Egyptians protesting across the country

[Skgoa]

The muslim brotherhood aren't the taliban. People who fear that Egypt will turn into a less mountainous Afghanistan are out of there minds, imho. If we apply the same meassure to other countries, many european states are in danger of being dominated by religious fanatics themselves. (I am talking about the catholic church. )

[Julhelm]

But, but, but the Muslim Brotherhood has a 20% support among the people! Clearly we must bomb them like we had to bomb Germany where 20% supported the nazis! or so I heard from right wing americans.

[Broomstick]

Maybe we should just bomb the right wing fruitcakes in America? If we're talking of eliminating extremists....

[bobalot]

Why do I get the feeling that all the talk about "letting Egypt get taken over by so-so" is the modern equivalent of White Man's Burden?

"OH NOES! Those dirty brown people aren't smart enough to choose what's best for them!"

[Broomstick]

Perhaps, except that when you have the likes of Condolezza Rice expounding concerns about the "loss of American influence" and Obama in the oval office I'm not sure "white man's burden" is the proper term here.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Why do I get the feeling that all the talk about "letting Egypt get taken over by so-so" is the modern equivalent of White Man's Burden?

"OH NOES! Those dirty brown people aren't smart enough to choose what's best for them!"

Yup, the West's guilt trip against interference is working out just great in Somalia so far! Not to mention Afghanistan before the coalition overthrew the Taliban, Africa, etc'.

[K. A. Pital]

Afghanistan was a shithole theocracy before the invasion, right now it's a narcostate and a hundred thousand die every year from Afghan drugs in Europe, which is around a million dead for ten years since 2001. And yes, it's not entirely the fault of Afghanistan, but it is also true that drug consumers stem from the poorest segments of European society, poorest nations and regions, and poverty is a massive stimulus for drug sales. Which isn't entirely their fault either.

So perhaps I'd be wary of citing Afghanistan as an example of succesful American intervention. Replacing imam with a drug baron is not a great improvement.

[Spoonist]

Afghanistan was a shithole theocracy before the invasion, right now it's a narcostate...

Just to clarify, that shithole theocracy (Taliban) was considered an improvement by the people over the warlords and drugbarons who where ruining the country after the soviets left.
Unfortunately it was those warlords of the northern alliance that the US saw itself having to ally with. My enemy's enemy and so on.

Now given that the Taliban had issued a fatwa against drug crops on penalty of death a couple of years before the invasion gives the inevitable prediction of what then happened post-taliban.

NYT has had a couple of recent articles for anyone with some google-fu.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Afghanistan was a shithole theocracy before the invasion, right now it's a narcostate and a hundred thousand die every year from Afghan drugs in Europe, which is around a million dead for ten years since 2001. And yes, it's not entirely the fault of Afghanistan, but it is also true that drug consumers stem from the poorest segments of European society, poorest nations and regions, and poverty is a massive stimulus for drug sales. Which isn't entirely their fault either.

So perhaps I'd be wary of citing Afghanistan as an example of succesful American intervention. Replacing imam with a drug baron is not a great improvement.

It was an example of one (out of many) countries that went to pieces after the Europeans left.
My point is not that the Western nations are not to blame for at least some of the historical problems, but rather that lack of intervention by Western states (due to "The White man's guilt") has not helped against the various shitty situations of many 3d world nations.
Are interventions always an improvement? Of course not. But there's a difference between that and going "We shouldn't interfere, can't etc" (Rwanda for example, ethnic cleansings, or just structurally corrupt, incompetent and poor nation states).

It's not going to change anytime soon, especially with the dissapearing military clout of the west, but it doesn't change the fact that frankly, a vast majority of nations would have every aspect improved by emulating the west in most degrees. (Most of the world is the 3d world. I'm not talking about China, Japan, Brazil or the like).

[Spoonist]

It was an example of one (out of many) countries that went to pieces after the Europeans left.
My point is not that the Western nations are not to blame for at least some of the historical problems, but rather that lack of intervention by Western states (due to "The White man's guilt") has not helped against the various shitty situations of many 3d world nations.

But if that was your argument then Afganistan was a stupid example exactly because of western intervention, namely USSR & CIA. On par with your Somalia/'africa' which have had heavy interferance from the west after the age of empires.

Could you even mention one example where your theory would have any points validated?

[K. A. Pital]

It was an example of one (out of many) countries that went to pieces after the Europeans left.

You referring to whom? The British? Because the USSR are not Europeans, exactly, and Americans interfering in Afghanistan weren't Europeans either.

My point is not that the Western nations are not to blame for at least some of the historical problems, but rather that lack of intervention by Western states (due to "The White man's guilt") has not helped against the various shitty situations of many 3d world nations.

In some, like Sudan, Rwanda - yes. In Somalia and Afghanistan? I'm not sure either of these examples has problems with a LACK of intervention on behalf of powerful nations...

But there's a difference between that and going "We shouldn't interfere, can't etc" (Rwanda for example, ethnic cleansings, or just structurally corrupt, incompetent and poor nation states).

Rwanda is a good example. As for structurally corrupt states, it is a staple of interventions that for some reason they fail to change the regime to anything less corrupt. Or at least have failed 3 times out of 4, eh.

...it doesn't change the fact that frankly, a vast majority of nations would have every aspect improved by emulating the west in most degrees. (Most of the world is the 3d world. I'm not talking about China, Japan, Brazil or the like).

Yeah, except you can't. Emulating the West requires being the West - wealthy, arrogant and able to make advanced industrial shit if necessary to erase the arrogance on someone else's face. Sadly, that's not what most nations can do. If you meant emulating the West as in taking their laws and stuff, that doesn't help either. A structurally corrupt regime (like many African and Latin American nominal-democracies) take laws straight out of advanced nations with only so slight modifications. They try to emulate the West by copying everything from constitution to the civil, criminal and labour code... But it only looks like a pathetic joke.

Could you even mention one example where your theory would have any points validated?

Well, he did - Rwanda. I added Sudan.

[Ritterin Sophia]

My point is not that the Western nations are not to blame for at least some of the historical problems, but rather that lack of intervention by Western states (due to "The White man's guilt") has not helped against the various shitty situations of many 3d world nations.

You're right, the Western states should've dealt with the problem of modern terrorism before the precedence was set that a modern terrorist organization could achieve their goal through such means. I'm glad you're so willing to speak out against Lehi and Irgun.

[The Grim Squeaker]

My point is not that the Western nations are not to blame for at least some of the historical problems, but rather that lack of intervention by Western states (due to "The White man's guilt") has not helped against the various shitty situations of many 3d world nations.

You're right, the Western states should've dealt with the problem of modern terrorism before the precedence was set that a modern terrorist organization could achieve their goal through such means. I'm glad you're so willing to speak out against Lehi and Irgun.

Yes, The situation in the area would have been better if the British hadn't left. Unless you think attempted mass ethnic cleansing of the Jews by the Arabs (right after the British left) was a sign of improved stability? This ignoring your little off tangent , and the fact that said organization was handed over the the British mandate after their attack on the king david hotel. (Not exactly a modern terrorist organization nor a fusion of government and the organization).
EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunting_Season

It was an example of one (out of many) countries that went to pieces after the Europeans left.

You referring to whom? The British? Because the USSR are not Europeans, exactly, and Americans interfering in Afghanistan weren't Europeans either.

Come to think of it, some of the nations that left the USSR did end up even worse off, in some cases more so than they were before being annexed or absorbed by Soviet Russia.

My point is not that the Western nations are not to blame for at least some of the historical problems, but rather that lack of intervention by Western states (due to "The White man's guilt") has not helped against the various shitty situations of many 3d world nations.

In some, like Sudan, Rwanda - yes. In Somalia and Afghanistan? I'm not sure either of these examples has problems with a LACK of intervention on behalf of powerful nations...

But there's a difference between that and going "We shouldn't interfere, can't etc" (Rwanda for example, ethnic cleansings, or just structurally corrupt, incompetent and poor nation states).

Rwanda is a good example. As for structurally corrupt states, it is a staple of interventions that for some reason they fail to change the regime to anything less corrupt. Or at least have failed 3 times out of 4, eh.

"Shrug". It doesn't go against my point. In the past, alongside the faults, etc' European colonialism did establish infrastructure and attempts at liberal Western law (as a general principle, I'm not trying to idealize it or ignore the hypocrisy or racism or resource exploitation that went on). Look at Africa's Infrastructure, random example, when I was in Tanzania, all the roads had been laid down by the British.
Internal change is very very hard, and can easily trip on internal culture, in these cases it does help for an external group to enforce rules and regulations (the quote about burning widows in India springs to mind).

Whether this should be done according to various ethical frameworks is another matter. These days the overall consensus might as well be "Why get involved? Let them sort it out, and if we do intervene we'll be lambasted". Aka National sovereignity and equality.
It's hard to do (nation building), and a thankless task, and nobody wants to do it, and when they do try it, it fails more often than not.
There's a reason why Singapore, Japan, South Korea, Israel, etc' are considered such exceptions among post WW2 states. (And all of those have a cultural and legal framework closely aligned to the West, if only due to Economic/military ties). As opposed to Africa. (One of the prime arguments against intervening with South Africa's Apartheid was that it was interfering with Africa. I doubt whether anything would have been done or even noticed if it hadn't been white men + non whites).

...it doesn't change the fact that frankly, a vast majority of nations would have every aspect improved by emulating the west in most degrees. (Most of the world is the 3d world. I'm not talking about China, Japan, Brazil or the like).

Yeah, except you can't. Emulating the West requires being the West - wealthy, arrogant and able to make advanced industrial shit if necessary to erase the arrogance on someone else's face. Sadly, that's not what most nations can do. If you meant emulating the West as in taking their laws and stuff, that doesn't help either. A structurally corrupt regime (like many African and Latin American nominal-democracies) take laws straight out of advanced nations with only so slight modifications. They try to emulate the West by copying everything from constitution to the civil, criminal and labour code... But it only looks like a pathetic joke.

There are quite a few nations who have advanced out of a basis of nothing to exceeding many Western countries (the aforementioned Asian Tigers for example). But all of those cases involved compatible cultural values, a certain influence from the West (European Jews in Israel, Asian-American foreign expatriotes, etc'), and not going "We are free of the West! Sod off, and let us establish our magnificient X!"

Could you even mention one example where your theory would have any points validated?

Well, he did - Rwanda. I added Sudan.

Yup. Most African states, some cases in Central Asia (Some of the various -Jhykistans have quite abominable levels of slavetrade, low levels of living, and pre medieval infrastructure), etc'.
Interventions being expensive, difficult, and often against the wishes of the existing population and/or government are issues, but not uniquevocal ones.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Yes, The situation in the area would have been better if the British hadn't left. Unless you think attempted mass ethnic cleansing of the Jews by the Arabs (right after the British left) was a sign of improved stability?

No I don't, nor do I think your terrorist organizations' murder of more Arabs and assassinations of British police helped matters much.

This ignoring your little off tangent , and the fact that said organization was handed over the the British mandate after their attack on the king david hotel. (Not exactly a modern terrorist organization nor a fusion of government and the organization).

You're right, I should've used 'contemporary terrorism' and 'contemporary terrorists' respectively, thank you for that correction. As for Irgun they formed the basis of Herut, itself the predecessor of Likud which has been your historical leading party. Lehi, however, are decorated as war heroes one and all, even having their leader be elected your Prime Minister. And no, it's not 'off tangent', you were arguing that the West should have meddled even further in the Middle East (and it would've been the Brits since we were preoccupied with the Soviets in the Fulda Gap in a rather menacing staring contest), despite the fact that your country wouldn't exist if the British hadn't abandoned the Mandate of Palestine due to terrorist actions that both you and the Arabs perpetrated against each other and the British exacerbating other concerns the British had. (Like, you know, keeping the Commonwealth from falling apart entirely. Everybody else in the 'West' were rebuilding or repaying huge amounts of debt lest they start causing economic problems for everybody)

[The Grim Squeaker]

Off tangent much?

[Ritterin Sophia]

Off tangent much?

Except it's not, I'm pointing out how much of a hypocrite you are.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Off tangent much?

Except it's not, I'm pointing out how much of a hypocrite you are.

Since of course, my argument has been how great it was that the British left Israel, oh wait, that's kinda the opposite of my point.
You're just arguing on the basis that as an Israeli I must support various organizations that were around in the 1920s, that resisted colonialism, as proof that... I support colonialism

[Phantasee]

Friend of mine was talking to a guy in Egypt last night. He describes the present situation as "war". He's in a small town between Cairo and Alexandria. All the shops are closed, nobody is going to work.

He wasn't very loquacious though.

[bobalot]

Why do I get the feeling that all the talk about "letting Egypt get taken over by so-so" is the modern equivalent of White Man's Burden?

"OH NOES! Those dirty brown people aren't smart enough to choose what's best for them!"

Yup, the West's guilt trip against interference is working out just great in Somalia so far! Not to mention Afghanistan before the coalition overthrew the Taliban, Africa, etc'.

Please show me where the West's "Guilt Trip" stopped them intervening in Somalia. Here I was thinking it was because nobody gave a shit about the country, but feel free to provide evidence that it was the high-minded principles of non-intervention.

Your other examples are just as retarded. The Taliban were created by outside intervention, hundreds of millions of dollars flowed into these fanatics pockets to fight the Soviet Union. And Africa? Lack of intervention? I suggest you read up about a little about the history of the continent before you make even more stupid statements.

[Artemas]

He wasn't very loquacious though.

You've been saving up all your vowels for that word, haven't you?

Please show me where the West's "Guilt Trip" stopped them intervening in Somalia. Here I was thinking it was because nobody gave a shit about the country, but feel free to provide evidence that it was the high-minded principles of non-intervention.

its especially hilarious because the west DID intervene in Somalia. People may have watched a movie called Black Hawk Down? That's why the west hasn't gone back. Instead, the AU was encouraged to intervene, which via the Ethiopians is what happened. That ended poorly as well.

[J]

And now a strike by Suez Canal workers...

Reuters link

Suez Canal operations unaffected by strikes-official
Tue Feb 8, 2011 4:52pm GMT

Print | Single Page[-] Text [+] CAIRO Feb 8 (Reuters) - Strikes by workers in companies in the Suez Canal zone will not affect Suez Canal operations and movement of ships, a senior official said on Tuesday.
"The strike by companies will not affect the operation of the Suez Canal and movement of ships. These companies work in areas far from the canal zone and movement of ships," the official told Reuters. Around 3,000 workers in companies owned by the Canal authorities and based in Ismailia and Suez had gone on strike on Tuesday over pay and conditions. Workers in Canal-owned companies in Port Said will go on strike on Wednesday. (Writing by Andrew Hammond)

The canal is still up & running for now but if the strike keeps spreading it could get messy.
Might want to top up gas tanks just in case...

[Broomstick]

I'd be happy to top off my gas tanks if I could just get my vehicles past the 2 meters of snow out front. We had white-out conditions again today, and another 20 cm of snow because, I guess, we just didn't have enough.

More seriously this time of year, I'd be more concerned with the impact on the cost of heating one's housing. But yes, transportation costs impact not just the personal vehicles but also things like food, which need transportation.

[J]

So that's where all our snow went, give us our snow back you ungrateful Americans!


Seriously now, let's all hope the Suez Canal stays open & in full operation, a lot of oil now goes the long way around Africa since the tankers are too big but a disruption is still really bad news. I don't think anyone's going to run out of oil in the short term since inventories everywhere are near record highs, if strikes shut down the canal for an extended period though...well, it won't be fun.

[Broomstick]

Even if as practical matter a block on the Suez makes little difference the notion of it being blocked will set off speculation and fear, which will drive up prices based purely on emotions. We don't need that.

[Simon_Jester]

The Suez canal is a huge sea-level ditch; it's hard to interfere with its operations from what I've heard. At least, without deliberate sabotage such as sinking ships in the canal.