Egypt is on the brink of revolution/civil war/utter chaos/?????
Options
Comments
-
They'll just install another dictator over there.
"Democracy" is just a word.
It is as almost as failed a dream, as pure communism.what we waiting on? Brazil and Egypt mans up, we still asleep, and acting like ? is sweet.
Yes revolutions starting every, we will be the country that eventually sees the world changing around it and maybe we will follow through with a regime change. Political evolution may be a better word than revolution.
-
what we waiting on? Brazil and Egypt mans up, we still asleep, and acting like ? is sweet.
What exactly are you attempting to achieve? Not everyone in this country will agree on what sort of government is necessary and then you end up with chaos like Egypt. -
well, get out there and start protestingwhat we waiting on? Brazil and Egypt mans up, we still asleep, and acting like ? is sweet.
-
what we waiting on? Brazil and Egypt mans up, we still asleep, and acting like ? is sweet.
Those ? are hungry , people over here can still afford 220 dollar sneakers. -
Word. Hop on any city bus and you will see a bunch of broke-ass ? w/ cutting edge smartphones. Poverty in America looks like MTV Cribs compared to what people around the world suffer with. Poor people in America pre-order PS4s. -
Swiffness! wrote: »
Word. Hop on any city bus and you will see a bunch of broke-ass ? w/ cutting edge smartphones. Poverty in America looks like MTV Cribs compared to what people around the world suffer with. Poor people in America pre-order PS4s.
All part of the illusion/dream..............
-
FuriousOne wrote: »
well for starters, we need to do away with this one party system... yes I said, one, b/c there is no real difference between dem or rep... the shitstem got yall believing its a 2 party state, where you have a choice.
-
FuriousOne wrote: »
well for starters, we need to do away with this one party system... yes I said, one, b/c there is no real difference between dem or rep... the shitstem got yall believing its a 2 party state, where you have a choice.
There will always be two parties because most peoples ideology falls between helping others and helping yourself and Moral restriction or free expression. There there is the in between. Being human, even 20 parties will have corruption. I can't see how you think the two parties are exactly the same when they differ greatly on many issues like Abortion, Education, Support for the poor and middle class, immigration, religion and science, and so on and so on. Btw, England has multiple parties but only one to two ever have a voice that matters. The country has had multiple parties and has multiple parties but many of those parties support fringe issues and the rest aren't strong or organized enough to mount a real challenge even though you saw potential in those like Paul and Perot. -
Swiffness! wrote: »
Word. Hop on any city bus and you will see a bunch of broke-ass ? w/ cutting edge smartphones. Poverty in America looks like MTV Cribs compared to what people around the world suffer with. Poor people in America pre-order PS4s.
I was born in the third world and have traveled to and or lived in 1st world nations and other 3rd world nations, america does not have one real ghetto.
i think that if ? were to get really ? up here, what's happening in egypt would look like nothing in my opinion many americans can't take too much pressure. -
Swiff, for the record I support the demonstrations and overthrow of Morsi lol......not sure why you thought I'd be against all this, I wouldn't mind an overthrow of America's current govt either
-
Kinda crazy to say, but when and how long was Egypt really ever at peace since AD? They've had small stints of peace, but I think they've been fighting longer
-
i guess we need to define "really ever at peace" firstKinda crazy to say, but when and how long was Egypt really ever at peace since AD? They've had small stints of peace, but I think they've been fighting longer
-
They'll just install another dictator over there.
"Democracy" is just a word.
I’ve been thinking for quite some time now about democracy in the Middle East, and it seems to me that democracy is largely incompatible with Islam/theocracy. Democracy gives a lot of freedom and power to the people, but Islam (if not Islam, then at least radical Islam and sharia law) seems to limit that freedom and power because it requires submission to religious mandates. Even the U.S. is having its own problems with “separation between church and state.” I still find it absurd how Christianity is even a legitimate talking point when it comes to American democracy/politics. -
Swiffness! wrote: »
Word. Hop on any city bus and you will see a bunch of broke-ass ? w/ cutting edge smartphones. Poverty in America looks like MTV Cribs compared to what people around the world suffer with. Poor people in America pre-order PS4s.
I disagree. There is real poverty in the U.S. I don’t think that comparing American poverty to Egyptian poverty is entirely relevant. We’d probably get further by defining what poverty essentially is, but whether it’s a middle-class man who’s apparently living well because of credit but is $200,000 in debt or a lower-class man who can’t afford water, food, and shelter, it’s all the same – it’s poverty. Just because a poor man is stupid and has his values in disorder doesn’t make him any less poor. Likewise, just because there are poorer people in Egypt doesn’t make him any less poor. It’s too easy to downplay poverty in America, but it’s wrong. -
FuriousOne wrote: »
If you’re saying that a violent revolution is unnecessary, detrimental, and/or pointless, then I agree. If you’re saying, however, that America is fine as it is and doesn’t need a nonviolent revolution, then I disagree and would have to ask you whether or not you see any looming (though admittedly not as severe as in Egypt) problems that exist in America.
-
FuriousOne wrote: »There will always be two parties because most peoples ideology falls between helping others and helping yourself and Moral restriction or free expression. There there is the in between.
I agree and disagree. Generally, collectivism and individualism (and these are ideas that I think are much more accurate and fair than “helping others” and helping yourself”) are major oppositional factors in political philosophies. But there are so many other factors that complicate the American political party system of which I think you have oversimplified. Also, both Republicans and Democrats have been known to be for and against moral restriction and free expression at various times during this century.FuriousOne wrote: »Being human, even 20 parties will have corruption.
True. Humans are corrupt, so everything that they do will be corrupt. But corruption is not the biggest issue. The biggest issue is which political philosophies are “right” and which are “wrong.”FuriousOne wrote: »I can't see how you think the two parties are exactly the same when they differ greatly on many issues like Abortion, Education, Support for the poor and middle class, immigration, religion and science, and so on and so on.
I can’t speak for born7od, but he did say that there “is no real difference.” And I and many others agree because it’s simply true. Democrats and Republicans certainly aren’t “exactly the same.” But they are generally the same for many reasons. I won’t go into detail and derail the thread, but I might put up a thread about this and explain it since so many people still seem to not understand that Democrats and Republicans are like two peas in a pod. Quite frankly, they’ve never been so similar to me until recently, yet I can’t understand how people still can’t see it.FuriousOne wrote: »Btw, England has multiple parties but only one to two ever have a voice that matters. The country has had multiple parties and has multiple parties but many of those parties support fringe issues and the rest aren't strong or organized enough to mount a real challenge even though you saw potential in those like Paul and Perot.
The existence and support of “third party” politicians such as Paul and Perot is indication alone that there are political philosophies that are significantly different than the major two parties and are legitimate/acceptable in the eyes of the public. The fact that there are so many factions (Tea Party, neoconservatives, social conservatives, libertarians, Religious Right, etc.) within the Republican Party alone is even more indication. You also have to realize that once something becomes mainstream, it does so because it has changed (i.e., “flip-flopped”) in order to appeal to the majority. If a Mitt Romney is pushed to be the frontrunner, even though many in his own party didn’t even like him that much, then he was pushed to be the frontrunner because he has the most mass appeal. Same with Obama. Since this is true, both frontrunners will inevitably overlap in their mass appeal. Yet both frontrunners, perhaps Romney more than Obama, are far from truly representing the different factions and members of their respective parties.
I don’t know too much about Britain, but what you’ve said seems to be the case in Canada as well. That doesn’t necessarily mean that two parties are sufficient or that the two parties are very dissimilar. Besides, I have read that other countries with multiparty systems like Sweden, Spain, the Netherlands, Germany, and even Pakistan have experienced better and more competitive success. And that is the way it is supposed to be, especially in America. How is it that you can be boxed in with the lesser of two evils in a nation that prides itself about freedom of choice, competition, and representation?
-
Without civil war and war with their own allied nations and a system of government that allows the majority of citizens to not fear for their lives from their own governement and opportunity to rise in society economically without attaching corruption
-
I put my definition of peace above. -
I am no scholar on Egypt, but what I do think is its been a war-torn country and not a 3rd world country. I have family members in the military that said before the revolution Egypt was scarier to them than Afghanistan and Iraq. This is when they were never in military clothes. They have check stops almost every 5 miles where your car is checked. You have military and cops that roam the streets and harass citizens with AK-47's. You have private militias that can and might almost do anything to you when they feel like it. Of course they have universities and business, I'm not saying that but look from Gamal Nasser to Sadat to the British infiltration to America's invasion, to the alliances with Russia and Syria and then war with all the countries.
-
I'm not laying out a moral self-righteous claim. I'm just saying they have a harder time not letting these activities negatively hurt their societies and economics than some countries and of course they do handle it better than some others. Their geographic location hurts and helps them, but nonetheless go there and visit yourself if you believe there's peace or there's been peace. I love Egypt's history, but it's present for almost 300 years or more is no where you really want to be, especially if you're Christian.
-
question two: what is "and war with their own allied nations" supposed to meanI put my definition of peace above.
-
If you are really interested read Faith, Power, and Fantasy by Michael Oren. It's a good book on America and the Middle East with a focus on Egypt. Otherwise you can find egypt's allies on the internet.Egypt has countries that are its allies. Countries that if they go to war are sworn to come to Egypt's aid in finances and in military force to support Egypt. Egypt in some cases has declared war on those countries and some times it has gone the other way where those countries declared war on Egypt or did no come to Egypt's aid to honor the alliance. It's like NATO for America. You're not supposed to see America go to war with Canada again since NATO. If we did this would be big news. You're not supposed to see Russia and China go to war with each other. Egypt's allies were and maybe still are Libya, Sudan, Iran, Jordan. It's easy to see the wars that Egypt's been in.
-
again, my point isn't against Egypt. It's just saying the wars the country engages in ? its economy constantly and the instability of the economy due to the gov't and the people lead to unrest which fuel the riots and wars that in turn keep it in a situation that makes it very hard for them to become what they could be (which is a superpower) if it were not for the wars they are engaged in and better relations with its allies.
-
couldn't remember the wars so basically America's been in like 18 wars since 1806 and Egypt's been in around 32.
Main point is with an instable economy these wars effect that country greater. That's why I made the statement about never really being at peace in a long time within that society. Which other countries am I comparing Egypt to??I'll let you compare it if that's a question because sometimes if I answer one question all it does is bring more and I'm not trying to answer or think I know it all. These are just sources not right or wrong but just records.
http://americanhistory.about.com/library/timelines/bltimelineuswars.htm
http://www.historyguy.com/wars_of_egypt.html#.Ud_-k5wcuDk -
Looks like the Egyptians got hoodwinked again.Egypt's Maspero Youth Union, a Coptic activist group, has expressed its opposition to the constitutional declaration issued on Monday by interim president Adly Mansour.
In a statement released Tuesday, the group described the 33-article declaration, which outlines the roadmap for the transitional period expected to last six months, as "shocking."
"The [constitutional declaration] is not compatible with the ideals of the 30 June uprising... that went out for a civil state that upholds religious and cultural diversity," the statement read.
The declaration was criticised for its first article that states that the Arab Republic of Egypt is a democratic system based on citizenship, that Islam is the religion of the state, Arabic is its official language and the principles of sharia law derived from established Sunni canons are its main source of legislation.
This article combines Articles 1, 2 and 219 of the suspended constitution. The latter was added by Islamists to outline the meaning of "principles of Islamic sharia" mentioned in the second article.
In Egypt's previous 1971 constitution, article two also stated that the principles of sharia are the primary source of legislation, but added no more details.
This has long caused debate on the validity of stating specific religious sources for the country's legislation.
"[On 30 June] we went out to bring down their failed constitution that built a state of hate and violence," the Coptic group said in the statement.
"We did not take to the streets to give legitimacy to religious-based political parties that were about to erase Egypt's identity," the statement continued.
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/76182/Egypt/Politics-/Egypts-Maspero-Youth-Union-says-constitutional-dec.aspx
