Politics Protests in the wider Arab world

[Koen]

This is truley unfair.

Why does Europe and US get to have democracy and we have totall idiots oppressing us ?

Can you believe that we have a whole family controlling our governement?

Truth to be told? You guys really need an enlightenment. Secularism was a consequence of it, an ideology by which a state and its democracy works separately from religious laws, potentates, dynasties, etc...

How come that freedom of religions, freedom of speech, etc are fundamental rights over here? All because of democracy. If states would be run by Christian churches then things over here wouldn't have looked nicely either

In the Arabian world, the revolutions are set against potentates who have some dynasty ideology: I'll keep my power till my candle burns out and then I will give the leading power to one of my sons (their unreasonable, wrong reasoning). Opposing parties are forbidden by law, people opposing the state leader are imprisoned, etc

My biggest fear is however that the vacuum will effect Islamic states like Iran. The Shah in Iran was driven away by young and old, by men and women,... with the usage of slogans containing freedom and democracy. BUT look at Iran nowadays, I can say that women were better off with the Shah than with the current Ayatollahs.

Do not misunderstand me, my friend. I am far from Islamophobic. I am truly supporting you all in your fights or protests (dependable from country to country) against those potentates. Defeat those bastards but make sure that religious fundamentalism won't reign the new state because then things won't go forward either.

 

[Imperium]

Gadaffi is on his last legs. He's losing the country more and more as we speak. I just saw a list of diplomatic defectors, and it was large. Ill try and re-find the link if i can.

Link.

Truth to be told? You guys really need an enlightenment. Secularism was a consequence of it, an ideology by which a state and its democracy works separately from religious laws, potentates, dynasties, etc...

How come that freedom of religions, freedom of speech, etc are fundamental rights over here? All because of democracy. If states would be run by Christian churches then things over here wouldn't have looked nicely either

In the Arabian world, the revolutions are set against potentates who have some dynasty ideology: I'll keep my power till my candle burns out and then I will give the leading power to one of my sons (their unreasonable, wrong reasoning). Opposing parties are forbidden by law, people opposing the state leader are imprisoned, etc

My biggest fear is however that the vacuum will effect Islamic states like Iran. The Shah in Iran was driven away by young and old, by men and women,... with the usage of slogans containing freedom and democracy. BUT look at Iran nowadays, I can say that women were better off with the Shah than with the current Ayatollahs.

Do not misunderstand me, my friend. I am far from Islamophobic. I am truly supporting you all in your fights or protests (dependable from country to country) against those potentates. Defeat those bastards but make sure that religious fundamentalism won't reign the new state because then things won't go forward either.

Spoiler

I dont think secularism is necessarily needed for democracy nor for democratic ideals to flourish and it does it have to be some sort of pre-requsite. Taking the UK as an example, you might be surprised to find it is not a secular country. There is a state religion (Anglicanism), the head of state is also the head of that religion (The Queen). Parliament is opened with prayers, and bishops have reserved seats in the house of lords. The PM is involved in electing new bishops etc. Nevertheless the united kingdom is democratic and has democratic ideals. The reason people link secularism and democracy is because they both evolved at the same time from the same source (the enlightenment). But i dont think democracy and democratic ideals can only blossom through fixed criteria like some sort of checklist.

The reason why the UK is like that has a lot to do with tradition and a lack of interference from the Catholic church in their affairs (and also the religious wars of europe did not affect it as much etc). There wasnt a pressing need for a split. However there is Freedom of Religion in the UK. Freedom of religion is more important concept than secularism and one that can come despite non-secularism.

A powerful central church institute that involves itself in political affairs does not exist in the UK. A powerful central Islamic institute or even pope-like office does not exist in Islamic world, which I think the UK model of democracy (i.e. not technically non-secular but still democratic in practice and ideals) is more appropriate as an example for the Islamic world rather then bringing about a terminating split between religion and state vis a vis France, which will only cause more chaos and confusion. Because the two have always historically and culturally meshed, trying to split it will not only cause more problems but also leave other options, that could be explored, closed.

Going back to the point about the islamic pope. There isnt a pope who can govern divinely in Islam. What you have instead are scholars who issue religious rulings (or fatwa's), that are not binding (people sometimes forget this small fact >.>) In any case the amount of followers on a scholars ruling depends upon his reputation. The higher the more people will listen to it. Its more of a grass-roots thing. So there wasn’t a “divine” and powerful institution that states locked horns with. The most they have ever had to deal with is dissenting scholars or contradictory mosque. The reason I mentioning this is because while in Europe, secularism had a lot to do with the church interfering as an institution into state affairs. It’s the really the other way around in Islamic countries. What central institution was there to interfere on such a large level? There was never any. The same as the U.K.

A more important issue i think is economic progression and time. Time is something that is forgotten a lot about, but it is the basis for any progression of any kind. Take the US as an example. Its constitution proposed the equality of man in 1787. It took another 100 or so years for slavery to be abolished. 150 for votes to be given to women. 200 years for black people to effectively be able to vote. Now that is a long time and it follows a similar pattern in Europe. You cannot consider anything before those watershed moments compatible with democratic ideals. The progression of a culture takes decades and centuries rather then years and months (something neo-cons conveniently forget >_>). The other point about economic progression. These riots and revolutions we are seeing now would not have been as effective if there wasn't such economic woe and stagnatio. Survival will always spur people on more than abstract concepts. But with more economic progression, there will be higher interest in political affairs of state.

Those two can do more in promoting and progressing democracy then a making the whole place secular. Besides, secularism has never been seen in a good light. It doesnt help that a lot of oppressive regimes in the region have also been secular.

But dont misunderstand me I dont want some propped up radical pseudo-scholar at the top seat. But rather then going for either extreme, trying to find a middle ground. As i think democracy will evolve in different ways in different cultures. So how secularism was the solution for most of Europe, i think the Islamic world will find its own. And I am confident it is something that will eventually happen but like anything will take a lot of time and a lot of progression in other spheres before it can fully blossom.

Edit: Ive used the phrase, Islamic world too much and yea... its to large of a generalisation it consists of such a large area and population with differing cultures. But please excuse the generalisation, although culturally they are similar. >_>

I think ill also spoiler this since its kinda offtopic >________>

About Iran specifically. It had a great chance at democracy and progression and with help could have been more progressive then any other country in the region. But short term interests of the US and Britain toppled that (28 Mordad coup).

And to be blunt, while women rights advanced under the shah immeasurably, the revolution of 1979 is an anomaly but it has helped Iran more than the Shah ever did as a whole. Iran's infamous brain drain or high health care would never have happened under the shah although the political and social repression are still the same. There is a tendency to look at the Shah's pro-western reign favourably after the anti-western stance this present regime has taken. But what is forgotten is how big of a fuck*r that guy was. But he was a fuck*r who did less for the people, then the current fuck*rs. The current regime have at least vastly improved the healthcare and education of the country. Iran's HDI surpasses all of its major neighbours with the exception of Saudi Arabia. This is not excusing the current regime, but they are definitely better off then they were under the shah even the revolutionary guards have nothing on the brutality of the Shah's SAVAK...they are both horrible though.

 

[Akainu]

Finally, finally the fucking airheads of the eu moved their blimps out of Gadaffis ass and at least put up sanctions - way too little and way, way too late, but anyway. really, it's a shame.

Spoiler: democracy and its prerequisites

I think you're right, (full) secularism isn't really needed for democracy. It's mainly a french and american idea, but like you said, the UK isn't and Germany isn't fully either (at least imo). Going in the other direction, even laicist states like turkey didn't democratically function for a longer time.
Well, there is something that political scientists often state as prerequisite. That's something that european states developed over centuries as well and even had before democracy: the rule of law! without the rule of law, there is no security, you can't be sure that people stick to the (democratic) rules and the rights granted in a constitution are null and void.
Some states went that way even keeping their monarch, quite a sum in europe acually, a way that Morocco and Jordan could go as well imo - if their kings give up some powers...
In any case, there are indeed a number of things scientists use to distinguish between democracy and authoritarianism/totalitarism (the latter is rare since only the soviet union and other communist/socialist systems are seen as such).
Next to the rule of law, the other very important factor is pluralism / a civic society without restrictions. that means, legal opposition, free media & economy, unions, associations etc. they might be visible in some parts and with restrictions, but that's categorized as authoritarian then.

A well, figure I should write a bit more on topic even though there are bits and brackets in the spoiler tabs ^^;
Since we're talking about Libya mostly atm. do you think it will desintegrate if it takes longer? Some guys on TV here said its east might seperate or the tribes might even fight like in Lebanon, but tbh I can hardly imagine the people would want that. More than two states or civil war, I see one dead family - props to you calling for the Ceaușescuend.

 

[Imperium]

Its getting worse and worse in Libya. The death toll is beginning to exceed all of the other protests and revolutions plus the Iranian election protests a couple of years ago. Its fast becoming a humanitarian concern. Its estimated at 1,000 - 2,000 and rising.

There is an interim rival government that has been created. Maybe that will be a basis in which to build on, when he is finally toppled. Hopefully it wont descend into clan violence like Somalia. I think that is probably a better example, because if im not mistaken lebanon had some real religious tension as well. Which is not really there with Libya.

You would hope it ends with his fall, but now with so many armed people roaming around. Mercenaries for hire, vigilantes, ex-army, ex-police, normal police and army etc its already different from Egypt and Tunisia. Its going to take some serious work for it to come to a peaceful conclusion.

---

The UN security council passed a resolution on sanctions which include arms embargo. It seems like they're going to start a No-Fly Zone over Libya. And assets of Gadaffi and his regime have been frozen. 30 billion in the US alone! They also referred Libya to the International criminal courts.

It seems like everyone is getting tough on them. It doesnt seem like he can hold out for much longer.

 

[benelori]

What the hell was that statement about peace is returning to the country and the people are happy...either it was super troll mode, ignorance, or maybe message to other countries where the coverage of what happened there was censored...I can't really tell

 

[Kaiten]

What the hell was that statement about peace is returning to the country and the people are happy...either it was super troll mode, ignorance, or maybe message to other countries where the coverage of what happened there was censored...I can't really tell

I think it was Gadaffi being delusional. The interview made him seem like the Charlie Sheen of world leaders. Gadaffi has tiger blood and Adonis DNA

Finally, finally the fucking airheads of the eu moved their blimps out of Gadaffis ass and at least put up sanctions - way too little and way, way too late, but anyway. really, it's a shame.

Spoiler: democracy and its prerequisites

I think you're right, (full) secularism isn't really needed for democracy. It's mainly a french and american idea, but like you said, the UK isn't and Germany isn't fully either (at least imo). Going in the other direction, even laicist states like turkey didn't democratically function for a longer time.
Well, there is something that political scientists often state as prerequisite. That's something that european states developed over centuries as well and even had before democracy: the rule of law! without the rule of law, there is no security, you can't be sure that people stick to the (democratic) rules and the rights granted in a constitution are null and void.
Some states went that way even keeping their monarch, quite a sum in europe acually, a way that Morocco and Jordan could go as well imo - if their kings give up some powers...
In any case, there are indeed a number of things scientists use to distinguish between democracy and authoritarianism/totalitarism (the latter is rare since only the soviet union and other communist/socialist systems are seen as such).
Next to the rule of law, the other very important factor is pluralism / a civic society without restrictions. that means, legal opposition, free media & economy, unions, associations etc. they might be visible in some parts and with restrictions, but that's categorized as authoritarian then.

A well, figure I should write a bit more on topic even though there are bits and brackets in the spoiler tabs ^^;
Since we're talking about Libya mostly atm. do you think it will desintegrate if it takes longer? Some guys on TV here said its east might seperate or the tribes might even fight like in Lebanon, but tbh I can hardly imagine the people would want that. More than two states or civil war, I see one dead family - props to you calling for the Ceaușescuend.

Same could be said for the U.S. I'm glad the Obama administration finally took a strong stance. $30 billion in assets frozen, the most ever by the U.S. government.

I personally don't think the country will disintegrate. The violence Gadaffi unleashed has secured a much brighter future for Libyan unity and (maybe) democracy. Libya now has a "national myth", an epochal event that unites all segments of society, all tribes, all ideologies. Much like Americans have the revolution, Libyan's can now look to the revolt against Gadaffi as their creation myth.

If the Yemeni government is toppled, I expect that country to splinter. There is already a divide between north and south, revolts in the north, wide spread poverty, and al Queda has a strong presence. The recipe for a violent civil war is already in place.

 

[k-dom]

About Iran specifically. It had a great chance at democracy and progression and with help could have been more progressive then any other country in the region. But short term interests of the US and Britain toppled that (28 Mordad coup).

And to be blunt, while women rights advanced under the shah immeasurably, the revolution of 1979 is an anomaly but it has helped Iran more than the Shah ever did as a whole. Iran's infamous brain drain or high health care would never have happened under the shah although the political and social repression are still the same. There is a tendency to look at the Shah's pro-western reign favourably after the anti-western stance this present regime has taken. But what is forgotten is how big of a fuck*r that guy was. But he was a fuck*r who did less for the people, then the current fuck*rs. The current regime have at least vastly improved the healthcare and education of the country. Iran's HDI surpasses all of its major neighbours with the exception of Saudi Arabia. This is not excusing the current regime, but they are definitely better off then they were under the shah even the revolutionary guards have nothing on the brutality of the Shah's SAVAK...they are both horrible though.

I think iranian woman have the highest level of education from the whole area. If iranian could get rid of this islamic theocratie then it's a country which have a lots of potential. Btw if some like animation movie other than anime I strongly recommand Persepolis


What is good with these revolutions is that it is the final proof that this civilisation war theory was complete bullshit

 

[Koen]

I really think that some are too enthusiastic and too optimistic at the same time.

The lesson for the Arabic World is the spring of 1848. During the first months of this year, in Europe there were a lot of protests in main cities like Paris, Berlin, Vienna, etc rebels vs order troops were very common. Harvest failed, food prices were very high, etc. The rebels were farmers, workmen, intelligent elite, middle class. Yes, the Arabic revolutions have something similar: a craving for freedom and democracy supported by a majority of the people. The regimes and the sighs of the people might be different but a revolutionary ghost was infecting country after country

But in 1848 the turmoil ended up in having no results. The spring of the people turned into the winter of the power: the second French revolution was replaced by the second French empire, Austria managed to get its power back with the help of the Russian Tsar,...

So I really hope that this won't be an 1848 of the Arabic World

 

[Akainu]

well I don't know if I can agree on that. the clash of civilisations includes - especially for the muslim/arab sphere - not only conflict on the borders (Southsudan, Nigeria) or with other so called civilisations, but also inner movements, and again especially there, the aftermath of a growing population.
the conclusion drawn - that is if we're both talking Huntington there - is flawed though, since it focuses mainly on islamist movements (pessimist worldview anyone?) and neglects democratic movements. to be fair though, we don't know the outcome yet and it could sadly well end like in Iran.
another point rather proving the theory in my opinion atm is that the protests are regionally limited to the muslim/arab world with only little offsprings in Iran and China, both regimes on their own where there were (illegal) opposition movements before that are said to be sparked now by traditional as well as new media.

on a rather unrelated note, mark march 11th in your calendars, there's a call for protest in *drumroll* Saudi-IsraeliaArabia, where opposition movement lately formed (and was imprisioned). the king returned now though from medical treatment in US/Morocco and it seems like his 36 billion $ aren't enough for the people anymore. interestingly, they don't even demand a republic or anything, but a constitutional monarchy... well at least atm. dunno if the royal family will use that chance to keep their status or let it slip and risk it.

 

[k-dom]

A difference with 1848 is that at that time there was roughly only 2 big democraties : us and great britain. Nowadays they are more mature. Also the revolts are greatly related to the internet and the youth who control this mean of communication, it will be something hard to get back. Also why are we always talking of iran when islamic are in power, there is another iranic party in power in turkey and it managed to cope with democracy so it is not hopeless

 

[Imperium]

It gets bloodier and bloodier. Gadaffi is apparently stating he has captured rebel towns, although the opposition is stating its under their control. If he's using propaganda it must mean its not going all his way.

Here are some libyan pictures from Big picture who always have some great stuff.

 

[Akainu]

while Libya is still at war - or what else should we call it? - and the west is reluctant to help even though gulf states would support a no-fly zone - which is a weird situation and definitely not what we should have learned from Afghanistan and Iraq - this friday seems to be decisive for the further spread of the revolutionary fire.
protesters in saudi arabia are called out to the streets - partly by facebook (which I heard got an offer to be bought by the saudis, seemed too unreal to believe in it though... ) - was forbidden about a week ago already. like in many other states. so it will be interesting if and to what extent there will be protests

 

[Imperium]

Its a full blown civil war.Trying to pinpoint what went wrong is always going to be hard. Though personally i suspect it was when the protesters started to pick up weapons to defend themselves and to defend their homes. But that is the crucial part, when you pick up guns the person with the bigger guns and more money wins. Gadaffi has plenty of both and even if his propaganda isnt doing too well, it looks like he is beginning to reassert control.

The no-fly zone imo is too radical. Its essentially military aggression. I dont think it will go well at all. You have to bomb out all of libya's capable military air support. How will the mass of libyans react to an attack by unpopular foreign powers on their military? I think there are a lot of people who hate Gadaffi, but the main support for any popular revolt is the mass of undecided people in the middle. The ones who are sympathetic to the cause but not actively a part of it. In egypt for example one million people - at times - were marching, compare to that to the 77 million who werent but were sympathetic. Any military intervention I think will alienate that critical support. How easy would it be for Gadaffi to then paint the up-risers as western puppets? Far too easy. And it will be hard task to dissuade that notion. In those situations people will begin to doubt the legitimacy of the up-risers.

It would be good to see something resembling a constitutional monarchy in Saudi. Right now, its more like a privately held company rather then a country.

 

[Naruto-4-hokage]

I never realized this topic here, it'as great that i found it, thanks Imperium for opening such topic , I'm really impressed with all the opinions here eventhough i couldn't address them all right now.

I don't know where to start, I'd like to talk about what happened and wht's expected to happen specially in Egypt but since the talk is mainly now about Libya's state I'll try to address that first, and I'd be glad to answer any questions you have about the situation(If I know the answer )

So how can we describe best the situation in Libya now....
Though it appears that Libya is divided a lot and what's going now is civil war people have first to realize the nature of Gadhaffi....

What the hell was that statement about peace is returning to the country and the people are happy...either it was super troll mode, ignorance, or maybe message to other countries where the coverage of what happened there was censored...I can't really tell

basically people can never understand a man like Gadhaffi because they probably have never followed him before, basically saying Gadhaffi is troll is not farfetched at all, I call hime insane a typical model for a man corrupted by power , he makes his own truth and live in it, and while this is normal for most dictator rulers , Gadhaffi is a special case because he reached a level that made him the joke of anyone watching him in the arab world , i don't know if you read before about him saying that he cannot resign or step down because he is not a president or a king he is just a revolutionary leader and revolutionary leaders stay so forever

Gaddaffi during 40 years has successfully removed the idea of state from his country , he divide his people into tribes , weakened any civil force that could compete with him , he even weakened the government, few years ago he actually removed the authority of the government from crucial sectors like education and sanitation with the excuse that goverment failed in this sectors so he gave it back to people to da as they please with it.

So basically even if libyans succeeded in their revolution they will have a very tough job to build a country from a point below zero.

But what i was aiming at explaining is that Gaddaffi i spractically insane and will do anything to keep his rule over Libya , he used mercenaries against his own people and now is using the forces under his hand to put the country in a state of a civil war but i believe (and i may be wrong) that once Gaddaffi and his family is out this war will stop , the case is different in Yemen because it has witnesses civil war before and has many divided people and Qaeda has a great influence there , also bahrain where the revolution could ignite a shiite/sunni conflict that could affect the whole gulf countries.

I really think that some are too enthusiastic and too optimistic at the same time.

Will on the contrary I'm ver optimistic , and while you address a very legitimate concern that we all share there's part of the equation you're not seeing here, people have spoken at last, for a long time i had lost hope in people objecting to the corruption , oppression and injustice we lived in but what happened in the Tunisian and Egyptian revolution was a surprise to all of us befaore it surprised the world. It's really a ,iracle that people were still alive after all of this , even the regime thought they will did and will never revolt( they openly said that before) and that's why the revolution was a success , sure there are still problems , sure there are fears that members of the former regime or same fanatic group could take over the authority (using democracy to destroy democracy) but this fears should guide us to the right path even if it's unclear right now, and there's is a lot of hope that people will not forfeit their acquired rights. It just will take a lot of time and work so we need patience.

I hope i cleared things up and didn't make any confusion.

 

[Akainu]

Japan is shifting the focus away a little from the arab world in our media and politics which is really bad imo.
In Libya Gadaffi is coming back to strength and a no-fly zone isn't only unlikely now but also extremly useless. Should he gain control over the whole country again there will be mass terror on the inside and idiotic leaders from the outside embracing him again.
In Bahrain meanwhile troops from the gulf cooperation states are marching in - that doesn't only seem like an occupation given that the rulers and the outer states are all sunni opposed to the shia majority population - that's really weird. (any news on iran reacting?)
Also makes me wonder about the credibility of the arab league: how does it go together to claim a no-fly zone against one dictator and support another with military force?

 

[kkck]

Good point, suddenly we hear very little of Gadaffi.... If the rebels didn't get external support they were going to get annihilated anyways so its not like we are missing that much either. The first world has to do a little more than requesting Gadaffi's resignation if the rebellion is to succeed at this point. Interesting how international politics work. If the first world actually gets involved with the whole thing then they are getting involved with the internal affairs which is seen as bad while in turn not getting involved is basically a form of apathy. Odds are the first world will be blamed if the rebellion fails. I think that much is already happening although I am not too sure.

 

[k-dom]

Unfortunatly it seems that Khadafi has return the element in its favor and an external intervention is probably too late ( and unwanted ). I just hope this crazy men will not put an end to the serie. If he prove that force can win like it did 2 years ago in Iran, it will certainly weakened the contests in other countries

 

[kkck]

According to gadaffi (or one of his sons, not quite sure), they intend to end the military confrontation within 48 hours. Basically, they intend to retake the last rebel city and end the rebellion within two days. Even if the first world would decide to intervene now it would perhaps be too late to help the rebels.... A shame IMO.

 

[Naruto-4-hokage]

Also makes me wonder about the credibility of the arab league: how does it go together to claim a no-fly zone against one dictator and support another with military force?

It's a very complicated situation though, First you have to realize that the arab league is not that strong or at least his decisions is not that obligatory due do different problems in its protocols one of it is that any decision to be obligatory must unanymous not by majority, also ther's is not a military section in it to enforce the decisions and I think the most severe punishment could be canceling or suspending the country membership and ofcourse the relations with it.
In case of libya it was a clear decision to agree upon a no fly zone (mainly UN or first world countries will enforce it) also there's a political reason since the president of arab league is trying to run as a president of Egypt in the next elections and he was criticized for not having a strong opinion against what's happening in libya (it is mainly a massacre by gadaffi) also the arab leaders acceptance for it is to calm their people down.

AS for bahrain the situation is totally different (for the leaders) first the conflict being Sunni/Shia in nature is a matter of concern for all the gulf countries who worries a lot about increasing of the Irani influence in the region.
there interference was mainly as anti riot forces not as invasion forces ( again from their pov) note that bahrain regular police and anti riot force is very weak , actually the resorted to hiring policeman with nationalities other than bahrain nationality since bahrain is a very small country.

so basically the arab league can't take an easy decision as in libya case because first the no. of people supporting the interveining is large (the gulf cooperation) also the western countries won't support as much since the amount of violence is less and the also fear the increasing Irani influence specially on the petrol of the gulf countries. Also I believe that Iran didn't comment much on it lest it would be accused of agitating the situation (and there's a chance it might be doing so in an indirect way) so it might resort to silence till a certain point.

anyway I'm concerned on what you said that the media is not concentrating much on the situation in arab world specially in libya and while i'm concerned about the situation in japan and it really need this amount of coverage due to the disaster there, I really hope the situation won't be forgetten specially in libya because Libya too needs world support because the situation will be very bad if gadaffi managed to control the situation again.

Interesting how international politics work. If the first world actually gets involved with the whole thing then they are getting involved with the internal affairs which is seen as bad while in turn not getting involved is basically a form of apathy.

yeah, I agree with you but I just have to note something, the interference with internal affairs is bad when it is done to serve the interests of the interfering country over the country that is being interfered with and its people. And when the first world country support a criminal against the international principles because that supports its interests even if its against the interest of another country's people then apathy is turned to be a crime.
Do I make sense? I'll give you an example.....

In the years before the Egyptian revolution some opposition forces believed that they can actually pressure the former regime to make reforms in the political system by embarrassing the regime by exposing its crimes in front of the western countries so they would pressure Mubarak to make the reforms and to release the political detainees and stop the torturing that happens to detainees on a regular basis, but this opinion was refused by the majority of the opposition forces because any change must come from the people and can never come from any other force or country otherwise it would put the Egyptian people in a very weak position but when the revolution (which no one ever expected) happened people was shocked that the first world (USA mainly) has took a pragmatic stance and didn't make a clear statement with revolution to keep their relations with Mubarak if it failed, so their stance was very weak (the same case with Libya) which decreased the the credibility of the first world who always preached democracy and didn't do anything when they feared it could go against their interest (I'm speaking mainly about the governments and it official stance not the people around the world who had a wonderful attitude and supported the revolution a lot).
So the main point here that if you're gonna interfere then it must be for the people and their benefit not for you benefit , the same if you're going to resort to silence otherwise you would put yourself in an unfavourable position.

they intend to end the military confrontation within 48 hours. Basically, they intend to retake the last rebel city and end the rebellion within two days.

Will I hope they will fail to do so. If gadaffi succeeded he will do massacres against libyans (not the opposition but all libyans without discrimination) to put the fear back in people's hearts , I'm scared to think of what he might do, but I pray the libyans will win and remove him and his family from libya, and really the world must do something because gadaffi could support terrorists and their operations just to get back against the world that didn't stand with him from his pov( I think I'm exaggerating a bit , but you will never know with this guy what he will do next).

 

[kkck]

yeah, I agree with you but I just have to note something, the interference with internal affairs is bad when it is done to serve the interests of the interfering country over the country that is being interfered with and its people. And when the first world country support a criminal against the international principles because that supports its interests even if its against the interest of another country's people then apathy is turned to be a crime.
Do I make sense? I'll give you an example.....

I agree with this but it basically adds up to the same. Should the first world get involve a number of people will start screaming about them expanding the empire, oil wars and basically taking over a country. There is not even a guarantee that democracy would be what follows gadaffi at this point. USA is a good example. Over the years USA has fought and defended dictatorships for either interest or principle (or both) and I don't recall a situation where USA really came out on top in terms of image or actually getting democracy to that place. Well, they did get Sadam out but things are still quite hard and it is a bit hard to argue oil interests were not behind the war as a whole which is rather weird considering the one time something good was achieved there were interests behind it (at least I think kicking sadam out was good, don't know about the rest of people).

The thing to consider is that the aid that would have been provided would ultimately have to come simply from USA. Who else is expected to take such initiative? On top of that it is obama of all people who is currently in lead.... Can we really expect him to send soldiers to yet another country when they are already fighting in 3 other places AND did not fulfill his promise of ending one of them last august? Obama is losing support little by little as it is, I doubt he has the balls to do such a thing. You'd need at the very least someone like bush for such a thing (not that I like bush but I think that is what it comes down too). I hope I am wrong about obama if somehow the rebels manage to outlast the next 48 hours of attacks though.

Will I hope they will fail to do so. If gadaffi succeeded he will do massacres against libyans (not the opposition but all libyans without discrimination) to put the fear back in people's hearts , I'm scared to think of what he might do, but I pray the libyans will win and remove him and his family from libya, and really the world must do something because gadaffi could support terrorists and their operations just to get back against the world that didn't stand with him from his pov( I think I'm exaggerating a bit , but you will never know with this guy what he will do next).

The main issue the rebels have is a lack of resources so to speak. They are fighting missiles and tanks with guns as of now. They really don't stand a chance without external support.

---

It seems the UN finally decided to intervene in the Libia events. From what I read they are still not actually going to oppose gadafi but rather they are going to impose a cease fire and protect civilians. Still, they have to take a greater stand against Gadafi for all of this to actually have served a purpose. Hopefully they will intervene before the rebels are completely out though.