to refuse that order and side with the demonstrators and removed Mursi from power.

I mean, are you not aware of his attempt to amend the new Egyptian constitution in such a way as to put himself and his decisions above judicial review? Now I don't know about you, but that sounds like someone trying to set themselves up as a dictator to me.

I also guarantee I have access to a lot more accurate information on the matter than you by virtue of my former employment and friends that are still in that line of work.

 

[Kyriakos]

You're right, they did elect him freely. But then they didn't like what he was doing and protested to demand his resignation. He refused and ordered the police and military to suppress the demonstrations against him. The military chose to refuse that order and side with the demonstrators and removed Mursi from power.

I mean, are you not aware of his attempt to amend the new Egyptian constitution in such a way as to put himself and his decisions above judicial review? Now I don't know about you, but that sounds like someone trying to set themselves up as a dictator to me.

I also guarantee I have access to a lot more accurate information on the matter than you by virtue of my former employment and friends that are still in that line of work.

You make it sound like the Egyptian army is not above judicial review. They killed hundreds of people in the space of a few days. I don't recall anyone being charged for that.

 

[Commodore]

You make it sound like the Egyptian army is not above judicial review. They killed hundreds of people in the space of a few days. I don't recall anyone being charged for that.

The main point I am trying to illustrate is that Mursi wasn't some noble champion of freedom and democracy that was suddenly cast down by corrupt military officers and their shady CIA backers, which Pangur Ban seems to suggest. Mursi lost his right to be president when he issued that decree. I would even go so far as to place the blame for the current violence on him, because I don't believe it would be as bad as it is if he had just stepped down when the PEOPLE asked him to (you know, before the military had to get involved).

 

[Kyriakos]

The main point I am trying to illustrate is that Mursi wasn't some noble champion of freedom and democracy that was suddenly cast down by corrupt military officers and their shady CIA backers, which Pangur Ban seems to suggest. Mursi lost his right to be president when he issued that decree. I would even go so far as to place the blame for the current violence on him, because I don't believe it would be as bad as it is if he had just stepped down when the PEOPLE asked him to (you know, before the military had to get involved).

Hm, is there any PM/President that stepped down "when the people asked him to"?

It would seem that all such political figures just infest the country with their presence once they have been elected, until the next election.

And it is a bit strange to blame Mursi for the death of the hundreds who protested the coup in Egypt. I don't remember Mursi ordering the death of hundreds of anti-Mursi protesters.

Generally Egypt has collapsed by now. Another victory for Democracy and human rights, which only apply when their abuser happens to also be anti-US administration.

 

[Commodore]

Hm, is there any PM/President that stepped down "when the people asked him to"?

It would seem that all such political figures just infest the country with their presence once they have been elected, until the next election.

And it is a bit strange to blame Mursi for the death of the hundreds who protested the coup in Egypt. I don't remember Mursi ordering the death of hundreds of anti-Mursi protesters.

Generally Egypt has collapsed by now. Another victory for Democracy and human rights, which only apply when their abuser happens to also be anti-US administration.

I don't particularly disagree with anything you said. I just felt the need to counter the argument that Mursi was somehow some kind of noble leader trying to rebuild Egypt and fell prey to the shadowy machinations of US foreign policy.

While it is true Mursi did not explicitly order the deaths of protesters, he did order the police and military to suppress the demonstrations. Now, realistically, if the military had followed that order how do you think they would have 'suppressed' the demonstrations? That's right, in the exact same way they are suppressing them now.

 

[Kyriakos]

I find it unlikely that Mursi thought the military would help him, given that a few days later the military deposed him and installed itself as the new regime. Either Mursi was an utter idiot who knew nothing of the military's affiliations despite having lived in Egypt for all his life and being involved in politics, or the military did not seem likely as an ally of his.

Either way, the only non-variable here is that the military did go on its nice killing spree, without which i am pretty sure that by now the protests in Egypt would have been utterly massive. It tends to make people less keen on protesting, once they have seen their friends being shot by snipers and no one willing to do anything to help.

I liked the title of a recent yahoo article, which titled the regime in Egypt as a "problematic democracy"

:/

 

[Commodore]

I find it unlikely that Mursi thought the military would help him, given that a few days later the military deposed him and installed itself as the new regime. Either Mursi was an utter idiot who knew nothing of the military's affiliations despite having lived in Egypt for all his life and being involved in politics, or the military did not seem likely as an ally of his.

Either way, the only non-variable here is that the military did go on its nice killing spree, without which i am pretty sure that by now the protests in Egypt would have been utterly massive. It tends to make people less keen on protesting, once they have seen their friends being shot by snipers and no one willing to do anything to help.

I liked the title of a recent yahoo article, which titled the regime in Egypt as a "problematic democracy"

:/

Yeah I saw that, and it did make me chuckle.

Anyway, the problem I'm seeing in Egypt seems to be one of power corrupting. I think Mursi maybe had good intentions at the start which is what probably got him elected. The power of his position corrupted him which prompted the military to remove him for the good of the people. Now that the military is in charge the generals are going mad with power and the cycle starts all over again. The problem with the military being corrupt though, is that they kind of have a monopoly on lethal force, which makes them very difficult to oust from power.

 

[Lord Baal]

Yeah I saw that, and it did make me chuckle.

Anyway, the problem I'm seeing in Egypt seems to be one of power corrupting. I think Mursi maybe had good intentions at the start which is what probably got him elected. The power of his position corrupted him which prompted the military to remove him for the good of the people. Now that the military is in charge the generals are going mad with power and the cycle starts all over again. The problem with the military being corrupt though, is that they kind of have a monopoly on lethal force, which makes them very difficult to oust from power.

It seems, from a safe distance, that Mursi was simply setting himself and the MB up to take the military's place as the arbiter of all power in Egypt. That's not exactly an unusual tack for a newly-elected president in a recently-democratised state to take; South Korea still has some tendencies towards that sort of politics, and it's been a democracy for over twenty years. What people seem to forget is that just because the MB were in opposition to Mubarak, doesn't necessarily mean that they were democratic or believed in democracy.

Mursi won by a small-enough margin that he got concerned about his hold on power and tried to strengthen it. Funnily-enough, if he'd won by enough of a margin to give him a mandate for his radical reforms, he may not have felt his position in enough imminent danger to promote them.

 

[Pangur Bán]

You're right, they did elect him freely. But then they didn't like what he was doing and protested to demand his resignation. He refused and ordered the police and military to suppress the demonstrations against him. The military chose to refuse that order and side with the demonstrators and removed Mursi from power.

I mean, are you not aware of his attempt to amend the new Egyptian constitution in such a way as to put himself and his decisions above judicial review? Now I don't know about you, but that sounds like someone trying to set themselves up as a dictator to me.

I also guarantee I have access to a lot more accurate information on the matter than you by virtue of my former employment and friends that are still in that line of work.

This is just more parroting of the same propaganda. In elections, people get elected with opposition. Obama got elected twice with nearly half the country voting against him. People in the US protest his government. Likewise, people protest Morsi. But the difference was that instead of just protesting his decisions, the military (who never wanted him anyway) overthrew and started killing both his supporters and the supporters of democracy. Just because the military claimed they were doing it in the name of the people, and just because the US backed this overthrow, doesn't mean anything. Of course they did. Neither wants Islamist rulers who weaken their authority.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It seems, from a safe distance, that Mursi was simply setting himself and the MB up to take the military's place as the arbiter of all power in Egypt. That's not exactly an unusual tack for a newly-elected president in a recently-democratised state to take; South Korea still has some tendencies towards that sort of politics, and it's been a democracy for over twenty years. What people seem to forget is that just because the MB were in opposition to Mubarak, doesn't necessarily mean that they were democratic or believed in democracy.

Mursi won by a small-enough margin that he got concerned about his hold on power and tried to strengthen it. Funnily-enough, if he'd won by enough of a margin to give him a mandate for his radical reforms, he may not have felt his position in enough imminent danger to promote them.

I'm not sure I agree with you about this post. Not that I really know any better, but I have a hunch that while he was certainly shoring up his power base with the radical reforms, I also think his (and the Brotherhoods) main goal was to act on their agenda. This agenda had been oppressed for decades - and they thought they had a mandate from god to set up a theocracy something along the lines of what the Ayatollahs have in Iran. I'm don't even know if they considered that they were overreaching - after all, nothing that's done in the name of god can be an overreach, right?

This is just more parroting of the same propaganda. In elections, people get elected with opposition. Obama got elected twice with nearly half the country voting against him. People in the US protest his government. Likewise, people protest Morsi. But the difference was that instead of just protesting his decisions, the military (who never wanted him anyway) overthrew and started killing both his supporters and the supporters of democracy. Just because the military claimed they were doing it in the name of the people, and just because the US backed this overthrow, doesn't mean anything. Of course they did. Neither wants Islamist rulers who weaken their authority.

You can accuse everyone of propaganda but it doesn't distract from the fact that you've oversimplified this situation to the point that it's a caricature of what really went down. You know, kind of like propaganda?

 

[Pangur Bán]

You can accuse everyone of propaganda but it doesn't distract from the fact that you've oversimplified this situation to the point that it's a caricature of what really went down. You know, kind of like propaganda?

The problem for you is that my depiction is not a caricature. It is exactly what happened in its simplest forms, and is exactly how anyone 'neutral' would see it. Guys like yourself would not have a problem with it or try to dismiss it were it not for the fact that 'democracy' is involved. If Morsi was selected by a communist party oligarchy, and the military overthrew him and started killing communists, you wouldn't care about my description. You'd say, 'sure, who cares'. But because our governments often legitimize their foreign policies to their own people by claiming to spread human rights or democracy whenever they're planning/conducting an act of aggression, and indeed our command of the whole world economy is partially based on such legitimization strategy, a lot of self-delusion is often necessary to keep such a worldview together.

Hence, in situations like this, since the good-badies stuff is obviously out, you hear 'the picture is so complicated you'd never understand', or 'political forces make it necessary', and so forth. We hear the same stuff to justify the Israeli Apartheid state in Palestine, or the German-led debt peonage hegemony building over southern Europe, or trade parasitism exercised by the West over the Third World. If you went out and robbed poor people at gunpoint in brown countries, you'd have trouble convincing people in your own society to obey laws about theft. If you cover it in ideological nonsense and let a self-interested ideologicized elite feed you not only all the information you 'need' but how to 'interpret' such information, then you can rob people without promoting robbery so to speak. Similarly, Egypt never really had democratic elections, or they did, but the people turned against their decision, or the decision was not that clear anyway or, Islamicists don't really like democracy ... different crap on different occasions, doesn't matter so long as no-one noticed what actually is happening.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

So many words strung together, what's your point exactly?

And did you actually deny that Egypt had democratic elections?

 

[Pangur Bán]

You were probably better reading it again than commenting.

 

[Borachio]

Any crime commited by more than one person is a conspiracy, but using the term in public discourse is designed to make actions seem more unlikely than they are by invoking phony comparisons with UFOers, 911 theories and so forth. The reality of international power politics is not just some mystery, you have good access to it by reading academic books, journals and so forth. But the media don't give people access to those insights, they report spinned press releases, comments, etc, from the power players themselves and their ideological allies. In my experience, Westerners are the most infantilized people about this kind of thing, perhaps along with people in the Far-East. Your average Middle Eastern educated person has a better understanding of real world politics than most Western journalists have.

This is true, I think.

Perhaps because the media are more interested in Audimat, or viewing figures, than they are in disseminating information.

So, what's a good introductory international power politics book?

 

[Gucumatz]

Just read some of the "professed masters" of Realpolitik. Start with Kissinger. Read about people like Bismarck, Metternich, etc.

Also there are always policy books released each year that no one buys from former analysts, check those out