DrAlphaeus wrote:The story of Mohamed Bouazizi -- the fruit vendor in Tunisia who set himself on fire -- is pretty amazing and heart-breaking. He was just an average Joe trying to feed and educate his family that would get constantly abused by the police and the authorities. His act that inspired a nation to bring down the government.
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/01/201111684242518839.html

awesome article... thanks for sharing

There have not been many healthy societies that I can think of. But I would say those societies that were exterminated (e.g. American Indians and Australian Aborigines) were healthy in the sense of living with the planet and not against it. Even then there was violence. I would say though that after living in Germany for a few years I can say there are vast improvements here over the live I knew in America (and I made a lot of money there, but walked away from it.) When I talk to my mom (and friends for that matter) they don't understand how everyone here has health insurance for example. My best friend is dying in America cause he can' afford it. I do hope that things improve in America and the world (and things sure aren't perfect in Germany) but I'm not sure there is enough time. We can just try the best we can.

It seems we as humanity are on an accelerated ride to find out just what love is though and thus far living away from it has been painful. I don't claim to know, but am more open to it now than ever before. But, do we have a choice?

Nalod wrote:There is much moral justification to think that when we back a dictator its always a bad turn out.

The assumption of thinking that not protecting the "western" interests would be better for its citizens is very Naive.

Was cuba rally better off with castro? Spain with Franco was better than civil wars and communist?

Was Shah in power in Iran better than the soviets getting the oil and warm water port? Were the russians good stewards of occupied lands?

Its easy to say dictators suck but the assumption is that something or someone better was available.

Put yourself in the moment and look at the choices. In hindsight what where better choices the Mubarak? The Shah?

I think 99% of anyone here wishes EVERyTHING could be better but life is full of choices. Our policy in the middle east is not solvable. Its to "keep it going". I think we'd all prefer to have solutions but when none is available. We give Egypt big money and they kept a peace with Israel. What might benefit to anyone if Egypt kept up aggressive policy against israel and controlled the Suez and kept the keys to the way oil flows for the last 30 years?

Would the expense of wars both human and economic benefited the common man in Egypt? Would a fundamental revolution like Iran have helped? Trade one oppressor for another. Did 30 years of Mubarak really set them back as much as perhaps other alternatives?

Don't know. No one is saying the U.S. support was great, but I just ask myself without it would it be better or worse? I don't know.

Suffering under one regime vs. another is still suffering.

The present violence is a release of the collective stress that has built up over the years. Once the violence is over, order needs to be instilled to create a more orderly, coherent, progressive nation. Order can only arise from a source of order. I hope Mubarak can deliver on that, preferably by staying in power but forming a gov't that truly moves towards reform. Not just a token change. If he leaves, chaos will prevail and who knows who will come into power. Or if they will be better or worse than the present gov't?

However, being an idealist and working for World Peace and Prosperity, To quote an American philosopher(?),
"Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil." - Jerry Garcia, The Grateful Dead

The world isn't ideal enough to have an ideal government yet. But I think they can improve a lot in Egypt.

orangeblobman wrote:
Newsflash, bro. It's a sign of mental disorder if you don't want what is best for yourself and your country.

You live here. I don't mind paying much less for gas than any other country because that's what America earned through its own efforts. I don't care if someone pays 9-15$ per gallon. I enjoy cheap gasoline and want it to continue for as long as possible.

Being selfish isn't bad or sickly, NOT being selfish is deviant.

Earned through its own efforts? You mean earned through toppling governments, killing civillians writing it off as collateral damage,and then tortring people on the mere presumption of guilt? Yes, I get it you have the right to cheap oil while everyone else suffers. Talk about primitive thiking. Here's the newsflash bro: You just made the case for Entitlement, Protectionism and Market Manipulation,

I hear you, and you speak elements of truth.

Our history is checkered with moments we are not proud of and other moments we can stand proud and say we did some good.

For many of the failures there are more than positive policies that did work but we take the good stuff for granted.

In the case of Iran the stakes get higher and higher. We'd like to see democracy take hold. They may be ready for it.

Egypt? I am not so sure.

firstly, it is a grand mistake to assume u.s. government interests are altruistic in nature, which is what the tone of your position sounds like it's taking on.

the support of the shah, and the too long a list of authoritarian and totalitarian rulers/regimes that have been propped up for more than a century, or lack of willingness to stand for the so-called values this nation stands for...going back to the haitian revolution, which the u.s. turned their back on, to the surprise of haitians.

these decisions are typically about positioning the u.s. to be winner in the global game of chess...whether it be economically or militarily.

which means human rights and equality come second to these so-called "interests."

and is typical of a world still stuck in nation-state mentality, us vs. them, me first, then you...

your entire pov, imho, and some of the other comments in this thread come across as seeped in such thinking, and leads to the kinds of so-called rationalizations for accepting atrocities as "part of what happens," and is of course mostly coming from people living in privileged situations where these issues have zero impact on folks' day to day life. It also speaks to the level of arrogance and paternalistic attitudes that exists in too many westerners thinking (more so in the u.s. today, i believe) as if we are the only one's who understand how to create a good society.

in iran, it is well known that there were leaders and many citizens who WERE PRO-DEMOCRACY who were not only not supported, but undermined by the CIA. Why? Most likely because u.s. businesses couldn't dominate the marketplace and take advantage of cheap oil provided by the shah. this is similar to what happened in in zaire, chile, and some south american countries where democratically elected leaders, who were not going to let the big u.s. biz control their markets...which has led to a large amount of evidence to suggest the u.s. government, as a result of these leaders refusal to bow down, for the CIA to assist or directly arrange the assassination of these leaders.

with east timor, little known to most americans, the u.s. government in the 1970's (Ford/Kissinger), blatantly supported indonesia's invasion of it (selling weaponry used for the invasion), which lead to amongst the worst atrocities of the 20th century, leaving 300,000 people dead, with blood on the u.s. government's hands.

so, i am sorry to say, much of this so-called debate you are having here, is total misdirection, and really does not get to the root of the problem.

PresIke wrote:in iran, it is well known that there were leaders and many citizens who WERE PRO-DEMOCRACY who were not only not supported, but undermined by the CIA. Why? Most likely because u.s. businesses couldn't dominate the marketplace and take advantage of cheap oil provided by the shah. this is similar to what happened in in zaire, chile, and some south american countries where democratically elected leaders, who were not going to let the big u.s. biz control their markets...which has led to a large amount of evidence to suggest the u.s. government, as a result of these leaders refusal to bow down, for the CIA to assist or directly arrange the assassination of these leaders.

it was the darn brits in iran!!! mosedegh nationalized the oil industry (the british corp that became BP was on the way out). they helped over through a fledgling non-monarch/non-dictator in iran.

Nalod wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:I've never been so disappointed in a thread as I've been in this one

Is there anything as egocentric and nonsensical than excessive discussion about a professional sports team?

the Alba thread?

And you certainly hang here.

Im sure your disappointed in all of us. But you hang here too!

true. I just think most of us--myself included--know very little about what's going on. Yet people are taking what they know and trying to connect it to the events at hand and making some generalizations. This thread is scattered and I was hoping that this would be productive and everyone would share Doc's sensibilities. Instead of latching onto a random fact and forcing it onto the events at hand

PresIke wrote:nalod,

firstly, it is a grand mistake to assume u.s. government interests are altruistic in nature, which is what the tone of your position sounds like it's taking on.

the support of the shah, and the too long a list of authoritarian and totalitarian rulers/regimes that have been propped up for more than a century, or lack of willingness to stand for the so-called values this nation stands for...going back to the haitian revolution, which the u.s. turned their back on, to the surprise of haitians.

these decisions are typically about positioning the u.s. to be winner in the global game of chess...whether it be economically or militarily.

which means human rights and equality come second to these so-called "interests."

and is typical of a world still stuck in nation-state mentality, us vs. them, me first, then you...

your entire pov, imho, and some of the other comments in this thread come across as seeped in such thinking, and leads to the kinds of so-called rationalizations for accepting atrocities as "part of what happens," and is of course mostly coming from people living in privileged situations where these issues have zero impact on folks' day to day life. It also speaks to the level of arrogance and paternalistic attitudes that exists in too many westerners thinking (more so in the u.s. today, i believe) as if we are the only one's who understand how to create a good society.

in iran, it is well known that there were leaders and many citizens who WERE PRO-DEMOCRACY who were not only not supported, but undermined by the CIA. Why? Most likely because u.s. businesses couldn't dominate the marketplace and take advantage of cheap oil provided by the shah. this is similar to what happened in in zaire, chile, and some south american countries where democratically elected leaders, who were not going to let the big u.s. biz control their markets...which has led to a large amount of evidence to suggest the u.s. government, as a result of these leaders refusal to bow down, for the CIA to assist or directly arrange the assassination of these leaders.

with east timor, little known to most americans, the u.s. government in the 1970's (Ford/Kissinger), blatantly supported indonesia's invasion of it (selling weaponry used for the invasion), which lead to amongst the worst atrocities of the 20th century, leaving 300,000 people dead, with blood on the u.s. government's hands.

so, i am sorry to say, much of this so-called debate you are having here, is total misdirection, and really does not get to the root of the problem.

I don't disagree with any of this. The complexity of hindsight if often overlooked. We don't know of a democracy would have succeeded instead of the Shah's hard rule and while its certainly would have been "worth it" we don't know how fragile it would have been nor how destructive either outside rule would have been (soviet occupation) or internal conflict among various tribes trying to survive in colonized borders.

Please don't see my logic as being accepting of the atrocities. I just see things as they were. I sit in a very comfortable existance and while I worked hard to achieve I was able to do so without fear of a government or hunger in my belly.

History gets shaped as it did and one would have to examine every contingency at the time the Shah was placed in power and what each choice was. Did we make them for our own purpose when we could? I have no doubt. Would a fragile democracy in charge of their oil get toppled by another whose intentions for itself and the region not yield stellar human rights for its people? Its possible. I put that into the equation perhaps to temper the selfish policy of the western powers.

Thus, the better of two evils.

But its still evil!

DaMano718 wrote:This is an excellent video, that might provide you with what these protesters are feeling right now...

You have to give these people props. They finally said ft--no more. How can any country choose to violate basic human rights