Egypt

No. He only invaded kuwait and was eyeing saudi. Been at war with iran and was killing as many kurds as he could

No danger at all. Quite the pacifist
 
He was a absolutely no threat to anyone outside Iraq after the first Gulf War was finished. You know this, so don't try and BS me with any of this historical and irrelevant smokescreenery.
 
I was replying to high rates "western meddling" comment. He was no threat after the first gulf war because the "meddling" made absolutely sure that he wasn't. You didn't even attempt to read what I said

It wasn't because he had become a fcking Buddhist or something
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
Too kind on morsi there grey. Can't you see that given a free reign the mb would have split the society even further ?

Deomcracy is the only way grass but parties have to be non sectarian. That's why it works in the west (bar efforts by the likes of le pen on one side say and ken livingstone on the other)

Mb is very sectaroian and I suppose despite the killings it is great to see huge rejection of their bigotry by so many muslims
Click to expand...


The MB were heading for trouble because of their inability to take account of interests other than their own. I called it naivety, which maybe is too kind, though presumably there are moderates in the party who would rather have made the compromises needed to stay in power than provoke the backlash from the army. Your word for it is sectarian, which is fair enough.

The MB wouldn't be pals of mine, but nor would the new regime, which is behaving savagely. No ruler anywhere should get away with openly murdering people in the streets.
 
But from a purely pragmatic aspect, the army's strategy has paid dividends (albeit at a high human cost).
Today, the Brotherhood has cancelled all forthcoming demonstrations and street protests out of fear of further deaths among their supporters.. This evening, the streets of Egypt are quiet.
The colonels have won this particular round.
 
Oddly enough i agree entirely with both of you.

Just would add that i think it is fundamentally impossible for the MB to ever take into account alternative opinions. Fundamental islam si not about compromise and more so than any other major sect, there is a belief that their beliefs must be imposed. No other religion is obsessed with "non believers" and has such a chilling attitude to cricticism
 
Last edited:
Oddly enough, I agree with all three of you.

As I said earlier, Islam is more than just a faith - it is a political template on how to lead a life.

Insofar as the Middle-Eastern nations are concerned, any move towards establishing 'democracy' in the region, must take this simple fact into account.

Almost every nation in the region (Israel and perhaps the wealthy, immigrant-dependent, Emirates apart) is almost pre-disposed to having any free-vote loaded towards theocratic parties. With the wealth of these nations dispersed so thinly, large parts of the population know nothing other than scratching-around for roots in the desert, and thanking Allah for their good fortune. Present these same people with a choice between the status-quo and an ordained route to the Promised Land, and it's little surprise that they vote in their droves for Islamist parties.This is and was the inherent danger in the promotion of 'democracy at all costs'.

It's noticeable perhaps that the (relatively) peaceful transition in South Africa was bereft of any additional, religious overtones. Maybe we we're spoiled into thinking that the inherent goodness of mankind would prevail - even in the darkest of hours?

If I saw a few more 'Truth & Reconciliation' committees being set-up in these nascent Middle-Eastern states, I might have a little more faith (if you'll pardon the pun) that pushing democracy on these countries was a good thing.
 
Last edited:
An informative post, Grey. Thanks!
I've no idea how influential the Strong Egypt Party is but the interview has an air of credibility. Whatever the facts are the present situation is a bloody mess. Any outside action, if any, needs to be very carefully considered and undertaken only with almost universal (UN?) support/mandate and only to enable fair elections on an agreed firm constitutional basis.

Civil war in Egypt benefits no one but the terrorists. I have a couple of very close Egyptian friends and I fear for them and all the other ordinary people in the streets and villages who just want a decent life for themselves and their families.
 
It is extremely rare for the UN to intervene in the internal affairs of any country, and I don't see anyone wanting to get directly involved in Egypt because its army, which has been the recipient of US aid for many years, is too strong.
 
Last edited:
The un isnt mandated to do so but some states are barely states at all. Sudan was a case in point
 
Tout Seul said:
An informative post, Grey. Thanks!
I've no idea how influential the Strong Egypt Party is but the interview has an air of credibility. Whatever the facts are the present situation is a bloody mess. Any outside action, if any, needs to be very carefully considered and undertaken only with almost universal (UN?) support/mandate and only to enable fair elections on an agreed firm constitutional basis.

Civil war in Egypt benefits no one but the terrorists. I have a couple of very close Egyptian friends and I fear for them and all the other ordinary people in the streets and villages who just want a decent life for themselves and their families.
Click to expand...

Good to see you posting, TS. I hope you're well. :cool:
 
Back
Top