Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

In Tunisia, Egypt, an Yemen. We diplomatically support all three regimes. Is this a good or bad thing?

It's never a bad thing for people to overthrow dictators. Sure we have supported these three regimes to various extents, but that's just the practicality of having to deal with the world with the way it is, not the way we'd like it to be. It's a good sign that these people want more say in their lives so I don't see anything to fret about. Good for them.

The other thing these nations have in common is that the "average household" in those nations is extremely poor. So it would seem that poverty combined with subjugation and lack of education leads to social unrest which is a prime recruiting territory for terrorists.

the one that concerns me is Egypt - while I can understand wanting to cast off the yoke of Mubarek - there is a HUGE radical element in that country that has been exploiting the ignored and impoverished for decades... that frequently manifests itself in a "cure worse than the disease" kind of revolution (see Iran, 1979)

However - putting aside the fear that a revolution may go too far... watching the Lebanese, Iranian, Tunisian and now Egyptian and Yemeni people take to the streets demanding their governments be more responsive is, as GannonFan said, a good thing in total (and he and I don't agree on much of anything)

The really exciting thing has been, especially in Lebanon and Iran (even though Iran's uprising was quashed) that it was being led and inspired by the young people... that gives me hope that in a region where young people have been turning to extremism and desperation, that they may instead be turning to new ideas and a different vision for their countries futures.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:the one that concerns me is Egypt - while I can understand wanting to cast off the yoke of Mubarek - there is a HUGE radical element in that country that has been exploiting the ignored and impoverished for decades... that frequently manifests itself in a "cure worse than the disease" kind of revolution (see Iran, 1979)

However - putting aside the fear that a revolution may go too far... watching the Lebanese, Iranian, Tunisian and now Egyptian and Yemeni people take to the streets demanding their governments be more responsive is, as GannonFan said, a good thing in total (and he and I don't agree on much of anything)

The really exciting thing has been, especially in Lebanon and Iran (even though Iran's uprising was quashed) that it was being led and inspired by the young people... that gives me hope that in a region where young people have been turning to extremism and desperation, that they may instead be turning to new ideas and a different vision for their countries futures.

You and I probably agree on even less, TTBF, but you're right to be concerned about Egypt. I'm concerned about Yemen as well, which is a Qaeda hotbed and is probably closer to Somalia than Egypt in terms of functioning governmental institutions.

Good article in the NY Times the other day on the effect of facebook in all of this, especially Tunisia.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/opini ... hen25.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The sane people start popular revolutions but the crazies step in and take them over. This isn't going to be good for us.

GannonFan wrote:It's never a bad thing for people to overthrow dictators. Sure we have supported these three regimes to various extents, but that's just the practicality of having to deal with the world with the way it is, not the way we'd like it to be. It's a good sign that these people want more say in their lives so I don't see anything to fret about. Good for them.

This is true GF, but sometimes people on the other end of a secret police interrogation come away with a different view.

CitadelGrad wrote:The sane people start popular revolutions but the crazies step in and take them over. This isn't going to be good for us.

Interesting though. Our revolution was a bit different.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:the one that concerns me is Egypt - while I can understand wanting to cast off the yoke of Mubarek - there is a HUGE radical element in that country that has been exploiting the ignored and impoverished for decades... that frequently manifests itself in a "cure worse than the disease" kind of revolution (see Iran, 1979)

However - putting aside the fear that a revolution may go too far... watching the Lebanese, Iranian, Tunisian and now Egyptian and Yemeni people take to the streets demanding their governments be more responsive is, as GannonFan said, a good thing in total (and he and I don't agree on much of anything)

The really exciting thing has been, especially in Lebanon and Iran (even though Iran's uprising was quashed) that it was being led and inspired by the young people... that gives me hope that in a region where young people have been turning to extremism and desperation, that they may instead be turning to new ideas and a different vision for their countries futures.

The median age in Iran is about 26 years old, if we had a lick of sense we'd be air-dropping Levis and Rock n Roll.

native wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:The sane people start popular revolutions but the crazies step in and take them over. This isn't going to be good for us.

Interesting though. Our revolution was a bit different.

have to agree - there is no inevitability in assuming a revolution has to take turn to the extreme a la the french revolution... though it is certainly a possibility.

houndawg wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:the one that concerns me is Egypt - while I can understand wanting to cast off the yoke of Mubarek - there is a HUGE radical element in that country that has been exploiting the ignored and impoverished for decades... that frequently manifests itself in a "cure worse than the disease" kind of revolution (see Iran, 1979)

However - putting aside the fear that a revolution may go too far... watching the Lebanese, Iranian, Tunisian and now Egyptian and Yemeni people take to the streets demanding their governments be more responsive is, as GannonFan said, a good thing in total (and he and I don't agree on much of anything)

The really exciting thing has been, especially in Lebanon and Iran (even though Iran's uprising was quashed) that it was being led and inspired by the young people... that gives me hope that in a region where young people have been turning to extremism and desperation, that they may instead be turning to new ideas and a different vision for their countries futures.

The median age in Iran is about 26 years old, if we had a lick of sense we'd be air-dropping Levis and Rock n Roll.

we don't have to - the internet is piping in hip hop and and free communication... try as they might - much like the soviet union - you can't stop a flood with a water glass.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

houndawg wrote:
The median age in Iran is about 26 years old, if we had a lick of sense we'd be air-dropping Levis and Rock n Roll.

we don't have to - the internet is piping in hip hop and and free communication... try as they might - much like the soviet union - you can't stop a flood with a water glass.

I share your hopefulness for the youth of Iran, ttbf!

...not so much for the radicalized street thugs in the other places...

native wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
we don't have to - the internet is piping in hip hop and and free communication... try as they might - much like the soviet union - you can't stop a flood with a water glass.

I share your hopefulness for the youth of Iran, ttbf!

...not so much for the radicalized street thugs in the other places...

Uh, the youth in Iran did essentially the same thing in '09 (not that I blame them). They were just squashed more readily than the ones in Tunisia and Egypt...

Grizalltheway wrote:

native wrote:
I share your hopefulness for the youth of Iran, ttbf!

...not so much for the radicalized street thugs in the other places...

Uh, the youth in Iran did essentially the same thing in '09 (not that I blame them). They were just squashed more readily than the ones in Tunisia and Egypt...

Yes, but I think ttbf and maybe houndawg's point was that the Iranian youth are more Westernized and not as religiously radicalized as the street Arabs in other countries. I dunno, maybe it's a Persian thing. Maybe there is a secular element to the Iranian resistance that is not found in the Arab countries.

native wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Uh, the youth in Iran did essentially the same thing in '09 (not that I blame them). They were just squashed more readily than the ones in Tunisia and Egypt...

Yes, but I think ttbf and maybe houndawg's point was that the Iranian youth are more Westernized and not as religiously radicalized as the street Arabs in other countries. I dunno, maybe it's a Persian thing. Maybe there is a secular element to the Iranian resistance that is not found in the Arab countries.

It's because the previous generation (their parents and older) WERE the radicals... they are a reaction - recalling the more western elements of Iran pre-revolution (Iran had more female doctors than the US pre-revolution)

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

native wrote:
Yes, but I think ttbf and maybe houndawg's point was that the Iranian youth are more Westernized and not as religiously radicalized as the street Arabs in other countries. I dunno, maybe it's a Persian thing. Maybe there is a secular element to the Iranian resistance that is not found in the Arab countries.

It's because the previous generation (their parents and older) WERE the radicals... they are a reaction - recalling the more western elements of Iran pre-revolution (Iran had more female doctors than the US pre-revolution)

Not so sure I agree with you exactly, then, ttbf. The mullahs in power today are the ones who sprung from the previous revolutionary radicals. Their foot soldiers are in large part the ignorant country kids who can be more easily influenced, bought off and controlled. In contrast, I would bet that a significant portion of the disenfranchised "hip" urban kids' families were part of the Shah's more modern, pre-revolutionary Iran.

native wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
It's because the previous generation (their parents and older) WERE the radicals... they are a reaction - recalling the more western elements of Iran pre-revolution (Iran had more female doctors than the US pre-revolution)

Not so sure I agree with you exactly, then, ttbf. The mullahs in power today are the ones who sprung from the previous revolutionary radicals. Their foot soldiers are in large part the ignorant country kids who can be more easily influenced, bought off and controlled. In contrast, I would bet that a significant portion of the disenfranchised "hip" urban kids' families were part of the Shah's more modern, pre-revolutionary Iran.

You're correct that religion has a strong appeal to the ignorant, but it isn't clear what your point is.

native wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
It's because the previous generation (their parents and older) WERE the radicals... they are a reaction - recalling the more western elements of Iran pre-revolution (Iran had more female doctors than the US pre-revolution)

Not so sure I agree with you exactly, then, ttbf. The mullahs in power today are the ones who sprung from the previous revolutionary radicals. Their foot soldiers are in large part the ignorant country kids who can be more easily influenced, bought off and controlled. In contrast, I would bet that a significant portion of the disenfranchised "hip" urban kids' families were part of the Shah's more modern, pre-revolutionary Iran.

fair point about the urban/rural split and an important distinction to be sure.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

native wrote:
Not so sure I agree with you exactly, then, ttbf. The mullahs in power today are the ones who sprung from the previous revolutionary radicals. Their foot soldiers are in large part the ignorant country kids who can be more easily influenced, bought off and controlled. In contrast, I would bet that a significant portion of the disenfranchised "hip" urban kids' families were part of the Shah's more modern, pre-revolutionary Iran.

fair point about the urban/rural split and an important distinction to be sure.

Rednecks.

CitadelGrad wrote:The sane people start popular revolutions but the crazies step in and take them over.

In the past, the most organized group took over. Seize communications, quickly execute the opposition leaders, then pump out misinformation while consolidating power as the revolution ferver loses steam.

Heck, even in our own country the call for "change" got muffled in a short time.

The Arab world...mostly a backwards group of uneducated missing links stuck on stupid.

“Our family can accept anything but not humiliation,” Samia Bouazizi, the dead man’s sister, told me, sitting under a bare light bulb in a small house near a trough where sheep were feeding.". Dude loss honor due to a dispute with a female cop, sets himself on fire, and is made a martyr. WTF…great perspective…and little different from, “Insult Mohammed and we’ll cut off your head.”

Let’s hope a bunch of educated and socially liberal folks take the lead in the Arab revolutions.

Go Libs!