A round of applause

[Guest alex]

Where's the sarcmark when you need it?

[LeazesMag 0]

they went into .... a different line of business.............

 

enriching society

[Guest alex]

they went into .... a different line of business.............

 

enriching society

Better that than Uranium.

[acrossthepond 899]

Egypt next and then it's game on.

 

Yemen...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12295864

 

I'm not picky, but Egypt atm is key in the buttressing of Israel. If that goes then the local politics and supplies for Palestine will radically improve.

 

Don't count on it mate. Clinging to power is all that Hosni Mubarak knows how to do and he will continue to hang on until he falls down dead.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

First, I'm not ignoring the causes at all.

 

I called it a spark, which it blatantly was...it added fuel to the fire...confirmed what everyone knew....I don't think it was all down to the lad who set himself on fire ....but that was another spark. You seem to be insisting THAT was the sole catalyst. A proposition as ridiculous as the one you incorrectly accuse me of.

 

Second, OK.

 

Third, the issue of your condemnation of leaks...and your approval for the people power they help ignite.

 

You requested articles, I'll not bother posting anymore if it gets you so riled.

 

I said the causes went back over many years. He didn't set himself on fire two years ago did he you muppet Yes his death was a catalyst of sorts in that people protested after it, but the roots of this revolt were years in the making.

 

The issue of my condemnation of leaks? I thought you were referring to an issue of some actual significance rather than some opinion you have concocted for me. As I've already stated, I'm happy that Wikileaks exists, I will question its behaviour in the same way I question any institution or individual; that is called free inquiry and is a cornerstone of Western civilization. If you don't like it, fuck off to North Korea.

 

I'm not at all riled by your posting of articles, I was just hoping for some which were analyzing the situation in Tunisia as it stands, rather than using it as an excuse to bombard us with a load of information about Bradley Manning which has been freely available and reported for months. I was only explaining my stances after you falsely accused me of 'condemning' Wikileaks and the leaks themselves. I did express that I was disappointed by the fact that there were no highly classified documents amongst the diplomatic cables.

 

Interestingly, Ali is something of an anomaly amongst the dictators in that region, Tunisia was a relatively secular state with protection of the rights of women and jews embedded in the law. The same cannot be said of the surrounding regimes. It was also quite a lax dictatorship in some respects which allowed the people to revolt in a way which may not have been possible under other regimes, or at least would have been met with more deadly reprisals like those saw in Iran during the student demonstrations.

Edited January 27, 2011 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

The UN has proved to be corrupt, innefectual and morally flaky since day one.

 

I agree. They've been shit since Achtung Baby.

[Happy Face 29]

First, I'm not ignoring the causes at all.

 

I called it a spark, which it blatantly was...it added fuel to the fire...confirmed what everyone knew....I don't think it was all down to the lad who set himself on fire ....but that was another spark. You seem to be insisting THAT was the sole catalyst. A proposition as ridiculous as the one you incorrectly accuse me of.

 

Second, OK.

 

Third, the issue of your condemnation of leaks...and your approval for the people power they help ignite.

 

You requested articles, I'll not bother posting anymore if it gets you so riled.

 

I said the causes went back over many years. He didn't set himself on fire two years ago did he you muppet Yes his death was a catalyst of sorts in that people protested after it, but the roots of this revolt were years in the making.

 

The issue of my condemnation of leaks? I thought you were referring to an issue of some actual significance rather than some opinion you have concocted for me. As I've already stated, I'm happy that Wikileaks exists, I will question its behaviour in the same way I question any institution or individual; that is called free inquiry and is a cornerstone of Western civilization. If you don't like it, fuck off to North Korea.

 

I'm not at all riled by your posting of articles, I was just hoping for some which were analyzing the situation in Tunisia as it stands, rather than using it as an excuse to bombard us with a load of information about Bradley Manning which has been freely available and reported for months. I was only explaining my stances after you falsely accused me of 'condemning' Wikileaks and the leaks themselves. I did express that I was disappointed by the fact that there were no highly classified documents amongst the diplomatic cables.

 

Interestingly, Ali is something of an anomaly amongst the dictators in that region, Tunisia was a relatively secular state with protection of the rights of women and jews embedded in the law. The same cannot be said of the surrounding regimes. It was also quite a lax dictatorship in some respects which allowed the people to revolt in a way which may not have been possible under other regimes, or at least would have been met with more deadly reprisals like those saw in Iran during the student demonstrations.

 

What i was getting at was that you deemed it allowable to mention the man on fire as a catalyst....but ridicule the notion that Wikileaks could have added fuel to the fire. It's getting dull to keep saying it, let's leave it.

 

Bradley manning's situation has changed massively in the last week (unjustly put on suicide watch, visits being sabotaged, brig commander replaced as a result, nothing to link him to Assange etc.), so information from months ago wouldn't be much use on that score.

 

Not sure of how opressive the regime was comparatively, I can see why some people would like to talk it up as an acceptable "keeps the buses running" kind of dictatorship, like we thought of Saddam in the past. The fear of the US that caused them to support Ali's dictatorship was apparently that Al Qaeda would get a foothold in the country without him. Be interesting to see how the chips fall, and worrying if they fall as the US cables suggest.

Edited January 28, 2011 by Happy Face

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Not sure of how opressive the regime was comparatively, I can see why some people would like to talk it up as an acceptable "keeps the buses running" kind of dictatorship, like we thought of Saddam in the past. The fear of the US that caused them to support Ali's dictatorship was apparently that Al Qaeda would get a foothold in the country without him. Be interesting to see how the chips fall, and worrying if they fall as the US cables suggest.

 

Ben Ali was a completely different kettle of fish to the likes of Saddam. No comparison, on all fronts. I don't think 'we' ever thought of Saddam as a 'keep the buses running' type, I think that analysis is inaccurate. It was simply a strategy of our government at the time to arm Saddam, because Iraq is in a key region and the enemies of the British/American governments could be fought by proxy if Saddam was cooperating. It's possible the governments that dealt with Saddam underestimated how bloodthirsty and insane he was; I am not well informed enough about the period to make that judgement, all I know is that Saddam had begun a genocide of the Kurds before 'we' became his business partners.

As for Ben Ali, he was relatively progressive as far as dictators go, though that isn't saying much. Part of the reason why people were so quick to protest is that they knew they could, without being massacred in large numbers. In terms of the region, Tunisia was progressive with a lot of love for women and jews going on and it is a relatively secular country. The general feeling is it's in the balance in terms of whether the country will now progress or regress.

[Rob W 0]

If the Muslim Brotherhood come in in Egypt then the Yanks and the Israelis will have another big headache

 

The MB aren't Hezbollah or Al Qaida but they sure as hell aren't big mates of the Zionists either

[Billy Castell 0]

I'm not sure the protesters are MB types, but generally pissed off unemployed young people. I think the army will probably oust the current regime and rule for a bit. Whether they will let a liberal democracy take over is another matter.

 

I like the fact it is a 'day of rage', and I feel that we need some of those soon.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

The people of the Middle East are now clamoring for democracy, after the most brutal dictator in the world was ousted and hung for the world to see. HF may cite Wikileaks as the source of this urge amongst the public, but if we're going to play that game, I know of a more valid one. These people were under no illusions about the nature of the regimes they lived under, they didn't need a leak to show them that. What they did need, was to see first-hand that even the most powerful, ruthless and bloodthirsty tyrant - Saddam Hussein, in case you were wondering; and don't try and compare him with Mugabe, you peacenik morons - could not coexist in a world with the U.S.A.

Now, as Israel state their support for Mubarak, the White House has applied diplomatic pressure to the regime, in light of the treatment of protesters, threatening to renegotiate - ie vastly reduce - their annual aid package, should this behaviour continue.

Edited January 29, 2011 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[Happy Face 29]

The people of the Middle East are now clamoring for democracy, after the most brutal dictator in the world was ousted and hung for the world to see. HF may cite Wikileaks as the source of this urge amongst the public, but if we're going to play that game, I know of a more valid one. These people were under no illusions about the nature of the regimes they lived under, they didn't need a leak to show them that. What they did need, was to see first-hand that even the most powerful, ruthless and bloodthirsty tyrant - Saddam Hussein, in case you were wondering; and don't try and compare him with Mugabe, you peacenik morons - could not coexist in a world with the U.S.A.

Now, as Israel state their support for Mubarak, the White House has applied diplomatic pressure to the regime, in light of the treatment of protesters, threatening to renegotiate - ie vastly reduce - their annual aid package, should this behaviour continue.

 

...and it only took a seven year period of contemplation before they spontaneously realised this en masse.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

A suitably weak point - non-point even - coming from a man (young man I should say; typical MTV generation, think everything happens in 5 seconds) who despite seeing a pro-democracy Kurd elected as President of Iraq in the first free democratic elections there in his lifetime, would rather see Saddam Hussein back. Despite 9 million Iraqis voting in those elections under great threat to their physical well being, your type (hippys) suggest they 'aren't ready for democracy', or that they do not wish for it. If you had your way, the most brutal fascist post-Stalin would have prevailed and Iraq would have eventually descended into a Ruanda in the Middle-East, yet you aren't willing to face up to that reality. Now we see the spark from Tunisia that has triggered these demonstrations; I honestly could not imagine such a thing happening were Saddam still alive and in power, and you can be sure as hell he would have had a part in proceedings. He wasn't overly keen on democracy either, but hey those Americna imperialists are far worse mannnn

Edited January 29, 2011 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[Happy Face 29]

You're worse than Leazes after a drink.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Speaking of drink, it's a clear display of your confused (being charitable) mindset that you refuse to believe the ousting of a genocidal fascist has any positive affect in the world, yet according to you putting a document on a website can miraculously trigger great historical events - and this is apparently when you're sober.

Edited January 29, 2011 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[Billy Castell 0]

So the war in Iraq, started a chain of events leading to Tunisia/Egypt kicking off? OK then. So the hundreds of thousands blown up in terrorist attacks, the oil wealth being leaving Iraq for Haliburton et al, the billions of pounds wasted and misappropriated post-war, the increase in anti-Western hatred in the Muslim world, the increase in fear and division here and the fact that George W. Bush was elected for a disasterous second term was worth it.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

1. So the war in Iraq, started a chain of events leading to Tunisia/Egypt kicking off? OK then.

 

2. So the hundreds of thousands blown up in terrorist attacks,

 

3. the oil wealth being leaving Iraq for Haliburton et al,

 

4. the billions of pounds wasted and misappropriated post-war,

 

5. the increase in anti-Western hatred in the Muslim world, t

 

6. he increase in fear and division here and

 

7. the fact that George W. Bush was elected for a disasterous second term was worth it.

 

1. HF proposed that Wikileaks was the catalyst for the protests in Tunisia, I am proposing that the ousting of the most brutal dictator of the ME region was more likely to have had an affect than WL. Gadaffi was the first to brick it, handing his weapons over to the U.S. The region has changed demonstrably, and people like those protesting in Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen can be sure they are less likely to be murdered than if Saddam were still in power.

 

2. This is an unclear statement. Firstly, death tolls are highly controversial and always widely disputed. Secondly, if you are referring to Iraq, why don't we refer to the classified US documents released by WL regarding the post-invasion period (04-09). 66000 civilian deaths from a 110000 total. What you appear to be insinuating, that hundreds of thousands of people have been killed in Iraq via terrorist attacks alone, cannot be substantiated.

 

3. Oh no the oil wealth has left Iraq. Would it have made you feel better if the psychotic crime family responsible for the deaths of millions (that can be substantiated) retained their oil wealth?

 

4. Don't be cheap.

 

5. Bring it on. I'd be happy to battle those who are fundamentally opposed to our values of free expression, free inquiry, democracy and criticism of religion. It would appear a lot of people in the Middle East desire the democracy and freedoms that they see in the West. History will look kindly on those who saved Iraq from descending even further into a decrepit and volatile death-zone, that threatened the stability of the region and beyond.

Again, I don't how 'Muslim hatred' can be quantified, and seeing a set of statistics that say, 'Muslims hated you X amount before Iraq, now they hate you XXXXXX amount! Ooooohhh!' is not something that will bother me. I couldn't give a fuck. You're not going to get a rational person who suddenly decides to strap a bomb on their head and blow up Westerners because of a war against one of the greatest forces for evil in the world.

 

6. What is this? Can't say I'm scared, I don't see anyone else hiding under the kitchen table. If you're talking about division between the Muslim sections of society and the rest, I think this is exaggerated by many and I also think relations will improve.

 

7. He won a democratic election, get over it. Do you think we would have avoided the financial crisis had Kerry won? Give me a break. The world wouldn't have suddenly turned into utopia, had that plank got elected.

Edited January 30, 2011 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[Rob W 0]

"7. he won..."

 

Thanks to fiddling the results I guess he did

[Happy Face 29]

1. HF proposed that Wikileaks was the catalyst for the protests in Tunisia, I am proposing that the ousting of the most brutal dictator of the ME region was more likely to have had an affect than WL. Gadaffi was the first to brick it, handing his weapons over to the U.S. The region has changed demonstrably, and people like those protesting in Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen can be sure they are less likely to be murdered than if Saddam were still in power.

 

2. This is an unclear statement. Firstly, death tolls are highly controversial and always widely disputed. Secondly, if you are referring to Iraq, why don't we refer to the classified US documents released by WL regarding the post-invasion period (04-09). 66000 civilian deaths from a 110000 total. What you appear to be insinuating, that hundreds of thousands of people have been killed in Iraq via terrorist attacks alone, cannot be substantiated.

 

3. Oh no the oil wealth has left Iraq. Would it have made you feel better if the psychotic crime family responsible for the deaths of millions (that can be substantiated) retained their oil wealth?

 

4. Don't be cheap.

 

5. Bring it on. I'd be happy to battle those who are fundamentally opposed to our values of free expression, free inquiry, democracy and criticism of religion. It would appear a lot of people in the Middle East desire the democracy and freedoms that they see in the West. History will look kindly on those who saved Iraq from descending even further into a decrepit and volatile death-zone, that threatened the stability of the region and beyond.

Again, I don't how 'Muslim hatred' can be quantified, and seeing a set of statistics that say, 'Muslims hated you X amount before Iraq, now they hate you XXXXXX amount! Ooooohhh!' is not something that will bother me. I couldn't give a fuck. You're not going to get a rational person who suddenly decides to strap a bomb on their head and blow up Westerners because of a war against one of the greatest forces for evil in the world.

 

6. What is this? Can't say I'm scared, I don't see anyone else hiding under the kitchen table. If you're talking about division between the Muslim sections of society and the rest, I think this is exaggerated by many and I also think relations will improve.

 

7. He won a democratic election, get over it. Do you think we would have avoided the financial crisis had Kerry won? Give me a break. The world wouldn't have suddenly turned into utopia, had that plank got elected.

 

1. If the US have shown middle easterners anything it's that they're always secondary to US interests....following the first gulf war Hussein was left in power to brutalise those the US had convinced to rise against him in Iraq. They were totally abandoned, and anyone relying on US support as they protest now will be aware of that. It makes their protests all the more impressive that they do it anyway.

 

2. You're saying the 100+ deaths in Tunisia this week have sprung from Iraq so to be so constrictive in coming up with a death toll is odd. If you were as willing to extrapolate the death toll similarly your numbers would not be the same as the US. US official figures were low. The unofficial figure shows they knew it was higher than that but concealed their actual moderate estimates. I agree Billy was perhaps rash to link so many deaths in Iraq to Terrorism specifically as I've not seen the numbers to back it up. But tens of thousands of deaths would not be a pleasing result of the invasion either.

 

5. I wonder what the US will do if the Saudi public start kicking off.

 

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia -- The Saudi press agency says King Abdullah has told President Barack Obama that there should be no bargaining about Egypt's stability and the security of its people.

 

SPA said Sunday that Obama phoned the king in Morocco, where he is recuperating from surgery, and that both leaders were not happy with the chaotic situation and looting.

 

It said the king talked Saturday to President Hosni Mubarak and assured him that the Saudi government and people stands with the Egyptian government and people.

 

Difficult to keep a democratic face on this for the US like. All they want is for the protests to stop.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

1. If the US have shown middle easterners anything it's that they're always secondary to US interests....following the first gulf war Hussein was left in power to brutalise those the US had convinced to rise against him in Iraq. They were totally abandoned, and anyone relying on US support as they protest now will be aware of that. It makes their protests all the more impressive that they do it anyway.

 

2. You're saying the 100+ deaths in Tunisia this week have sprung from Iraq so to be so constrictive in coming up with a death toll is odd. If you were as willing to extrapolate the death toll similarly your numbers would not be the same as the US. US official figures were low. The unofficial figure shows they knew it was higher than that but concealed their actual moderate estimates. I agree Billy was perhaps rash to link so many deaths in Iraq to Terrorism specifically as I've not seen the numbers to back it up. But tens of thousands of deaths would not be a pleasing result of the invasion either.

 

1. It's ironic that you state it's 'all the more impressive' that the protesters still go out after the events of the early 90s. There were many Kurds especially who were very grateful for the US intervention then, as they would have been murdered were it not for that. Why you're bringing up this war when we're discussing the one after it I don't know, though it's interesting that you cherry pick from history and only cite incidents which back up the views you hold already, rather than being honest about it.

Do you think the 'middle easterners' you refer to had a bout of amnesia and forgot that after the First Gulf War, there was a second which resulted in a democratically elected government taking power in Iraq, something it appears you see as a sign of regression from Saddam Hussein's time? If the protesters will be aware of anything, it is that the U.S.A. has been the nation most willing to sacrifice troops in campaigns to bring democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq. That these struggles have been in any way successful is a triumph and has resulted in leaps forward from what came before, a valid point that you absolutely refuse to address in any form.

 

2. With regards to death tolls, the figures range from under 100,000 to over two million; there is no point getting bogged down in time-consuming arguments over their veracity. I think my point is a fair one, about such remarks as Billy's being unsubstantiated; you seem to agree. A point I've also made before is that I attribute much of the blame for Iraq being a fractious and warring society on Hussein and Al Quaeda. Totalitarian states inevitably descend into (if they weren't already) dystopian nightmares, Al Quaeda have exacerbated this post-invasion, actively seeking and succeeding in bringing about a civil war. I am not forgetting the initial incompetence of the Western forces and the calamitous errors they made, just remembering that they are not the only ones in this fight and should not be held responsible for terrorist atrocities.

 

Even given the results of the Iraq war that have been 'not pleasing', I had to ask myself certain questions:

 

What was the alternative on offer to ousting the worst dictator in the world and installing a democracy in his place?

What would become of Iraq, had Saddam's regime been allowed to run its course, and what would have replaced it (and what were the implications and potential consequences this would have had on the region, and thus beyond)?

 

 

5. You would have had a good career as a spin doctor. Obama phoned the king... your point being?

 

Obama isn't happy with the chaotic situation, naturally: the White House have said they are looking to renegotiate their aid package to Egpyt in light of the treatment of protesters and civilians.

Abdullah isn't happy with the chaotic situation, naturally: he is the ruler of an Islamic monarchy, he supports the Egyptian dictatorship.

 

To insinuate that because Obama rang Abdullah they share the same hopes for the future of Egypt is laughable. Obama is a cautious man and perhaps he will feel a complete overthrow Mubarak's regime could lead to a volatile and dangerous situation. Perhaps he feels that Mubarak introducing reform and a path to democracy is a safer route. We'll see, but to suggest his policy/motivation is the same as King Abdullah's is daft. Take your communist-tinted spectacles off, you anti-american stat-bungler.

Edited January 30, 2011 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

White House Continues Moving Away From Mubarak

 

In the streets of Cairo, criticism of the United States is common. It's not just because gas canisters and the casings of rubber bullets fired against demonstrators are stamped with the words "Made in the USA," as the Washington Post reports, but also due to the disappointment over the White House's tepid criticism of the Egyptian regime. Officially, the White House continued reiterating its opposition to violence without calling for President Hosni Mubarak to step down. But the fact that administration officials have not repeated the line that Mubarak brings stability to the region has "led many observers to conclude that the administration is readying for the end of the Mubarak era," writes Politico. The distance between the White House and Mubarak continued to grow Sunday as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that "we want to see free and fair elections and we expect that this will be one of the outcomes of what is going on." Clinton added that what Egypt needs is "an orderly, peaceful transition to real democracy, not faux democracy, like the elections we saw in Iran two years ago." The problem is who would replace him. Of course, the White House would like to see a moderate, secular government take over for Mubarak. "But in large part because Mr. Mubarak stifled so much political debate and marginalized any opposition, there is no middle ground in Egypt's politics, no credible secular party that grew up in opposition to Mr. Mubarak's government," writes the New York Times. That's why many are worried that a push for early elections could see the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood come to power. For now, the preferred option seems to be a transitional unity government, perhaps led by Mohamed ElBaradei, but the Obama administration is under no illusions it can will that into existence.

 

Politico | Sunday, Jan. 30, 2011

[Park Life 71]

The people of the Middle East are now clamoring for democracy, after the most brutal dictator in the world was ousted and hung for the world to see. HF may cite Wikileaks as the source of this urge amongst the public, but if we're going to play that game, I know of a more valid one. These people were under no illusions about the nature of the regimes they lived under, they didn't need a leak to show them that. What they did need, was to see first-hand that even the most powerful, ruthless and bloodthirsty tyrant - Saddam Hussein, in case you were wondering; and don't try and compare him with Mugabe, you peacenik morons - could not coexist in a world with the U.S.A.

Now, as Israel state their support for Mubarak, the White House has applied diplomatic pressure to the regime, in light of the treatment of protesters, threatening to renegotiate - ie vastly reduce - their annual aid package, should this behaviour continue.

 

OoooOOOO scary.

 

Absolutely nothing will happen.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Absolutely nothing will happen.

 

Almost as bad a prediction as 'Smith will be vital player for NUFC' and 'Avram gone'

[LeazesMag 0]

1. If the US have shown middle easterners anything it's that they're always secondary to US interests....following the first gulf war Hussein was left in power to brutalise those the US had convinced to rise against him in Iraq. They were totally abandoned, and anyone relying on US support as they protest now will be aware of that. It makes their protests all the more impressive that they do it anyway.

 

2. You're saying the 100+ deaths in Tunisia this week have sprung from Iraq so to be so constrictive in coming up with a death toll is odd. If you were as willing to extrapolate the death toll similarly your numbers would not be the same as the US. US official figures were low. The unofficial figure shows they knew it was higher than that but concealed their actual moderate estimates. I agree Billy was perhaps rash to link so many deaths in Iraq to Terrorism specifically as I've not seen the numbers to back it up. But tens of thousands of deaths would not be a pleasing result of the invasion either.

 

1. It's ironic that you state it's 'all the more impressive' that the protesters still go out after the events of the early 90s. There were many Kurds especially who were very grateful for the US intervention then, as they would have been murdered were it not for that. Why you're bringing up this war when we're discussing the one after it I don't know, though it's interesting that you cherry pick from history and only cite incidents which back up the views you hold already, rather than being honest about it.

Do you think the 'middle easterners' you refer to had a bout of amnesia and forgot that after the First Gulf War, there was a second which resulted in a democratically elected government taking power in Iraq, something it appears you see as a sign of regression from Saddam Hussein's time? If the protesters will be aware of anything, it is that the U.S.A. has been the nation most willing to sacrifice troops in campaigns to bring democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq. That these struggles have been in any way successful is a triumph and has resulted in leaps forward from what came before, a valid point that you absolutely refuse to address in any form.

 

2. With regards to death tolls, the figures range from under 100,000 to over two million; there is no point getting bogged down in time-consuming arguments over their veracity. I think my point is a fair one, about such remarks as Billy's being unsubstantiated; you seem to agree. A point I've also made before is that I attribute much of the blame for Iraq being a fractious and warring society on Hussein and Al Quaeda. Totalitarian states inevitably descend into (if they weren't already) dystopian nightmares, Al Quaeda have exacerbated this post-invasion, actively seeking and succeeding in bringing about a civil war. I am not forgetting the initial incompetence of the Western forces and the calamitous errors they made, just remembering that they are not the only ones in this fight and should not be held responsible for terrorist atrocities.

 

Even given the results of the Iraq war that have been 'not pleasing', I had to ask myself certain questions:

 

What was the alternative on offer to ousting the worst dictator in the world and installing a democracy in his place?

What would become of Iraq, had Saddam's regime been allowed to run its course, and what would have replaced it (and what were the implications and potential consequences this would have had on the region, and thus beyond)?

 

 

5. You would have had a good career as a spin doctor. Obama phoned the king... your point being?

 

Obama isn't happy with the chaotic situation, naturally: the White House have said they are looking to renegotiate their aid package to Egpyt in light of the treatment of protesters and civilians.

Abdullah isn't happy with the chaotic situation, naturally: he is the ruler of an Islamic monarchy, he supports the Egyptian dictatorship.

 

To insinuate that because Obama rang Abdullah they share the same hopes for the future of Egypt is laughable. Obama is a cautious man and perhaps he will feel a complete overthrow Mubarak's regime could lead to a volatile and dangerous situation. Perhaps he feels that Mubarak introducing reform and a path to democracy is a safer route. We'll see, but to suggest his policy/motivation is the same as King Abdullah's is daft. Take your communist-tinted spectacles off , you anti-american stat-bungler.

 

exactly.

[Happy Face 29]

Visiting Tunisia three years ago, I thought that it was easy enough to see the main problem. The state was publicly dedicated to modernity and secularism and development—what used so long ago to be called "Westernization"—but it didn't really trust its citizens to be grown-ups. The country had only had two heads of state since becoming a republic in 1957, after winning independence from France in 1956, and the second of them had come to power in a palace coup. I wrote that without ever seeing President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, I could have passed an exam in his superficial physical characteristics, since his face was displayed everywhere one looked. He had been known to exceed 90 percent of the vote at election time; so seldom a good sign. Policemen were to be seen in Internet cafes; another distressing symptom. The official excuse for all this was that special measures needed to be taken against Islamic extremists, but those adopting this seductive line had forgotten what Saul Bellow says at the opening of Augie March: "Everybody knows there is no fineness or accuracy of suppression; if you hold down one thing you hold down the adjoining."

 

Still, it wasn't as if Tunisia had a massive and wasteful military or an exorbitant dictator who named every building after himself. When compared to its immediate neighbors, Libya and Algeria, the country had done relatively well in avoiding the extremes of personal megalomaniac despotism a la Muammar Qaddafi and full-blown civil war (which in Algeria's case took the lives of almost 150,000 people in recent memory). One found the political atmosphere constipated and conformist rather than outright terrifying. Perhaps one reason the Tunisian crowds were able to mobilize so swiftly and to such immediate result—splitting the army leadership from the police in a matter of a few days—was simply that they knew they could. There was scant likelihood of the sort of all-out repression and bloodshed that was met by, say, the protesters against the Iranian mullahs. Thus, and sadly, it's probably premature to say that the events in Tunis are harbingers of grass-roots movements in other states of the region. (Still, Qaddafi's own deranged response to the rebellion, ranting about the horrible prospect of a "Bolshevik or American revolution," was truly heartening. Just to know that he is sweating …)

 

I remember Edward Said telling me that I'd enjoy a trip to Tunisia: "You should go there, Christopher. It's the gentlest country in Africa. Even the Islamists are highly civilized." And certainly, there was a sort of only partially misleading douceur de vie in the Frenchified streets and squares of the Mediterranean towns and villages, as well as in the magnificent city of Kairouan, a center of Islamic learning for centuries, the breath-catching Carthaginian and Roman sites in Tunis itself and in El Djem, and the historically Jewish island of Djerba off the south-eastern coast. When the ancient El Ghriba synagogue there was truck-bombed by al-Qaida in April 2002, the government rushed to express solidarity and to undertake rebuilding, and the Tunisian parliament was unusual in the region for having a Jewish senator. Along the boulevards, young couples in jeans held hands without awkwardness, and I seldom saw a headscarf, let alone a veil or burqa.

 

I was interested to see an interview last week with a young female protester who described herself and her friends as "children of Bourguiba." The first president of the country, and the tenacious leader of its independence movement, Habib Bourguiba, was strongly influenced by the ideas of the French Enlightenment. His contribution was to cement, in many minds, secularism as a part of self-government. He publicly broke the Ramadan fast, saying that such a long religious holiday was debilitating to the aspirations of a modern economy. He referred with contempt to face-covering and sponsored a series of laws entrenching the rights of women. During the 1967 war, he took a firm position preventing reprisals against the country's Jewish community, avoiding the disgraceful scenes that took place that year in other Arab capitals. Long before many other Arab regimes, Tunisia took an active interest in a serious peace agreement with Israel (as well as playing host to the PLO after its expulsion from Beirut in 1982).

 

Not to idealize Bourguiba overmuch—he became what is sometimes called "erratic," and at one point proposed an ill-advised "union" of Tunisia with Libya—but he did help to ensure that Tunisia's secularism and the emancipation of its women was its own work, so to speak, rather than something undertaken to please Western donors. It will be highly interesting in the next few weeks to see how this achievement holds up after the Perón-style tawdriness of the Ben Ali regime has potentially discredited it.

 

During my stay, I visited the University of Tunis, attached to the "Zitouna" or "olive tree" mosque, to talk to a female professor of theology named Mongia Souahi. She is the author of a serious scholarly work explaining why the veil has no authority in the Quran. One response had come from an exiled Tunisian Islamist named Rachid al-Ghannouchi, who declared her to be a kuffar, or unbeliever. This, as everybody knows, is the prelude to declaring her life to be forfeit as an apostate. I was slightly alarmed to see Ghannouchi and his organization, Hizb al-Nahda, described in Sunday's New York Times as "progressive," and to learn that he is on his way home from London. The revolt until now has been noticeably free of theocratic tinges, but when I was talking to Edward Said, the name of "al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb" was still unknown, and atrocities like the attack on Djerba were still in the future. We should fervently hope that the Tunisian revolution turns out to transcend and improve upon the legacy of Bourguiba, not to negate it.

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2281450/