The only real solution is to rid the place of the puppet master!
If the US or Israel (or any power that sees the middle-east interests as secondary) have any say in the selection of the next govt. (which seems to be the case), then this revolution was not really successful.
Excellent analysis by Michel Chossudovsky that the root of the evil here is the master and not so much the puppet: link to indymedia.org
And this violation of their own people will continue (in USA/Canada) to the extent that the people are distracted and entertained *just enough* such that they have little reason to rise-up and follow the course of self-determination. The US administration and it's fellows know better than to allow open repression and increase in unemployment.
Do you actually believe that at this time self-determination in the middle-east is contingent upon the US administration/Congress doing the right thing?
For the sake of argument, I'll agree.
Then I would like to understand how long such a state-of-affairs would continue? 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 years?
History seems to manifest similar conclusions about the dominance of super-powers. It starts by a demonstration of defiance against this authority by an opposing group (small or large). If this demonstration is even partially successful, the rest of the masses realize the strength of their influence upon *self-determination*.
In the streets in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Libya, there comes a time when the root-cause of unemployment, repression, oppression, uncertainty is realized. What matters is the prospect of freedom for self-determination. No body in the streets gives a care about any internal squabbling within the colonialist administration. Nobody under repression needs approval from anybody to seek freedom of self-determination. The US will probably continue to loose credibility as a *just* mediator in any middle-eastern affairs.
A few questions:
1) Do "they" hate the US, or does the US hate them?
1.1) Who time and again continues to support, the over-throw of legitimately elected govts., corruption, and starts and spreads wars? "They" or the US?
1.2) Who is at the victim of this corruption and wars; "they" or the US?
2) People in the US say (rationalize), "... but it is the multi-national corps, the military industrial complex, our administration who is (in)directly involved in spreading evil in various "strategic" regions on this planet." Ok fair enough! So who works for and runs these multi-national corps.? Who is employed in the military-industrial-complex? Who elects these leaders in the administration? After all we have an functional "Secular Democracy" in the US don't we?
3) Is "Secular Democracy" good for humanity? If so, has it proved to eradicate corruption and spread of wars? If so, which "version" of "democracy" are we referring to?
I don't intend to offend anyone. I am sincerely asking the tough questions.
Pardon my ignorance, but I have a few questions:
1) Everyone seems to be worried that the next regime would be a "fundamentalist" and Islamic one. So wasn't the Mubarak regime a "fundamentalist" and Secular one?
2) Travis Bickle (in his comment above) points out:
"...Zawahiri, of AQ fame, was a product of this influence/thinking, nurtured by Egyptian state repression...."
Was is it not this same "fundamentalist" Secular Mubarak regime that repressed (and continues to) any (let alone the current movement) that opposes his regime?
3) Was Sadam Hussein's regime a "fundamentalistically" Islamic or Secular? Did he repress Muslim and Secular movements alike?
4) Look at the current direction of the beloved US govt. pertaining to universal human rights? Is the US govt. a "fundamentalistically" Islamic?
5) Is the Saudi Arabian govt. a fundamentalist Islamic govt. in practice or in name? If it is a fundamentalist Islamic govt., then why is it violating the most basic "fundamentals" in Islam of incorporating usury/interest in trade; repressing the rights of people to express their greviences; (the list goes on...)?
6) As Cyrus (in his comment above) pointed out, isn't the big worry more about US imperial hegemony (and protection of Israel) and less about the welfare of the people in any country in the middle east for that matter?
7) Which country in the "Muslim world" can claim to be an "Islamic country" while corroborating that claim by implementing the fundamentals of Islam (of which the head-scarf of the woman is merely secondary)?
The only real solution is to rid the place of the puppet master!
If the US or Israel (or any power that sees the middle-east interests as secondary) have any say in the selection of the next govt. (which seems to be the case), then this revolution was not really successful.
Excellent analysis by Michel Chossudovsky that the root of the evil here is the master and not so much the puppet:
link to indymedia.org
And this violation of their own people will continue (in USA/Canada) to the extent that the people are distracted and entertained *just enough* such that they have little reason to rise-up and follow the course of self-determination. The US administration and it's fellows know better than to allow open repression and increase in unemployment.
Do you actually believe that at this time self-determination in the middle-east is contingent upon the US administration/Congress doing the right thing?
For the sake of argument, I'll agree.
Then I would like to understand how long such a state-of-affairs would continue? 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 years?
History seems to manifest similar conclusions about the dominance of super-powers. It starts by a demonstration of defiance against this authority by an opposing group (small or large). If this demonstration is even partially successful, the rest of the masses realize the strength of their influence upon *self-determination*.
In the streets in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Libya, there comes a time when the root-cause of unemployment, repression, oppression, uncertainty is realized. What matters is the prospect of freedom for self-determination. No body in the streets gives a care about any internal squabbling within the colonialist administration. Nobody under repression needs approval from anybody to seek freedom of self-determination. The US will probably continue to loose credibility as a *just* mediator in any middle-eastern affairs.
A few questions:
1) Do "they" hate the US, or does the US hate them?
1.1) Who time and again continues to support, the over-throw of legitimately elected govts., corruption, and starts and spreads wars? "They" or the US?
1.2) Who is at the victim of this corruption and wars; "they" or the US?
2) People in the US say (rationalize), "... but it is the multi-national corps, the military industrial complex, our administration who is (in)directly involved in spreading evil in various "strategic" regions on this planet." Ok fair enough! So who works for and runs these multi-national corps.? Who is employed in the military-industrial-complex? Who elects these leaders in the administration? After all we have an functional "Secular Democracy" in the US don't we?
3) Is "Secular Democracy" good for humanity? If so, has it proved to eradicate corruption and spread of wars? If so, which "version" of "democracy" are we referring to?
I don't intend to offend anyone. I am sincerely asking the tough questions.
Pardon my ignorance, but I have a few questions:
1) Everyone seems to be worried that the next regime would be a "fundamentalist" and Islamic one. So wasn't the Mubarak regime a "fundamentalist" and Secular one?
2) Travis Bickle (in his comment above) points out:
"...Zawahiri, of AQ fame, was a product of this influence/thinking, nurtured by Egyptian state repression...."
Was is it not this same "fundamentalist" Secular Mubarak regime that repressed (and continues to) any (let alone the current movement) that opposes his regime?
3) Was Sadam Hussein's regime a "fundamentalistically" Islamic or Secular? Did he repress Muslim and Secular movements alike?
4) Look at the current direction of the beloved US govt. pertaining to universal human rights? Is the US govt. a "fundamentalistically" Islamic?
5) Is the Saudi Arabian govt. a fundamentalist Islamic govt. in practice or in name? If it is a fundamentalist Islamic govt., then why is it violating the most basic "fundamentals" in Islam of incorporating usury/interest in trade; repressing the rights of people to express their greviences; (the list goes on...)?
6) As Cyrus (in his comment above) pointed out, isn't the big worry more about US imperial hegemony (and protection of Israel) and less about the welfare of the people in any country in the middle east for that matter?
7) Which country in the "Muslim world" can claim to be an "Islamic country" while corroborating that claim by implementing the fundamentals of Islam (of which the head-scarf of the woman is merely secondary)?