Ooops

this ^

 

They weren't so traumatized they wouldn't take to the streets to
overthrow a dictator.

`Close to the font of radical Islam'? How so?

They haven't been: Egypt has overthrown a dictator without an
incompetent foreign invasion and all the resentment that brings.

There are people talking about how to build alliances with, for
example, the Bedouin.

They haven't yet. Maybe Iran will get back the democracy it had sixty
years ago.

 

Last election in the UK? Why bother: the UK behaves like a wholly
owned subsidiary of the US, anyway.

Make your mind up: is the US, quite normally, interfering or is it
not?

Apparently not.

Meaning that Egypt helped suppress the Palestinians.

 

They must be in-tents negotiations!

 

Make a case.

500 million to the Palestinians.

No I didn't. But I don't think that what the US or its proxies did in
or to, say, Iran, Chile, Vietnam, Cambodia, Australia, Nicaragua, El
Salvador, etc, etc, was a A Good Thing either.

 

Make a case.

You don't think this is a joke, do you?

 

"When has it not interfered?" implies that it usually interferes, when
the number of countries where that has happened (while numerous,) is
far fewer than the number it hasn't.

 

Shropshire Council had a similar thing a while back. More, I think, to
tick the box next to Consultation and possibly to glean ideas. That is,
if they happened to fit in with what was doubtless already planned by
the Apparatchiks.

 

`When has it not interfered' implies that it usually interferes when
it feels like it. The number of countries it has interfered is
probably longer than you think:

http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/foabroad.htm

not to mention the countries actually bombed since 1945:

http://www.maurer.ca/USBombing.html

 

My point was that Bigot is normally a term applied to people of one religion
coming down on another religion without due cause.

I was suggesting that the US pulled in its horns across the region.
Completely.

Australia?

Well I'll say no more than it's certain that war, above or below the line,
is a dirty business. Some of those areas could have been handled much
better, but that's the benefit of hindsight.

I do wonder why and I acknowledge that it is difficult for us, sitting here
in such a radically changed world, to understand. I expect it is in part
the effect of the savagery of WWII in Europe and the Pacific which must have
affected and degraded all of those involved. In part facing up to to such a
savage foe as the PRC and its acolytes, and the USSR under Stalin for that
matter.

 

You. Coat. Now.

 

No. It's a term applied to people who hold a prejudiced view of people
different from them.

Might be a good thing. Especially if it made Israel behave itself.

Look up Gough Whitlam.

They could not have been `handled much better'; they should never have
been `handled' at all. The `West' has no right to be imposing
dictators on other countries.

How savage was the PRC? Where did it invade and how many people did it
kill when it got there?

 

OIC
Well, whatever, I don't like to hear it being used against those who
criticise groups who jolly well ought to be criticised.

I suggest it might have made and would make life for Israel somewhat easier.

SNIP

I was simply referring to Mao regime setting an all time world record of
human suffering and mass murder.

Obviously China did cross borders last century but generally I agree they
haven't generally. I expect that's because over time China accrued so much
territory and population the challenges of internal govmint made further
expansion unattractive. Other than Tibet.

 

They didn't all take to the streets to overthrow the dictator. Some took
to the streets to stop the dictator being overthrown. Notwithstanding
the obvious fact that some or most of them were paid to do so, it's
clearly not a stable country.

Some lovely people, but some deeply entrenched differences that'll take
a while to overcome. Not everyone's a happy-clappy peaceful protester.

Egypt has removed a dictator without an incompetent foreign invasion.
What it hasn't done is remove the power base behind the dictator. OK, so
a power vacuum has been avoided, but I'll be surprised to see things
change much over the coming months.

Not the only minority. The south has a sizeable Nubian minority and I'm
sure the Copts will be feeling a bit uncertain at the moment.

 

Very few of them took to the streets to overthrow the dictator.

Actually, they pretty much were peaceful. As overthrows go, it's had
remarkably few casualties.

We will see: it might depend on how the labour movement responds in
the next few weeks. America might have to choose between a (mildly?)
left-wing revolution and a military dictatorship. Hmmmm, what do you
think they'll do?

Apparently, they held a mass on Tahrir Square.

 

I can think of groups that ought to be criticized, but `Arabs' are not
one of them, if only because the term is almost meaningless. If you
said `Islamic fundamentalists', or `military dictators and their
supporters' you would have a point. If you say `Arabs can't do
democracy', it's just racism.

Without all that American aid?

No argument there.

`Over time'? You mean the last couple of millenia? Before Tibet, what
was the last bit of territory China acquired?

 

wasn't directly related to this comment

See I've never heard it used other than in a religious context and that's
the root of the word after all. Perhaps that's my Scottish/Irish slant.

Obviously Arabs are a pan-ethnic and pan-religious group.

But TBF the term Arab has veered towards a description of Muslims of Middle
Eastern origin in the same way as Anti Semitic has veered towards Jews etc
etc

 

He said nothing about religion.

While I accept that it is wrong to say that ethnicnicity make a difference
I dispute utterly the assertion that religion can do democracy and feel
that certain cultures (often with a strong religious basis) also have
trouble with it.

 

Well see my reply to Champ. I wouldn't say it was racist either. Just
stupidly innacurate lazy speech.

I suggest Israel hasn't actually needed foreign aid for a long time. The
wealthy jewish classes of the world can afford to subsidise it.

Though the convoluted internal history of China throws up a few surprises.
I wonder how many school kids learn about the Taiping Rebellion of 1850 led
by a christian convert which led to the death of 20 million souls. Gosh
wikipedia has an article about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion

I was referring to the thousands of years of history yes. AFAIK the borders
of China were pretty well defined by circa 200BC? Around the time they
finished wall building and got busy trying to consolidate and govern
internally and keep out the hordes. I think the borders of the present PRC
were defined from 1644, the Qing Dynasty that ruled up until revolution.
Though they did expand a little to the East in the 18th century?

And now? the limitation of Chinese expansionism is the fragility of China's
internal political coherence. I can't think of it as a Communist state any
longer BTW. It's gone back towards its Imperial roots. I tend to agree with
those who call it out as a modern facist regime. I think it would be helpful
if this was generally adopted in politics and media.

I'm sure you have read some of the uncomfortable stories about how this
transformation has marginalized the semi and unskilled working people and
left them living in tunnels and on streets. Decent accomodation, property
and the essentials of civilized life having been priced far outwith their
reach. A rather unholy alliance between western multinational companies and
the wealthy/party.

 

Secularism is the first building block of a modern free and democratic
liberal society after all.