Bolton ~ "...we are not on the verge of the dawning of the age of Aquarius..."

Does this mean that the world is not a better place since the lefties took over?

Link to American Thinker article. A reason for us not to hope for much.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/why_we_should_fear_the_moslem.html

There is hope; the barbarian at the gate could be easily defeated if it weren't for the enemy within.

Remember the 70's with Jimmy Carter in the WH and Jackson Browne singing "Running on Empty" on the radio while people are in queue for some gas?

Well, get ready 'cause it's probably coming back real soon.

WWIII preparing?

I know one thing, Alberta and Saskatchewan's oil sands are gaining in value by the minute right now...Thirsty America will make the place just explode in investments and development.

North American energy exploitation having suffered years of blockage by the left and it's powerful environmental movement of the 60's is finally coming to an end.

It's over Suzuki, Gore, Fonda and the rest of you stupid people, move over and let the adults take control back.

Donald Trump thinks oil could go the other way if the Middle East melts down..."The corrupt monopoly of OPEC could disintegrate, bringing oil price down" he says:

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/trump-opec-oil-egypt/2011/01/30/id/384427

Bolton at 2:58 "curriculum at most Egyptian universities with a lot of radical islamic theology"

wtf? or, winning the future?

Sheesh. The basic axioms are never examined, and the belief that, in the ME, 'it's either a dictator or a dogma'..and the former is 'more friendly to the West' theme seems to be dominant among so many 'pundits'.

The view that 'all arabs' are incapable of reason; all arabs just want dogma; all arabs reject freedom'...that's the dominant view of the West...and our pundits simply mutter about 'which type of authoritarian rule is best for 'these people'.

I reject this view totally, because they are the same as we are: human beings. They are trapped within ideologies - just we were 600 years ago. We changed; so can they.

First, there is NO middle class in the ME; David Warren doesn't seem to understand this. And this lack is what is behind these demonstrations.

To repeat my view yet again - what exists in the ME is a set of nations governed in an outdated infrastructure: tribalism. This is a mode made up of two classes: an elite set of kin-based Rulers and the Masses. The first has power; the second has no power.
This is obviously an infrastructure of stability; there can be no change.

This is fine for a small no-growth, non-industrial people but disastrous in a multimillion population that has an industrial economy.

The ME moved into industrialism in the 1900s..but didn't do so itself. Its raw resources, oil, were industrialized by the West - for the ME did not have the technology, the skills, the knowledge..to do anything other than to take the money to the Swiss banks.

The ME Rulers kept the people..in a collectivist mode..by subsidizing basic education (not science or technology), basic services. It did not enable the growth of private enterprise, ...which is the base of a middle class. Everything was state-owned and run. Massive bureaucracies.

The populations in these nations exponentially increased, they moved from rural to urban. What should have happened with this movement from an agricultural to an industrial economy, and with this increase in population size - was a switch from a tribal to a civic political mode. One that enabled the devt of a middle class.

Instead - the old dynasties remained in control, using FORCE. More and more force. Theological and military and police force. It has reached a crisis point where the old way - with that small set of elite Rulers..who denied all political and economic power to the majority population..can't sustain itself. A tectonic shift.

That's what is going on in the ME - and it was inevitable. You can't have a massive population in an industrial economy kept as powerless peasants.

Islamic fascism is intellectually appealing because it promises Hope and Change. Ever heard those words before? What happened? Hmm? And what's going on in the US - more power to people or less power?

What did Trudeau's 'Just Society' promise? Wasn't he adored by the crowds? Wasn't he all about Hope and Change?

But Islamic fascism might be emotionally appealing but it removes power rather than introduces it. So - even if it does take short term control - it cannot last.

Oh - and our TV and movie induced desire for rapidity of change, with it all playing out in an hour or two - doesn't happen in the real world. It takes time...decades.

But, democracy, which is the political home of a middle class - is inevitable in the ME.

More on those "Moderate Muslims:"

During the past month, Imam Yusuf al-Qaradawi, spiritual guide to the Muslim Brotherhood, has called on Muslims to acquire nuclear weapons "to terrorize their enemies."


More at: IPC

"I reject this view totally, because they are the same as we are: human beings. They are trapped within ideologies - just we were 600 years ago. We changed; so can they."

I agree with your commentary, but not the above part. I do not believe muslims can change as long as they have their religion. They will not be allowed to change by their religion.

Mysticism is a peculiar thing, it mesmerizes otherwise fairly intelligent people into living a life based on beliefs rather than facts and reality. I still marvel at how many people still believe in and adhere to the Christian religion. Although the bible is not the Koran and Christianity has a long history of respecting women and the promotion of love and peace ... not so in the Koran.

Christianity had a chance to reform and modernized, I do not see that opportunity for Islam.

As for Muslims being humans 'like us'? They are nothing like us and their humanity is being judged ... I think they are losing that one so far.

Got one question for anyone who would like us to think that this Egyptian eruption can be interpreted as the forces of freedom and democracy demanding change:

Did you see any women in those vast throngs of angry young men?

Jamie McMaster - yes, there've been lots of images of women demonstrating in these throngs. Women wearing the hijab..and even the veil.

Abe Froman - No, I disagree. You are speaking within yet another common perspective of the West: that "all Arabs are beasts/brutes and are unable to live except within systems of rigid control'.

I of course, disagree. Brutality can exist everywhere and in every ideology, from burning of witches to Asian war cruelties to German to...(I won't go into details).

The key points about the ME are the realities of the economy and the population. I've yet to see anyone deal with these axioms. Instead, it's all emotional - about 'They are thugs and need to be controlled'..and 'which controlling system is worse'.

Again, an industrial economy requires a middle class. The ME cannot survive within ONE industry, oil, for which it relies on Western science and technology and only banks the financial result. Its population has morphed beyond the organizational capacity of a tribal or two-class political mode.

It MUST have a three class - which is to say, it MUST have a middle class. This is the group, the majority of the population, who are engaged in private enterprise. The ME nations have repressed the emergence and empowerment of such a class. That's what these demonstrations are all about.

The Muslim Brotherhood, and groups like them, are promising - as we've heard our own politicians - hope and change. Indeed, in many of these countries, they work within the poorest areas, helping the people. The Ruling Govt doesn't help these people...People aren't aware, as they weren't aware with Obama, that Hope and Change are utopian fictional words, and that the reality is authoritarian top-down rule.

It might happen that the MB will gain power, but, it can't last. Remember, I'm not talking about an hour long TV drama, which resolves the whole thing in that time period. It can take decades. Iran is just such an example. We fret and fume because - 40 years ago - they moved from the dictator to the oligarchy. Both authoritarian. Give it time; the Iranians showed us a year ago that they want democracy.

Again, democracy, which puts political and economic power into the hands of a middle class, isn't a choice. It's not like going to the bookstore and selecting a book. It is directly related to the economic mode and population size. It's rather like an organic 'animal'. Once you reach a certain size...you have to organize that size in a certain way.

Islam, as we all know, is less a religion than a political, economic and social structure. It is indeed inhibited from change by defining it as an immutable religion. But - that can change. After all, it was made by man and can be unmade by man. That's the power of being human.

Amazing to watch Obama echo Jimmy Carter's weak response to the Iranian revolution of 1978, with vague calls for "reform".

"The corrupt monopoly of OPEC could disintegrate..."

Could we be so lucky?

Thank you for your comments ET. When you explain the situation I get a comforting feeling that everything COULD be okay. Is there any way we could get you to talk to the powers that be and help them to do the right things.

ET, we watched no less than the USA get sucked into a nascent socialist dictatorship by a single "hope and change" ad campaign.

The human nature of Egyptians isn't in question. It's who will win the propaganda war this time.

That is an open question right now, isn't it?

"Did you see any women in those vast throngs of angry young men?"

Yes, I've seen photos of hundreds of women as ET outlined.

I see your point ET, and you've prognosticated for as long as I've read your comments the very thing you are saying above. I follow your logic, and agree with you in an uninformed way (my gut says you're correct); but this leads me to the inevitable question which is: What damage will inevitably be caused during these "decades" it will take to establish a 'middle class'; and how do we mitigate the consequences of such a revolution "- even if it does take short term control" and even if" - it cannot last."?

And then the obvious question that has been asked by most Pundits: Do we in fact have any control over what happens regardless of all of our opinions?

Sorry ET but you're wrong instead of Muslims' advancing as/in societies they are devolving and if you need evidence of that look at what's happening to Muslims in free countries they are embracing Wahhabism at a frightening pace. Pakistan shed advancing their culture instead they've devolved into a rabid Wahhabi Nation. Muslim are becoming more Muslim day after day and the Muslim Brotherhood and the Saudis are responsible for the rise in fanaticism. There isn't a chance that Egypt will become a ligitimate democracy a thugocracy at best with the Muslim Brotherhood ruining their civilized society like they've ruined every society they've touched i.e. Sudan, Somalia, Nigeria that's Egypt's future.

Pakistan shed advancing their culture instead they've devolved into a rabid Wahhabi Nation. Muslim are becoming more Muslim day after day and the Muslim Brotherhood and the Saudis are responsible for the rise in fanaticism.
- Rose

True, Rose, but isn't it possible too that US intervention in the ME -- and by that I mean political intervention, not economic ties -- is the root cause. Omigawd, did I use that phrase?

ET: I'm getting it, I really am. The key in your analysis is to understand the multi-decade dynamic of change. From that standpoint, then, the ascendancy of the Muslim Brotherhood will be a better totalitarianism than the current one, and one destined to be overthrown over time by people power -- democracy. A very long time.

John Bolton is brilliant BUT ... lately I've been seriously questioning this whole "strategic interest" argument; the whole notion that the dictator may be a bastard, but he's OUR bastard. The notion that because we need oil, we must have "military boots on the ground" there to "secure our strategic interests".

As a amateur student of Austro-libertarian economics, I just don't get this. The ME oil producers need us as much as we need them. Economically, they MUST sell us oil. Now, to be clear, there can be short term interruptions in this vital market, but ask youself why: isn't it because of unnecessary US intervention?; would there be any motivation for this were it not for well-founded hatred of the US for its financial support for "our bastards" securing "our strategic interest"?

I don't really understand why neocons like Bolton say we 'need' dictators like Mubarak (aside from their control fetishes). It's asinine for America to have to bribe this guy for peace and some ho-hum negotiating that really didn't go anywhere. It will be interesting to see what happens to the MB once they get sucked into politics. Politics has a way of digesting those involved in it....

Indiana Homez - there will indeed be damage during these transformational phases. I used to tell my students that it takes at least three generations to change a societal infrastructure.

After all, the old generation is 'set' and has to die off/be destroyed. That's what is happening now in the ME, with the old corrupt dynastic Rulers, who've been in power for decades. AND, with the old tribal system that has been in place for thousands of years.

Then, there is the 'middle generation'..those who now want change but are unused to the RISK infrastructure of a democracy..and want stability. That's the Hope and Change mood. These people certainly want change but they want a perfection, a life without doubt, without risks. So, they want Hope and Change. Fundamentalism, whether it be the Obama style or the fascist style - is all about that emotion. The fact, of course, is that it is utopian - and utopia operates within a top down authoritarianism.

And then - there's the new generation, who are prepared to live within RISK. By RISK I mean that a democracy, which is the political system that empowers a middle class...requires that you take risks.

You, as a member of the middle class, are the economic backbone of the nation. You set up private businesses, private industries; you get together a group of investors and start to develop a new product. You might fail - that failure involves only you and your group. Not the whole nation...

NOTE: the public socialist industries involve the WHOLE nation of taxpayers. Private industry, if it fails, involves only those investors. But private industry - if it succeeds...enriches the nation.

But, this type of economy involves risk. And you have to strengthen a population to trust itself enough..to take risks. And you have to give your population the HUMAN RIGHTS to be an individual and decide things on their own.

If your population has been kept submissive, dependent on the monthly cheque from the govt, dependent on the goodwill of corrupt officials and 'not making waves'...they will be terrified to do anything on their own - for ingrained in them is the fear of their own initiative.

But an industrial economy, which rests on private enterprise - small businesses - requires risk taking. You might succeed; you might not; you try something else.

And - this same mentality of self-empowerment, self-decision-making and taking risks:... is embedded within democracy. You might vote for an idiot - but, he's empowered for only a short term, and you have the power to remove him.

When a nation takes risks, it has gained the capacity to adapt and progress in technology and science..and societal progress as well. When a people refuse to take risks - they actually entropically decay..and become dependent on the largesse of other nations (such as the US).

So- it's a middle class that is required. THis is the class that takes risks; that refuses to accept that the Present must be Just Like The Past..and that the Future must be Just Like The Past...but that admits that it can anticipate but not control the future..and that it must be Open To Change.

Rose - I don't think you understand the basic axioms of societal and economic change. It isn't slick and easy like a factoryline production. It's tectonic and violent...

This is the time for America to step away from this mess. Indeed, any move by western powers will be seen as "Imperialistic" control and an excuse for the MB to rally the Islamic fanatics.

What the west should be (and maybe they are) doing is talking to Egypt's neighbours/allies and see if they can persuade Mubarak to step down and let a democratic process take place. The fact that most of Egypt's neighbours/allies are not democracies, makes me think this will not happen. time will tell, I guess.

me no dhimmi - yes, that's exactly right. It's the long term view that ought to be focused on; not the short term. There's a whole school of history based around this: La Longue Duree. And they look at decades and decades and generations.

I look at societies as, well, almost as living organisms. So, I have to consider their 'energy content'. This means: their food production or sustenance capacities (soil, water, climate; their technology); and, and, and..the size of their population. Given this Material Base...I then move on to: How is this Material Stuff organized?

And - my view is that if this Organism has a 'little amount of material stuff'..then, it is organized in one way. If there's more..it's organized differently.
Rather similar to a biological organism..an amoeba is organized differently from a mouse..and from a human.

So- the political, economic, legal systems are all entwined. And all rest on that basic Material Stuff: the size of the population and the capacity to materially support that population.

At a certain size - your organization can be tribal. That means..no middle class. But, once your population morphs into the multimillions, there is no choice. It must have a middle class. In power.

The only way to empower a middle class - since the inhabitants of this class are not dynastic and hereditary..but are members due to their own work and taking risks..The only way to empower them, is by democracy. Because democracy puts the power to control the govt..into the hands of the electorate.

That's all. It's simply considering the basic 'energy dynamics' of social organization: population size and sustenance capacity.

Thank you ET et al; this helps during an uncertain time. As the unfairly perceived Thomas Hobbes considered; it is the time of the Leviathan.

Contrary to easy classification of Hobbes as advocating the "wolf pack" it really is the time for existentialism, self, fortunately we in northern North America have the truest Leviathan in the U.S.A.

Self preservation within family and community under the aegis of our Leviathon, however strong or weak you think this current interation is, remains the most comforting fact on an individual,self, basis. Cheers;

ET, you had better be right or...

As someone above asked, what will happen during the decades or generational long interim of this transition?

Russia is also slowly changing for the better, although with some steps back and some steps forward. The difference between Russia and the ME is that there is not dedicated group in Russia that wants to kill or subjugate us all. Whereas a significant minority group in the ME has a continuous single aim of destroying us and is being assisted here by an active 5th column and fellow travelers.

I see the MB having influence in the same way as Hezbolla in Lebanon. They'll be real sh!t disturbers unless they get their way. It's a (barely) political movement grounded in an ideology that can produce endless numbers of suicide attackers, just like Pakistan. Egyptians will tire of it and become resigned to the MB's power as long as there's stability and relative peace, and then we have another Iran.

As to OPEC's monopoly, it's a lot weaker now than it was in the 70's when it controlled ~50% of global supply. They shot themselves in the foot with their embargo that drove up prices and spurred exploration and production in friendlier locales. And with some members in economic distress they do tend to cheat on output quotas (eg, Nigeria) making their monopoly even less effective. With current control of ~30% of global output, I'm not sure that monopoly is the correct word to describe OPEC, no matter what Trump says.

So lets cut to the chase folks...

What do we (the west) do about the situation in Egypt? How do we 'mitigate' the damage in the short term so as not to negatively effect the long term?

That is the hard part!

I used to tell my students that it takes at least three generations to change a societal infrastructure.

Well it only took one generation to change societal infrastructure based on these bad ideas.

a) Nazism
b) Communism
c) Catastropic Global Warming
(I'm sure the good folks here can think of plenty of bad ideas that caught on like a house on fire)

I guess people are just more amenable to the bad ideas than they are to the good ones.

Democracy, middle class, reformation, are all models of an age gone by. These things occured during a time of growth, discovery, and enlightenment. That tide broke 40 years ago, and has been ebbing ever since.

There is no room for growth any more. Natural resources won't sustain world population much longer. With China entering the age of the wheel, petroleum reserves might as well be cut in half. Once they control ME oil, it will be depleted in 50 years. There will be no opportunity for democracy, or a middle class.

If I were a gambler, I'd have to lay money on a nuclear conflict, not a stable democracy, in any ME country.

Indiana Homez - there are a number of things we in the West can do.

First, reject multiculturalism and identity politics in our own nations. Insist that all immigrants accept the reality of a civic mode of governance, governed by ONE rule of law that is developed by an elected legislature, and adherence to a constitution. Insist that all immigrants abide by the facts of equality of gender, freedom of speech, and governance by democratic elections.
None of this cultural relativism that 'all modes of belief and behaviour' are acceptable. No identity politics; no special interest groups.

Then, with regard to the ME and elsewhere, be vocal about support for democracy, a civic rather than tribal governance, the will of the people, free speech.

Don't do what Obama did during the Iranian demonstrations - which was to ignore them and then, side with the Dictator.
Don't do what he is doing now - which is essentially the same thing - siding with Mubarek and insulting-to-the-people blandishments about 'please, Mubarek, give more power to the people'.

I'm not saying to go in with a military. Absolutely not. No. But, speak out, very loud, about support for freedom, - in politics, in speech, in the economy. Say it every day, several times a day. So what if it offends Mubarek? He ought to be offended.

Instead - our reaction is, on both issues, spineless. We permit multiculturalism which sets up isolate, utopian, blocs of immigrants. These people are dependent on our govt subsidies, they don't take risks in our economic world; they are on welfare and other subsidies. Here, they dream and live their virtual fictional ideals of When We are All Living in Sharia Law..

We create safe Seminar Blocks...areas in our cities..where they live, talking endlessly to and among themselves. They are safe, funded by our govts, not having to participate in the real world, in the economy, and... and are protected from the effects of their utopian Islamist rhetoric.

These multicultural Seminar Blocks..are the real site of fundamentalist Islam...because we have enabled them to be safe, secure, without having to work...and so, they live in a virtual world..and dream.

Put those utopian ideals into the real world, and it quickly becomes apparent that the people can't live within its axioms...unless you force them to do so. And force has its temporal limits; it can't be maintained.

coach - how about providing some empirical evidence and analysis for your opinions that:
"Democracy, middle class, reformation, are all models of an age gone by. These things occured during a time of growth, discovery, and enlightenment. That tide broke 40 years ago, and has been ebbing ever since."

Obviously, I totally disagree with you. Democracy is not a model, nor is the middle class. And the reformation was a temporal period not a model. And I also disagree that there is no growth, discovery and enlightenment occurring now. You seem to follow the notion that the mind is an empty bucket..and not an analytic and reasoning agent.

OZ - 'nazism, communism, and catastrophic global warming' are not themselves changes in societal infrastructure.

Nazism and communism are similar; they are collectivist ideologies based on utopian ideals.

Nazism or fascism considers the pure utopia took place in the past and its agenda is to purify the current society to regain that phase. cf Islamic fascism.
Communism considers the utopia will occur in the future, if you take certain deterministic steps to secure that future.

Neither can last for longer than a generation, because utopia and a virtual idealist world..doesn't exist. The hard kicks of the real world intrude.

They occur during transformational phases to 'kick' up the speed of transformation. In Europe, the speed/change was to get rid of the old powers embedded in the monarchies, aristocracy, an economy based on hereditary land ownership etc.

Same thing in Russia and China - although that also required a move that had taken place in Europe years before - the rural to urban movement.

Again, when your population reaches a certain size and your economy is industrial not agriculture, you must empower the productive class. That's the middle class.

ALL societies must empower the productive class. When it was an agricultural economy, the land owners had all the power.
When it is an industrial economy, the factory developers, the business people, ...they must have the power. That's the middle class.

And catastrophic global warming is a money scam, an agenda thought up by the UN et al, to scam money from the developed to the undeveloped nations. Period.

"First, reject multiculturalism and identity politics in our own nations. Insist that all immigrants accept the reality of a civic mode of governance, governed by ONE rule of law that is developed by an elected legislature, and adherence to a constitution. Insist that all immigrants abide by the facts of equality of gender, freedom of speech, and governance by democratic elections.
None of this cultural relativism that 'all modes of belief and behaviour' are acceptable. No identity politics; no special interest groups."

With all due respect,ET, that's a description of "utopianism",if I ever heard one!

Democracy is not inevitable in the Middle East,and as the people have never lived in a democracy, very few "yearn" for that system of government.

Imho, the ME is being reclaimed by the Islamists,and will go through desperate times for several decades,but the end result is more likely to be a benevolent Muslim dictatorship,where just enough of the population shares the wealth to keep the Country under control.

The people who absolutely CANNOT stand living under these circumstances,will simply leave and emigrate to Canada,U.S., Europe,wherever they'll be welcome.

The rest can be kept happy with crumbs and assured by strict mullahs that their's in the only way to heaven.

I don't believe the people of the ME are "brutes and savages", but like the "beer and popcorn" crowd in our own Country,are easily led, and not being familiar with alternative styles of government as we are, will be led that much more readily.

I'd like to believe that "democracy is inevitable",but unfortunately democracy is at odds with the egos of the very people who seek leadership in ANY society,and thus we have to be ever watchful and militant to preserve what is essentially an unnatural form of government.

We are holding on to democracy in the developed Countries with much difficulty,as our politicians seek more power for the State,and constantly try to subvert real democracy.

They maintain the illusion that we actually have a "say" in matters, but that illusion is growing thin as more of our people,especially the young, repeat that too often heard phrase,"politicians are all alike so there's no sense voting".

dmorris - democracy is not an unnatural, as you seem to imply, but a natural system.

First, to declare that 'because a people have never had democracy, this means that they will never want it' is illogical and smacks of historicism. After all, we in the West at one time didn't have democracy.

Second, to insult all the peoples of the ME and define them as 'beer and popcorn' mentalities is, on your part, as arrogant and ignorant a statement as when it was used to describe Canadians.

Third you are ignoring some basic facts; namely, the economy and the size of the population, and like so many people are trapped in what I term the superificial level of 'beliefs'. Beliefs are a result of the economy; not the other way around as you seem to believe.

Democracy is not a belief but a governing structure. As such it is tied to a particular economy - one based on the production of goods and services by private ownership. Any governmental system MUST privilege or give power to its key producers of goods and services.

Therefore, when your economy moves into an industrial mode, when your population moves from rural to urban and, moves into a multimillion size, then, you cannot provide for this population using only a top-down redistribution economy - one based on state control of industries, and, reliance on only one or two key industries. Oil, tourism, etc.

You must have the majority of your economy operating as small businesses.
You can see the results of this failure to promote small businesses and to empower this sector of the population (the middle class) in the ME - enormous poverty, lack of services, corrupt services, waste, massive corruption at the very top...and so on. The system won't work.

The system of democracy may be at odds with politicians, but they are not the rulers. The people are - by virtue of a Constitution, term limits for politicians, elections, free speech and a free press, and the rule of law. That is, democracy operates within checks and balances, while providing men with as much freedom as it can.

Democracy is not easy to maintain because it operates, as does capitalism and the free market, within the concept of RISK. That is, it acknowledges that the future may not be like the present or the past. It accepts change, while the totalitarian and tribal systems reject change.

Therefore, democracy allows for the free play of ideas, dissent, debates and changes. It allows for originality and individualism. Static ideologies, such as fascism (Islamic or other) or communism cannot allow change - unless within the sole Will of the Ruler.

We do have a 'say' in what matters - Consider the election of Ford in Toronto recently; people were fed up with the unions and the spending in City Hall. Consider the rise of the Tea Party in the US.

So- we'll have to disagree on these issues.

dmorris @ 2:38, your last three paragraphs are so accurate and it is always under the guise for the public good in some manner or our safety.

ET, I said earlier @ 12:54 "you had better be right or...". I apologize if it sounded threatening, as it was meant to convey some apprehension about the danger we are all in if Bonapartist takes the power in Egypt. Let me rephrase that, hopefully you are right or we will all be in for a bit of trouble.

How can the ME people know they want democracy when they have never had it nor are not familiar with it?

BTW, there are no links as yet, but one report on FoxNews an hour ago stated that the social networking system is talking about Tunisia, Egypt type demonstrations are being co-ordinated in four or five other countries. The map which appeared only briefly I think showed Algeria, Jordan, Syria and a couple of other countries.

Liberal Iggy's O'Harvard buddy: o'update.

O'Iggy screamed for ice cream: YesYesYes.

All him ketched was an O'"Flounders" & "WTF".

Hope & Change have swirled down the drain; and, O'Iggy have tumbled after.

...-

“As Obama Flounders, Hillary Takes Lead on Egypt …”

"Ya think? Fox reports that Hillary Clinton has called all available US ambassadors to a meeting at the State Department for a strategy session.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is convening an unprecedented mass meeting of U.S. ambassadors.

The top envoys from nearly all of America’s 260 embassies, consulates and other posts in more than 180 countries will be gathering at the State Department beginning on Monday. Officials say it’s the first such global conference.

The gathering comes at a time of crisis in Egypt that could reshape dynamics in the Middle East, fallout from leaked diplomatic documents and congressional calls for sweeping cuts in foreign aid. Read more from Fox News…

According to Politico the agenda will include keynotes by Susan Rice and Admiral Mike Mullen.

The ambassadors hold meetings with their regional bureaus Monday and Tuesday. Clinton is set to address the ambassadors Wednesday about “leading through civilian power,” after a welcome from her chief of staff and counselor, Cheryl Mills. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice will then forecast the year ahead at the United Nations, and Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Bill Burns will do the same for the year ahead in foreign policy.

The ambassadors will also hear from Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen on civilian-military operations in the 21st century, and USAID chief Raj Shah will speak on results-based development.

Although it’s nice to see the State Department reacting to events, how much staff work has been put into the meeting and will there be enough detail and process to focus such a huge meeting on the actionable items. In other words, has Hillary already sketched out a response which is going to be set before the ambassadors, or is this a brainstorming session to answer the basic question of WTF — “Win the Future”?"

http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2011/01/31/as-obama-flounders-hillary-takes-lead-on-egypt/#comments

Rose - I don't think you understand the basic axioms of societal and economic change. It isn't slick and easy like a factoryline production. It's tectonic and violent...

End quote:---------

You debate using philosophy, you negate facts whilst espousing what the future will look like in several decades the only problem is you haven't got the data to backup your points because those decades haven't transpired yet. If the MEast history is it's future the people will wallow in poverty and dispair under the control of insane Mullahs. Iran is Egypt's future.

I've typically been very supportive of John Bolton and his views. I just heard him on Dennis Miller's show this morning. In a nutshell here's what he said:

1. Mubarek is a nasty guy but he is "our" nasty guy so we need to support him. The alternative is an almost certainty that the much more oppressive (and hostile to us) Muslim Brotherhood will take over.

2. The European Union appears to be falling apart because the EU leaders have stopped listening to the people from the home nations they represent.

Is it just me, or do you also see a huge contradiction in these two views? Focusing in on the first, I simply do not see how any conservative minded person in the West can be agreeable to supporting a dictator anywhere, be in China, Russia, OR Egypt. I fully realize that there are legitimate security concerns of what Egypt might transform into but when did it become okay for us to support dictators?

Coach>

I’m with you coach. I’ve spent over 30 years of my life working and living around the world to know what’s going on with regards to “Peek Oil”, along with third world culture for that matter. It’s called firsthand experience that hasn’t been laid out for me by some special interest in a book or video.

I’m no global warming believer, but I do understand supply & demand, and it’s the latter that we need to be concerned with in the west. People mock those that highlight issues of food shortages claiming that there is plenty for everyone, yet don’t understand the relationship between depleted and poisoned aquifers to grow the food i.e. 1 ton water/ 8 tons grain. It would only take a couple of drought or blight years in North America as it did in Russia 2010 to starve off a billion people who subsist on $1.00 a day.

Average persons don’t seem see the connection with 1.3 billion Chinese living on rice, noodles and vegetables now developing a taste for milk and beef to understand the growing impacts on our markets, including rising prices and water/ wheat/ energy resource demands.

Anyone who has spent a lifetime in the oil industry can clearly see the impressive innovations and technologies built today to search and dig deeper and smarter into older depleted fields around the world. Very few new finds are expected with future exploration without extremely high production costs, as there are no new “open the tap” reserves left on land as was with Saudi Arabia.

To believe otherwise is simply foolish and deluding yourself believing that we live in an infinite world of natural recourses and that infinite growth of civilization is possible. The rest of the world knows this truth clearly, and they will position themselves to take what’s left for themselves if people want to sleep comfortably in their utopian fantasies.

Apologies coach

Typing to fast - 8 tons water/ 1 ton grain.

PET Cemetery requested this be shared.

H/T O'Iggy's Liberal "foreign affairs critic" Bob Rae, Mao Stlong's nephew.

...-

"8. Peter Boston

Apparatchiks respond to crisis by calling a meeting. Clever.

The evening news will explain why the Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Egypt is Bush’s fault. Maybe both of them.

Interesting that Obama kept his mouth shut while Iranian shlubs were gunned down in the street demonstrating against the Mullahs yet takes sides when “the people” (meaning Islamists) demonstrate against a part-time Western ally."

http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2011/01/31/as-obama-flounders-hillary-takes-lead-on-egypt/#comments

Robert said:
"Focusing in on the first, I simply do not see how any conservative minded person in the West can be agreeable to supporting a dictator anywhere, be in China, Russia, OR Egypt."

This is where 'ideology' meets 'reality', and is likely the same question we're all pondering over. Here is my train of thought...

democracy-good, dictator-bad;
Egypt as an Allie- good, Egypt as an enemy - bad;
Egyptians demonstrating against oppression- good, likely results for said demonstrators- bad; America intervening on behalf of government for the sake of Egyptians-good, Egyptians perception of American intervention on behalf of the government-bad; Egypt having the government they deserve- good, Egypt having the government they deserve at the cost of stability in the ME - bad.

I'm going to have to agree with Rose, J.Bolton and others at this time, so perhaps I don't "understand" either, but oh well. Unfortunately, we must sometimes realize that democracy and liberty must be earned; and to allow a group such as the Muslim Brotherhood to gain control of Egypt (in this case) under the guise of 'democracy' is irresponsible and naive. IF...and it's a big 'if' we could be assured that a such a government would enshrine the democratic values that put them in government in the first place; then we perhaps could ride the ideological horse named Democracy. But reality paints a much different picture, and if regular commenters here considered that more democracy today WILL lead to less democracy and liberty tomorrow; then perhaps they can put aside ideology today in lieu of reality for a look at the bigger picture. The fact is, if we can predict that a government is likely to form that will stifle and limit democracy, liberty and gender equality; then we have an obligation to prevent such a government from taking hold of Egypt; especially if that government is doing so under the guise of democracy. This boils down to if WE will allow ourselves to be hoodwinked by the same fanatics that would hoodwink the Egyptian people? WE SHOULD KNOW BETTER!

Finally, whenever I'm on side with Progressives I'm always want to pause. Keep in mind that the likely motives of the Progressives are 1) anti-Americanism; and/or 2)the desire for a radical Egyptian government.

These two points should make all conservatives think very hard about the 'democracy at any cost to anyone regardless of the results' point of view. Understand that the Progressives care not one bit about the well being of the Egyptian people; they only care about their political agenda. So whether you are in-it for our own self interest, or in-it for the interest of the Egyptian people; you can be certain that the Progressive position is NOT in-it for either.JMO

It is not to late to profit from the coming spike in oil prices we will see if the chaos continues in the ME. Any problems with shipping in the Suez canal (the one in Egypt), or the Persian Gulf will make Canadian sources of oil worth that much more. Longer term however it could be bad. It the countries that make up OPEC need the money they will start pumping all the oil they can and to hell with cartel agreements. This is what happened a 10 years or so ago and oil was down to 20$.

I recommend Canadian Oilsands and Crescent Point Energy.

Well at least the Islamofacists aren't hiding their agenda in Egypt anymore:

Snippet: Mohamed Ghanem, one of the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, calls Egypt to stop pumping gas to Israel and prepare the Egyptian army for a war with it’s eastern neighbor.

Speaking with Iranian television station Al-Alam, Mohamed Ghanem blamed Israel for supporting Hosni Mubarak’s regime. Ghanem also said that the Egyptian police and army won’t be able to stop the Muslim Brotherhood movement

End snippet:-------------

Link: http://www.forexcrunch.com/muslim-brotherhood-wants-war-with-israel/

There will be no democracy nor will there be peace, the current birth rate in the ME ensures hundreds of years of Jihad against the west. The Muslim Brotherhood's mandate is the complete destruction of the west and Israel, all the poetic academic waxing isn't going to change the future.

rose - what 'philosophy' am I using? And what facts have I negated? I suggest that you are the one without facts (and a snippet from an extremist rant is only a rant and not a fact)..and that you hold ungrounded opinions that 'all Muslims are jihadists out to destroy the West' - a demonstrably false opinion.

Robert - I agree with you. The fact that the West/US has been supporting dictators 'because they are our friends' is short-sighted..because those same dictators are not the friends of their own population!! And eventually, the population will rebel against those dictators. And..against us who supported them.

Indiana Homez - your good/bad framework is a bit, ahh, simplistic. What's your evidence that makes you choose either one?

No, democracy and liberty are not rewards for 'good behaviour'. They must not 'be earned'.

Liberty or freedom is a basic natural human right. Remember? Again, it's a fundamental human right. It's not something 'to be earned'. You don't have to be a slave..oh, a good slave first..and then, be rewarded by some Higher Authority..with liberty.

Democracy is a political mode of organization. It isn't an ideology. It's not something to 'be earned'. It's simply a political mode of organization that works within a population in the multimillions and within an industrial, growth economy. Nothing about 'earning' it...for good behaviour???

Democracy empowers the productive class of the nation, via elections for limited term authority, acting within a constitution and the rule of law. Period.

By the way, it isn't up to us, here in the West, to 'allow' Egypt's government to exist in a certain mode - just as it isn't up to those who want Sharia Law to seek to impose it on us. Since when are we the judges and arbiters of the mode of government in another nation?

By the way, did any nation..have the obligation - and that's your term - to prevent Trudeau from coming to power in Canada? Or prevent the American people from choosing Obama? How has either helped the well-being of their citizens? And isn't it up to those same citizens to make these choices..not the Government of another nation? Why do you assume that we in the West have 'the obligation' to decide for the Egyptian people, who they want as their government?

The common scenario here, of 'let's prop up the dictator Mubarek, because he's our friend'..is shocking. He's not the friend of the Egyptian people, and frankly, that's the only issue that ought to be of interest.

And the equally common Either-Or scenario of 'well, it's either Mubarek or the Muslim Brotherhood' is equally disingenuous. The Egyptian people don't want totalitarianism or fascism; they want freedom. They want an end to authoritarianism, to cronyism, to a tribal political mode with dynastic rulers; they want economic and political freedom. The Muslim Brotherhood - IF THEY choose to give them any power, cannot provide these values - and so - they will not last.

What I find so narrow-minded and short-sighted here, is the exclusive focus on us, on what's 'best for us'...totally ignoring that a people's needs in another nation are the issue. Not us. - and that these needs - for freedom, economic and political power - cannot be met by a dictatorship.

"Historicism",ET? What else has a person to use as a reference other than the experiences of history? That's supposedly an "-ism",now?

Tribalism is natural,democracy and socialism are constructs made to deflect or curtail the power of the head of the tribe,or Nation, and allot some of that power to the masses.

Don't insult me about the "beer and popcorn" remark, you know what I meant.

And of course we see the struggles in Egypt in the context of their repercussions on us,it works that way outside the realm of theory or philosophy. We're self interested, and that's natural,too.

Democracy will not "break out" in Egypt or Yemen,Sudan,Tunisia,or any other Country in the Middle East, unless some tribal strongman decides that is HIS ticket to power.

Democracy in our society,as YOU preach to us here constantly, took hundreds of years to develop to the current state,so how can we expect ME Countries that have been living in a tribal or feudal state for so long,suddenly vault forward and embrace democracy, a system that is foreign to the majority of the people?

You often sound like an academic lecturing to the class,but like most academics, you make the mistake of believing that the masses will embrace your view if you show them the way.

As a committed "historicist", I don't believe democracy will have any chance in Egypt,because there are too many factions at work for whom the sharing of power is unthinkable.

In the next few months,we'll see how it plays out.

Is it possible that George W Bush may have been right, That regime change in Iraq would foster democracy in the middle east? Iran,Tunisia, Egypt.....who's next Jordan, Libia, Lebanon. Are ready to W was right? Will he ultimately be vindicated in the eyes history.....

Is it possible that George W Bush may have been right, That regime change in Iraq would foster democracy in the middle east? Iran,Tunisia, Egypt.....who's next Jordan, Libia, Lebanon. Are ready to W was right? Will he ultimately be vindicated in the eyes history.....

Ronnie Reagan was right ... force the pricks to pay their way ... put up or shut up and then just sit back and watch them self destruct.

This is just one step along the way.

dmorris, your last sentence @ 6:35 is the one sure thing. I have to agree with your second last sentence.

The Egyptian people have never tasted democracy and do not know what it is. The Russian people had democracy for nine months in 1917, did not understand it or support it and instead used it as a license for all sorts of malevolence. They did not understand it as a form of government, but only as a vehicle to advance their personal well being. As one fellow told my grandfather, paraphrased somewhat,I am for the Bolsheviks, but against the Communists and the Kadets will not turn the land over to us. He did not have a clue, how could he.

The rest of debate on this thread by all of us is conjecture at this point.

dmorris - 'historicism' is a specific term, meaning that the course of history is predetermined, and operates according to unchangeable laws. [It does not mean 'experiences of history' and doesn't mean the study of history].

What I meant by my use of the term was your implication that IF the system of democracy was missing in a particular nation/population, then, this 'law' was missing in the system..and so, democracy couldn't develop.

You state: "Tribalism is natural,democracy and socialism are constructs made to deflect or curtail the power of the head of the tribe,or Nation, and allot some of that power to the masses."

No - the above doesn't make sense. Tribalism is not 'natural' (there's your historicism again).

It's a specific mode of governance, created by humans, and found in medium size populations that are large enough to merit a division of authority into: those who have authority and those who do not. It's found only in medium size (not small) populations, and in no-growth economies (horticulture, pastoral nomadic, agriculture). Membership into each 'class' is hereditary or kin-based. Govt authority is given to the landowners or wealth owners (eg cattle).

Democracy is not some kind of superstructure on tribalism! Democracy is, to repeat, a mode of governance found in very large, growth populations. It has zilch to do with tribalism..which must be non-existent in such a situation. Democracy empowers a middle class, who are engaged in private enterprise. It operates within a constitution, rule of law, and limited term elections.

Socialism is a utopian idealogy that is parasitic on a growth economy, taking surplus/wealth and redistributing it. It reduces the power of the middle class - with its private enterprises - and thus, socialism will ultimately collapse as it bleeds the economy dry. We see that happening in Europe. Socialism has nothing to do with tribalism or democracy.

I know exactly what you meant with your beer and popcorn, and it remains insulting - 'they' are not idiots in Egypt, they are not 'easily led'. They are no different from we ourselves, and in this day of the internet and travel, 'they' are quite aware that Mubarek and his cronies have messed up the nation.

I don't agree with you that democracy will only emerge in the ME if 'some tribal strongman' decides that it will give him personal power. That's not a definition of democracy and again, democracy has absolutely no relation to tribalism.

Democracy took over 400 years to develop in the West because the economic system at the time was moving from a local no-growth agricultural system to a market growth agricultural system, developing towns and cities, and increasing the population..and developing other attributes of a civic society, literacy, common law, universities, new technologies etc.

What you have now in the world, is that many of these attributes already exist...and democracy, as the political system that empowers a middle class, can emerge much faster than it did in the West.

I am an academic - and have researched and taught these areas for 30 odd years..but most certainly don't expect 'the masses' to follow my views. But I AM surprised by the catechisms expressed here, that:

-we should support a dictator because he's friendly to us;
-the Arabs are all..whatever..and thus, unable to function in a democratic situation;
-democracy must be earned;
- freedom must be earned;
etc.

Ah modern secularism. Clinging to it false gods it pumps out its false hopes. These Arabic people, they just need a bit more TV, well OK then they just need a bit more internet, well OK they just need a bit more education to fill their blank slates. If they get those they will be just like us. Yea and verily they shall demand democracy and and peace and having beaten their swords into plowshares they shall enter our utopia with gender equality and wymyns studies for all.

"It has fallen! All the idols they worship lie shattered on the ground."

While all this goes on. The one question I have is if these events are positive, than why is Iran so happy?
The Islamists in my opinion are making a move to consolidate their home base into a fortress.
The groundwork for a Caliphate. Once they are on the same play-book, than Europe is in their hands is probably the thinking. After Europe with Obama importing colonizing Somalian Islamists & other followers of the pervert prophet. Will convert in only a short time North America to succumb to Sharia Law as well.
Nice Plan, it won't work.
Sunni-Shities have to much killing history behind them. They love killing each other more than us.
Sooner or latter like rabid dogs they will turn on each other for preconceived slights.
JMO

Posted by: ET at January 31, 2011 11:16 AM
...yes, there've been lots of images of women demonstrating in these throngs. Women wearing the hijab..and even the veil...

I watched CBC, CTV and PBS footage of Egypt tonight...didn't see one.

“Liberty and freedom must be earned”.

Agreed.

Why are so many convinced that Arab nations, who have lived in one form of tribal tyranny or another for the last unbroken 5000 years so desperately want freedom & liberty?

They keep telling you they don’t want it in one way or another, over and over again, yet somehow we are convinced otherwise.

They want bread first and foremost, and then they want what their neighbour has secondly. If they can get more than that, good all the better. Just don’t allow their rivals to have more. Really it’s not much more complicated than that for the average Arab social network.

They like strong dictatorial leaders that control their lives as judge and shepherd. They don’t want anyone interfering with their local hierarchy especially with their women who are at the bottom of every Arab totem-pole.

Why that is so complicated for westerners to digest I’ll never know, especially since their system is not only far older but much further mentally and culturally established than our own.

knight 99 - freedom is a basic human right. You don't earn it. How do you earn it - by being good? According to whom? And who is the Big Boss that declares....ah, now, you've been good. You can be free.

No, your outline of 'them'...as not wanting freedom and liberty - is your view. Listen to the people on the street; they declare that they want freedom. No, the Islamic fascists are not identical to ALL people in the ME.

And your view that 'they' like dictators is your opinion. Why are they rejecting one now? Why did the Iranians demonstrate for freedom? What's going on in Tunisia?

Again, a political system is directly connected to an economic system and a population size. Once your economic system becomes industrial, you must move out of tribalism..and enable and empower a middle class. (Tribalism has no middle class).

Jamie MacMaster - I don't watch Canadian channels, but, there are LOTS of women in the footage on FOX and CNN. WOmen in hijabs, in full veils...lots of women among the demonstrators.

ET

Of course there IS a middle class in Egypt, after all Egypt do have traders, teachers, government workers. This is the middle class Warren talks about. And Warren says that middle class is now demonstrating because it is they who have this notions of freedom, democracy and change. They are also fed and tired of corruption, inefficient government and police on every corner.
And Muslim Brotherhood (MB)is watching.

The same happened in Tunisia. Over there the demonstrations were spontaneous and people who demonstrated were shopkeepers, students and so on. Frustrated. Then the army took over. According to blog I read the army told people to save food, they kept order on the streets and they cautioned against poisoned water.There was not MB involved in protests. But they are coming back from exile in London
.
Jordan is somewhat similar to Egypt. There is strong support for MB by students and people in Amman. However, somewhat like Egypt, Jordan is supposed to have omnipresent secret police and Jordan military supports the king.

Coming back to tribalism.
Of course there is tribalism all over the Middle East. However the tribalism is very important in the Gulf States and the Saudi Arabia. Tribalism is somewhat less important in Jordan - (important among beduins and older palestinians, less important among younger generation). Tribalism is also important in Egypt, but not very important in the cities. In the cities family is important, but tribe is less important. IMHO

And so we are coming to Muslim Brotherhood. MB is somewhat against tribalism. It is not only a Islamic party but it is also a revolutionary party. Revolutionary in a sense that for them tribalism is a less important than being religious. Especially among young members of MB. . And that is one of the reasons why young people join Muslim Brotherhood. By joining, some of them protest against tribalism of their parents, protest against corrupt government and at the some time they show their religiosity and the commitment to religious revival of Islam.

And that's why Muslim Brotherhood is still not moving in either direction. Warren was right. MB is waiting for other demonstrators to get weaker. Then it will take over using the slogans of "no corruption" ( Ahmadinejad also used that slogan), of "getting rid of the Western imperialists" (Khomeini and Nasrallah used that too), of " helping Palestinian Brothers" and promising better life"- when all these aims will be achieved. In future. Far future.

And because young are tired of the lack of opportunities, if there would be no dramatical change, MB will probably take over - sooner or later..

ET

If they are a lot of women among the demonstrators than it probably is a Cairo. In Cairo the situation is different than situation in rural Egypt or even in other cities in Egypt. In Cairo there are a lot of single women with children. There are a lot of universities and schools. that's why women situation is different in Cairo then elsewhere.
Further, because many women wear veil they see themselves more free to move around.
MB (usually) does not prohibit women from demonstrating, sometimes it encourages them to do so. However women can not still move to higher level positions in that organization---it is an Islamic organization after all.

"'historicism' is a specific term, meaning that the course of history is predetermined, and operates according to unchangeable laws. [It does not mean 'experiences of history' and doesn't mean the study of history]."

From the World Book Encyclopedia,""historicism:the excessive use or influence of earlier ideas that substitute or smother original achievement".

That,I am guilty of. I very much make my judgements based on historical precedent. Usually, they're right,not always

"Tribalism is not 'natural' (there's your historicism again)."

I don't know how you can claim tribalism isn't natural, it's the earliest form of government, practiced long before there WERE Nations,and the strongest man ruled over the tribe.It's as natural, in the pure sense of the word,as a wolf pack or ancient aboriginal tribe.

In nature,the strongest survive and thrive,and tribalism is the first step toward control over a group of people sharing the same ground.Democracy demands the strong share their power with the weak, and THAT, in the purest sense of the word,isn't natural.

Not that I'm saying tribalism is desirable. Nor am I claiming the Egyptian people are savages or brutes, but ordinary people,getting on with their lives. Just like us "Beer and popcorners", no insult intended to anyone!

In our own sophisticated society, a tiny percentage belong to political Parties,and we have essentially turned government over to political elites.Egypt is no different in that sense.

In Egypt, political Parties compete with powerful religious forces for control of the government,rendering the possibility of a real democracy remote.

Egypt is currently ruled by the National Democratic Party, (love that acronym), which is not very democratic,and I believe,is about to be replaced by an even less democratic government.

My point,before I got sidetracked into a pissing contest with you,ET, was that
Egypt isn't "yearning" for a democracy, and that conclusion came from observation of the political situation in the ME the past 50 or so years.

I'm not an academic,as you are, but do read and search out every bit of information I can get my hands on regarding ANY subject of interest. And I've been doing that since long before there was an internet.

While I have my beliefs and prejudices,you have yours. You state that "Democracy is, to repeat, a mode of governance found in very large, growth populations. It has zilch to do with tribalism..which must be non-existent"

I never said democracy had anything to do with tribalism,and it is NOT the only form of government found in large growth populations. Countries CAN flourish without democracy,and if I dare mention "history" again,several have, as you very well know.

If you will look at many of the allegedly democratic societies on the planet,you'll notice many call themselves "democratic" but are actually tribal. Democracy in it's theoretic and pure form exists exactly where?

The political elites from all the colonies of the European powers sent their children to be educated in democracies in Europe, yet how many of them actually created (real) democracies once they returned home?

Most were part of psuedo-democracies resting on a firm foundation of, wait for it ....tribalism.

Ho Chih Minh,Patrice Lumumba come to mind.

Do Egyptians crave democracy? I think not,rather,they crave stability and the firm guidance of a government that isn't too corrupt or brutal, just like us,the B & P crowd.

And the void that follows this revolution will be filled initially by another psuedo-democracy,which will give way to an Islamic theocracy once they show their weakness.

Next time you're in Kelowna,ET, call me. We'll have a beer at my favourite golf course. You bring the popcorn.

I'm amazed that Mubarak was able to hang on for so long. I was sure that he wouldn't last much longer than Sadat. He's got staying power. I'm not sure that he's on his way out yet, although he may have amassed enough fortune that it's not worth his while to hang on. Retire to some nice safe island. That's the ticket.

"Do Egyptians crave democracy? I think not,rather,they crave stability and the firm guidance of a government that isn't too corrupt or brutal, just like us,the B & P crowd."
Yes, they don't crave democracy. I even think they do not quite understand what democracy really is.
I also don"t agree with the rest, but it would take too long to explain why not. And someone might then say that I ......... lecture ;-)

ET>

“freedom is a basic human right. You don't earn it. How do you earn it - by being good?”

You are looking at an individual desire for freedom and liberty and proclaiming those ideals as universal. We know that is not true to all people everywhere, or the world would be one big democracy or Republic. Arab people view their world as a collective, one of the major differences of “they” and us in a society. The Arab collective begins with the small family structure and builds its complexity through neighbourhood, tribal alliance, religion and country. These ties are stronger than our western views of family, god and country. That is why they enforce those beliefs quickly and as often as needed with violence.

My “opinion” on this is based on living in Libya 5 years, Tunisia 1 year, Algeria 2.5 years, Malta 2 years and the various Middle Eastern countries on long term visitations over a 15 year period. Yes engaged with the natives and interested enough to inquire as to how they tick.

Grandstanding on a platform of freedom and liberty, especially when it’s not fully understood by peoples who have never truly had it is not the same thing as wanting to shift your whole cultural comfort zone into a western value.

To finish the original quote on this thread “Freedom and Liberty must be earned” + "The tree of freedom is occasionally watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots"

We can say that Freedom and Liberty is a human right all we wish, you still need to desire it as a collective, and you need to fight for it. It does not just happen.

Some interesting statements made. He discussed the fact that Mubarak and his government is weak, while the military is very strong...this is typical of any 'facade' state. He also mentioned that the US has extremely close ties with the military (evident by the use of US weapons, as was alluded to when the interviewer mentioned the large sums of money transfered from the US). An example of modern imperialism, the US sets up a 'facade' government with a strong, US backed military force. In the case of Egypt, the US strategy is to secure resources, namely strategic positioning (being in the center of the major oil producing regions of North-West Africa and the ME as well as control over the Suez Canal).

This of course leads to a deepening of a two class system by making a middle class an impossibility, due to the lack of domestic capitalist ventures and domestic infrastructure as a result of a centralized economic system combined with IMF arrangements (which invariably leads to exporting raw natural resources). A strong army, backed by the US technology and finances, serves to suppress the population despite nearly half living at the poverty line (until now).

Talk about the Muslim Brotherhood is secondary to these main issues. Extremist organizations develop under certain circumstances, repression/suppression being one of them. Combine this with rising food prices and unrest in neighbouring states and you're liable to have the lid blow off.

Freedom, Liberty, and Democracy are universal INDIVIDUAL rights, you cannot have a discussion in their regard without FULLY ACKNOWLEDGING THE RIGHT OF THE INDIVIDUAL...that means refraining from identifying issues in terms of COLLECTIVE IDENTITIES.

One must identify the components within the broad view of the issue. If the US was interested in spreading freedom, liberty, and democracy they wouldn't be spreading weapons and money to dictators...it really is as simple as that.

Latest article by Ezra: "ElBaradei no saviour"

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/ezra_levant/2011/01/31/17105806.html
Posted by: batb at February 1, 2011 7:49 AM

dmorris - again, you don't understand the term of 'historicism'. It means that events follow a predetermined path. Web Free Dictionary. And see Popper's analysis of historicism in: The Open Society.
1. A theory that events are determined or influenced by conditions and inherent processes beyond the control of humans.

ella - no, they do not have a middle class. A few small shopkeepers aren't a middle class.

knight99 and dmorris - the fact that people in the ME live within tribalism does not negate that freedom is a basic human right. Nor should it be the result of a battle. After all, this implies that slavery is primary..and you don't get to be free until you fight the forces that enslave you.

Actually, the most basic societal organization is that of hunters and gatherers - and it's not tribal. There are no leaders, other than ad hoc on a hunt. Decisions are consensual.

Tribalism only emerges in a medium size population (in the thousands)that has ownership of property (land, animals)..and it is not, never, about 'the strongest'...for that would destabilize the system. It's necessarily hereditary.

No, democracy is not about 'the strong sharing power with the weak'. Democracy empowers the productive class. That is what all political authority does - whether in the Hunting/Gathering, or the Tribal or the Civic Democratic economic modes. The political system empowers the productive class/group. In a multimillion size population, with an industrial economy, the productive class are the small to medium size business owners. So - democracy empowers them.

Moving from tribal to democratic is a tectonic shift and not easy. And what everyone here seems to ignore, for some odd reason, are the basic variables of: population size and economic mode. These must be considered in analyzing a society.

BTJ
You imply and say some interesting things.
According to what you wrote the USA "sets up a facade government with a strong US backed military force." Do you mean that it was a case in Egypt? If so I can only advise you to read history of Egypt and then write such thing.
You wrote that strong army backed by the US technology and finances, serves to suppress the population despite nearly living at poverty line . You mean that Turkey, South Korea, Taiwan as well as Singapore do not have the middle class, lack domestic capitalist ventures and domestic infrastructure?
Then you talk that Muslim Brotherhood is secondary to these main issues? Secondary? BTJ, your socialist upbringing shows up. Religion and religious organizations are never secondary.
You write "Freedom, Liberty and Democracy are universal Individual rights" ......according to whom, BTJ? Americans can say that they are universal, world says that they are not. And Muslim Brothers as well as governments of all muslim countries are important here because they all do not agree with that statement. Do you want to go against the will of people of that countries, BTJ. People over there do not agree with you.
US is interested in spreading freedom, liberty and democracy, and it did so to the Eastern Europe whose people were interested in freedom, liberty and democracy. It can not spread it to the countries whose people in their majority prefer sharia to the "demokracy and liberty"
****
btw. I wonder what would Egyptians say if someone asked them what they mean by the terms "freedom, liberty, demokracy"

ET

They do have middle class. Only you look at middle class from a western point of view. You do not count people working in government. You do not count managers in hospitality industry. You do not count people working at universities. - they do. They count themselves as the middle class.
In Weberian socio-economic terms, the middle class is the broad group of people in contemporary society who fall socio-economically between the working class and upper class. The common measures of what constitutes middle class vary significantly between cultures.

Don'tcha just love ET's arguing style? Narrowly define common terms to mean only what she wants them to mean then debate about said definitions. Set her own level of various triggers then reject any counter arguments 'cause she's an expert doncha know. Her Marxist interpretation lowers everything to the basest level. Well here's a news flash ET old girl. Man does not live by bread alone and mankind is a much more complex animal than the one you describe. Democracy is a delicate flower that only blossoms after centuries of conditioning and disappears at the hint of distress. Democracy is not the acme of some blind evolutionary determinism. Its roots are in the beliefs of the people and given the wrong roots (Islam) the best a society can muster is a perverted form of thugocracy.

The US has the most direct democracy in the world. Why? Because of the Evangelical Christian view of the Priesthood of the Believers. The founders beleved we all have access to God therefore we all have a say in how things should be. Canada has a lesser level of direct democracy because we believe that there are certain individuals who perform priestly duties for us. In other words some have more access to God than others therefore those with the greater access should have more say than those who have less access.

In Islam no one has access to Allah. His will is unknowable. If it happens to you it was Allah's will. The best you can do is follow rules and attempt to try to be the strongest man in your neighbourhood. Once the pecking order is established it is believed that it is Allah's will. Except for those who would like to knock off the toughest man in the neighbourhood who believe Allah's will is that they are to be the ruler.

The outcome of these riots will not be determined by the number of shop keepers in Cairo. It will be determined by how deeply Islam is ingrained and loved. Do the Egyptians resent Islam as a form of Arabic imperialism and if it exists is that resentment strong enough to keep Islamists out of power. I suspect that the short term answer is no.

Joe - my definition of terms is not 'narrow'. If you are talking about 'historicism' - it's the basic definition. I gave two references.

And no, referring to the economic mode and population base of a society is not marxism. Marxism is a utopian ideology of linear progression based around classes as adversarial agents...and focusing on a future of 'no classes'. Sorry to disappoint you but I'm not into that romantic utopian ideology.
Talking about the economic mode and population base is basic social analysis.

And your definition of democracy as a 'flower' is pure romantic rhetoric - Democracy would never, ever, emerge in a stable agricultural society, with a no-growth medium size population and a no-growth economy no matter how many thousands of years. Why not?

Democracy is operative only when the economy moves from a fixed productive system (land base, animal base) to a flexible productive system (manufacturing of goods and services). Got that? The key variables are: Population size and economic mode; namely - Fixed to flexible production.
Democracy, like ALL political systems, empowers the productive system in the society.

As for your movement into religious analogies, I disagree. The US system is indeed 'direct' but its immediate connections between govt and electorate are strictly mediated by the three tiered govt system, by the set election dates..and the graduated election limited terms..and by the specific powers of each branch laid out in the Constitution. Nothing to do with access to god.

The Canadian govt system is parliamentary and isn't three tiered, doesn't have different election dates for various representatives..and so on. Again, nothing to do with access to god.

Does Islam, as a religion, need to be reformed? Yes. Islam is less of a religion and more of a sociopolitical ideology. It requires reform..and even though it is defined as dogma straight from god...it's manmade..and can be changed by man. Not easily..but..it can be.

What surprises me about the perspective of so many on this thread is the view of Muslims as almost non-human. The view is rather similar to that held, years ago, of Jews, or blacks, or women. In all cases, these 'groups' were understood as deficient and not worthy of participation in 'modern society'.

All kinds of 'reasons' were given for the exclusion of these groups...and the same is obvious in this discussion about the ME. Just read some of the opinions:

.... 'these people don't know what democracy means anyway...and they don't want what they don't know. ..and just want a stable life and no worries...and if they talk about democracy....well, democracy isn't a natural right and they must fight for it and deserve it. And being 'arabs'...they don't understand democracy and wouldn't know how to live that way anyway....Whew.

BTJ - your hatred of the US seems to be the basic analytic focus for your outline. You are ignoring what is going on within Egypt and the ME world. They aren't demonstrating against the US; they are demonstrating against Mubarek.

Ella - that's not a definition of a middle class! You are defining the middle class (and where did you get that?)..as 'a group in the middle between the lower and the upper. Heh. Some definition. How about the basic attributes?

No, I'm not defining the middle class by a 'western point of view'. I'm not defining it by income; I'm not defining it by linearity. I'm defining it economically and I've said this repeatedly - as a class that has individual private property rights.

The bureaucracy - funded by the statist govt rulers in a ME tribal govt (eg, as in Egypt) is not what I mean by a middle class. The middle class is that group of people with the right and means to own and economically develop private property. These are the small and medium size business owners, factory and industrial owners and developers. These people must be politically empowered ..and are the basic population of power in a democracy.

ET, what do you make of Obama's back-door admission of the Muslim Brotherhood into the position of legitimate Egyptian political party?

ET / BTJ >

You still miss the point. One use of the phrase “Freedom and Liberty” is as an idea or belief. It’s another to put it into practice.

ET - full quote including attempt at patronizing mockery – “freedom is a basic human right. You don't earn it. How do you earn it - by being good? According to whom? And who is the Big Boss that declares....ah, now, you've been good. You can be free.”
There are over 1.3 billion Chinese that would not agree, along with countless other people in regimes, political prisoners, freedom advocates etcetera...... What part of your statement “ah, now, you’ve been good. You can be free” Seems ridiculous to these countless and faceless millions.
Even in our so called free countries, you have millions of people wanting to go from freedom to socialism; they fight us every day for it. If government has overall control of our lives, we aren’t free. If we can’t speak our minds or have the right of peaceful assembly, we are not free, yet millions lobby to this end.
That’s why “Freedom and Liberty” becomes a defensible right. You can call it Universal Individual Rights all you wish, but unless it’s won and then defended, you will never have it or hold it for long.
No magic wand makes people automatically free at birth aside from the idea and desire to be free. Society in many forms snatches that idea in 90% of the world today and dashes against a wall. Unless you some sort of meditating Zen Master I suppose.

phantom - I don't know what to make of Obama; he's only out for himself. And he's totally ignorant of history, economics,..and Islamic fascism. Remember, he doesn't even admit the existence of Islamic fascism...it's 'man-caused disasters' according to him.

My guess and it's pure guess - is that it's part of his pathological narcissism, where he thinks that if HE, the Great One, draws them to His Side...then, they will settle down, forget their violent agenda and so on.

Knight 99 - I totally agree with you about the necessity to defend freedom. And I agree with you about those socialist sophist elites whose agenda is to take our freedoms away and that we have to defend this freedom against those who want to deny it to us. That's why we fight socialism and slavery ..etc..

My point is that, just as we have a 'right to life', and this right must not readily be removed from us, so we also have a right to freedom...and this right must not readily be removed from us.

My point is that freedom is a basic human right; it's fundamental. I'm arguing against those on this thread who are saying that 'some peoples', in this case, Muslims, don't have that right to it.

There are quite a few comments on this thread that the people in the Arab world are too backward, too trapped in fundamentalism etc..to have the right to freedom. We are told that they wouldn't know what to do with freedom, that they probably don't even want it, ...

But we in the West at one time didn't have freedom; should we have been denied our attempts to gain freedom because we were 'too backward'?

So, Mubarek is saying..what?
- That he'll step down? When?
- The he won't seek re-election? heh..when's the election?
Apparently Obama is supporting him in this new agenda that 'he won't seek re-election'. But he's not elected anyway.

So- what's going on? Is Obama colluding with Mubarek - against the wishes of the Egyptian people, who want Obama gone NOW..not tomorrow, not at the 'next election'..but NOW?

He's not to be trusted; he won't give up 30 years of power that easily.
Does he want the time to set up a new regime where he'd be the BackRoom Power?
Would he align himself with the Muslim Brotherhood?

Obama is making a huge mistake. What should happen is that Mubarek goes now, and a transitional government, defined as such with a limited term and limited powers, moves in to oversee an election in..three-to-six months. A full and fair election.

Instead - what's going on? Mubarek to stay on until 'the election'? Never - he'll consolidate his backroom power.

ET >

Ok I’m with you on that part, and agree that freedoms are a fundamental human right. The argument was about “practice”.

Although possibly interpreted as such by my comments, I never stated or intended to state that Arab’s did not deserve to have freedom and liberty. The question I posed in a nutshell was - are they ready and willing to have freedom and liberty? This is a different matter with complete onus on the Arab culture, not my wishes or opinion.

This is a culture that has never had freedom and liberty as we know it since the dawn of civilization. An imperfect metaphor I would use is the young convict who goes to Jail as a young man and spends his entire life in “the system”. Upon release as an old man, he can’t cope with his new found freedoms in society and commits a crime to return to prison. He intentionally forgoes his freedom for the institutionalized loss of freedom and liberty that he is accustomed to. This in my opinion is not allotting different than a 5000 year old culture of tyrannical hierarchy.

knight 99 - ah, now I get your explanation, and I see your point. It won't be, most certainly, easy, but I think that they'll have to take the risks..and move into freedom. Along with a constitution and rule of law that constrains that freedom....

ET.

The “move towards freedom” is key.

I believe that brings us full circle to the original comment “Freedom and Liberty must be earned” which I think was not understood by several, in the way I understood it to mean. The discrepancy I believe was in the word “earned”.

I understand that word in this context to mean (desired and wanted and fought for mentally) every bit as much as politically or physically. It’s one freedom for a prison door to swing open and it’s another for a mental prison door to unlock, individually and collectively within a culture.

“Earned” is not intended in this case to be a grant from a higher power, but a desire or force of will from something within.

Listening to CBC as I speak.

Sort of interesting with Peter Mansbridge bringing in Susan Ormiston in Cairo. I sense the beat of excitement, though well concealed by the professionals of CBC.

What confuses me is the rationale behind these people who broadcast. Seems like they are waiting for a messiah like figure to heap their accolade on. He has not yet appeared.

Why do they (journalists) get so souped up?

Listening to CBC as I speak.

Sort of interesting with Peter Mansbridge bringing in Susan Ormiston in Cairo. I sense the beat of excitement, though well concealed by the professionals of CBC.

What confuses me is the rationale behind these people who broadcast. Seems like they are waiting for a messiah like figure to heap their accolade on. He has not yet appeared.

Why do they (journalists) get so souped up?

"BTJ - your hatred of the US seems to be the basic analytic focus for your outline."

ET, I respect your opinions and you're clearly the most intelligent person on this board...which is why it always disappoints me when you steep to emotional rhetoric and assumptions.

I never expressed any 'hatred' (a VERY strong emotion in my opinion, not to be taken lightly) for America. I know you don't equate facts with hate, you're better than that. On this note, please provide an example of a false statement in my post, or one that harbors 'hate'.

"You are ignoring what is going on within Egypt and the ME world. They aren't demonstrating against the US; they are demonstrating against Mubarek."

I assure you I am not. What I described is nothing new and certainly nothing kept secret. It is how Britain and the US has done things for the last century. Lord Curzon openly admitted that Britain would rule Iraq behind an 'Arab facade' in response to 'anti-imperialist agitation'. Saddam was the US's puppet, he had no real power economically and received TONS of support from the US...much of it in arms. The same goes for Mubarak...he receives more than a billion dollars a year from the US, is a BRUTAL dictator and a close ally of the US...all openly admitted. Now how is this ignoring 'what is going on within Egypt'? Mubarak is there BECAUSE he's supported by the US...and continues to be despite the OVERWHELMING majority of the Egyptian population calling for his ousting.