How does it?Thank you, that well proves my point
You said who controls the army gets elected, I showed you an example of someone who doesn't control the army who would be elected.
Can someone clear up what is happening in Egypt
- Thread starter agnes
- Start date
You said who controls the army gets elected, I showed you an example of someone who doesn't control the army who would be elected.
Thank you, that well proves my point
And mine, 'The People' in Burma can do as the Egyptians, if they wish. It is up to them to enforce their own will, not up to us to determine it for them.
We cannot 'give' them what they want, they must 'take' it for themselves on their own terms.
Support them by not supporting the regime they are fighting against is all we can really do, anything more will undermine the veracity of their struggle and whatever Governance they eventually set up.
If we do not like the outcome, then we do not have to support it or encourage it.
Which is all well and good, if you live in a Muslim state or have little to no economic or political interests in the region. Which the UK/US do. I'm not saying Israel is right, wrong, good or bad, all I'm saying is that a Muslim Brotherhood running Egypt is likely to make Western foreign policy more difficult.
well considering its 'the muslim brotherhood' who organised the protests i dont think its exactly unfair to mention muslims...
Last edited:
How does it?
You said who controls the army gets elected, I showed you an example of someone who doesn't control the army who would be elected.
Are they in control of the army? Have they been elected?
What you have illustrated is a situation where the people want one person, but another is in charge. That they are not in charge of the army is stopping a situation where a free and fair election would see a very different outcome.
Who is talking about determining anything?
Me. What are you talking about.
Facilitating. Not determining.
Seems we are at cross-purposes then. What do you mean by facilitating, I have experienced the way we go about "facilitating" regime change first hand.....I hope that is not what you mean?
If Burma declared elections now, in all likely hood Aung San Suu Kyi would win even though Than Shwe controls the military he would more than likely loose.
What Gilly is saying is that it would make no difference to who actually rules though.
I agree it wouldn't, however it is then up to the people to enforce their choices regardless of the consequences. They must take what they want by force if necessary. We or anyone else cannot give it to them, it would undermine everything they believe in and they are more likely to fight to keep what they want afterward.
The Americans know only too well that Freedom comes at a price. It is up to the Burmese people to decide if that price is worth paying. The same is true of the Egyptians.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,086
- Location
- Berkland
They saw the Tunisian riots tearing it up because of the chap that had his market cart taken away from him and then set fire to himself in a public display of despair, so they thought they would have a pop at that!
It is as I stated earlier, morally I feel the West are obligated to be involved.
In a perfect world we'd be doing nothing more than allowing the people to make their own decisions and decide their future. My only problem with that is a lack of faith in our own leaders.
Just so I know what you're saying then, the people of Burma would choose Aung San Suu Kyi, and not Than Shwe. However, because he is in control of the military were he to stand he'd still be in the running?
Still backing up my point. Even more so I'd have said
I think we can only be involved by disassociation, we need to disassociate ourselves from the Mubarak regime.
Anything more and we risk taking away what those people are fighting for.
Freedom cannot be given, it must be earned. Once that has been done, only then can we support the Egyptian people.
Last edited: