Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Indofred, Nov 17, 2012.
If i was jealous of the superiority of Arab foreign policy --- that might be true.
flacaltenn, eots, et al,
I must say, it is an interesting observation.
First, is there any such thing as Arab Policy (let alone foreign policy)? I'm not sure that the Arab World has a single view or policy that it follows. I believe that, absent an authoritarian government, Arab Policies follow almost small tribal lines.
Yes, looking at Libya, Egypt, Iraq, --- yes and elsewhere --- yes I begin to appreciate the view that: "They will fight until someone consolidates enough dictatorial power to suppress the insurrections." (MAO-A Gene)
What's your take on the Muslim Brotherhood?
"The complexities of the Arab Spring and the struggle for political freedom throughout the Arab world should not obscure what has now become an absolutely essential understanding for all anti-imperialists: the Muslim Brotherhood is one of the most powerful weapons of the Western ruling class in the Muslim world."
Would you agree?
Unmasking the Muslim Brotherhood » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names
Shouldn't one ask what's one's take on 'Counterpunch'?
Mine is that they are promoting a Communist agenda, and doing so by continually distorting and manipulating to present the US and 'capitalism' as actually being fascist like Hitler's Nazis.
The truth, of course, is that there's very little to choose between Fascism and Communism: both are totalitarian rule and inimical to democracy or the US Constitution.
georgephillip, MHunterB, et al,
I like to read selected topics from "Counterpunch," but only as a reference. In this case, I tend to think that the analysis is wrong.
The Muslim Brotherhood (MB) is a multifacet organization that has components within it that are separate and distinct in character; each one is evolving differently. It is not unlike the evolution of the Hezbollah ("political" vs "armed" wings, & civic works elements) or the Sinn Fein (a serious and legitimate political force today, but often better known or remembered for the once clandestine armed terrorist wing it had, the IRA). And one must remember that the Jewish Independence Movements (Herut/Irgun/Likud have a evolutionary relationship in the same way as Bar-Giora/Hashomer/Haganah). My opinion is that "Counterpunch" it is a bit myopic in it's view of MB and the molecular way in which it is assembled now, and the way it is realigning itself into a new national power of influence. One cannot look at MB as a homogenous organization with a single focus and common voice (if has many facets reflecting back as you look at MB as you would a cut diamond).
"Allah is our objective; the Quran is our law, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations."
MB is potentially a very dangerous option for the Egyptians to choose. While MB has many aspect that are moderate in nature when it comes to Islamic Law, there are elements within the fold that have turn radical. One of the more classic examples is the case of Doctor Ayman Mohammed Rabie al-Zawahiri, formerly a surgeon in the Egyptian Army, an Islamic theologian and current leader of the militant Islamist terrorist organization known as al-Qaeda; --- Dr al-Zawahiri is a product of MB, a member since he was a young teenager. He is not an isolated case. IF (big "IF" yet very important) key members of the government are puppets for the MB, then the security of the Middle East region may be threatened. The Supreme Guide of the MB, has called for a fresh jihad effort on Israel, which is not in the furtherance of peace and regional security. And if this mentality is allowed to entangle the new Egyptian Government, it may actually cause more hardship than the average Egyptian can imagine. They may come to regret the Arab Spring.
Israel is quasi-communist/fascist country.
State funded abortion, compulsory slavery to the military (unless you are a member of the elite), and clearly ethnocentric... Not exactly the land of the free.
Sounds more like a pinko paradise.
'Not saying that we should "switch sides". We shouldn't be on any side to begin with!
America should be on it's own side.
Do you believe American government should side with the richest 1% or the majority of humanity?
georgephillip, et al,
Many would argue that this is already a description of the US; whether you look at it domestically (the influence and treatment of the upper 1% of Americans, or the connection is has with the global affluent population).
Technically the US is geared to accomodate those that have access to the the Power Broker; which is the upper 1% of the affluent in America. And (as a general rule) the affluent do not mingle with the members of the poor, the struggling, or those of a lower social status unless there is some higher agenda to be served.
The majority of humanity - are people still in the lower rungs of Maslow's Ladder. There day to day issues have virtually nothing in common with the affluent class (less issues of the heart, love and family). The affluent don't buy a car based on its utility to the family, it milage, and the cost of insurance and maintenance. These are not their concerns. They don't worry about their next paycheck and their credit rating.
In the global arena, regional security is often influenced by the control exerted by the rich, powerful, and influential; which is especially true of the Middle East. US Foreign Policy is often set to exploit these conditions. Thus the interventionist style of diplomacy. Unfortunately, the US connection to the Middle Eastern world (but not exclusively to that region), built on exploitation, does not foster a mutual friendship between the non-influential class of people organic to the region. It is a decision made by the influential of the US to gain and maintain more influence; and not based on providing support to the regional lower/middle class. And because it generally disregards the impact on the regional lower/middle class, there grows an association (as perceived by the view from the bottom) between the US and the various dictatorships, princes and potentates that are prominent throughout the land.
So, it becomes a matter of US Foreign Policy (mostly a mystery to the average American) crafted by the rich, powerful and influential, as to how the US will interact and respond.
Mlitary service in Israel is *not* compulsory.
Nor does state-funded abortion make it 'communist' or 'fascist'.
As for the 'clearly ehnocentric' - Israel is the only nation in the ME where the Christian population is INcreasing. And it has taken in immigrants AND refugees from virtually every other nation in the world - including many from Africa.
Since 'arKangel's' comments are so ill-informed, I don't put much stock in its opinions.
Compulsary military service in Israel:
As for abortion, you do realize which country first mandated state funded abortion don't you?
It was the Soviet Union.
Abortion has been a goal of pinko scum since the get go.
Any of you so-called "Libertarians" who support the "right to choose...to kill babies" rhetoric do realize you are supporting communist propaganda right?
Vatican official says Israel fostering intolerance of Christianity - Telegraph
Franciscan official laments discrimination against Christians in Israel : News Headlines - Catholic Culture
Oh you zio-nutters, always telling fibs.
Separate names with a comma.