jaredsxtn Wrote: It really is sad to see a peoples revolution turn into yet another military dictatorship. If his actions as acting President are a harbinger of things to come, then Egypt is in for a treat. Egypt is jailing dissidents by the thousands, conducting mass trials of political opponents that last mere minutes, and are sentencing hundreds to death for political crimes. It's really easy to win 96 percent of the vote when you stifle dissent and jail your political opponents.
The Egyptian government estimated it has jailed over 16,000 of its own citizens since last July's military coup. The real number is undoubtedly higher. I can't say that I believe he has any integrity at all. He may force peace and stability in Egypt by killing and jailing thousands of his own people, but it's a far cry from the democracy the original revolutionaries who ousted Hosni Mubarak were calling for.
jamesn Wrote: Unfortunately a nice guy who wants to be a "kinder and gentler" type of president just isn't the best choice for some countries, especially in THAT region of the world.
If Sissi has to crack down, and jail political opponents, and even sentence some to death...as bad as that is, the alternative might be worse.
jamesn Wrote: I think an all out civil war in Egypt, a Syria-style civil war, could be much worse, and many more could die. What's worse: civil war which kills hundreds of thousands, or a dictator who kills a few hundred? Both are bad, but the choice is clear. Egypt has more people and more weapons and more advanced weapons.
jamesn Wrote: Egypt tried a democratically elected leader and we see what happened. I'd grade that experiment as an F.
jamesn Wrote: Back to the old style military hard core dictator, as bad as he may be, might be preferable to the alternative.
jamesn Wrote: jared you do not understand some of my post.
First, you sound like an American who has never been to the middle east. I am an American who has lived in the middle east twice. That alone does not mean that my opinion is any more important than yours, but I think I have an understanding that you do not and cannot have.
..."To suggest the Egyptian people need a brutal dictator to keep peace is unfortunate and an incorrect assumption"... I did not suggest what you think. I merely point out that "the alternative might be worse". I mean exactly what I said; that a brutal dictator who can keep the relative peace while doing all the things that brutal dictators do, may be preferable to all out civil war.
This is a serious question: What's worse: civil war which kills hundreds of thousands, or a dictator who kills a few hundred? I will tell you which I think is worse. It is worse to have a civil war which kills hundreds of thousands, than a dictator who kills a few hundred. I thought that was an easy question. And this is the important point: That may be exactly what Egyptians are facing, all out civil war or life under a brutal dictator. Full blown democracy may not be possible right now.
There will always be people who say that it's got to be full blown American style democracy, or nothing. Those people do not know what they are talking about. This is THEIR country, not ours. We cannot impose our will, and our style of government on all the countries of the world, as much as some of us want to. ..."free and fair elections"... sounds great, but may not be possible right now.
We agree that the transition from a military dictatorship into a democracy as not being an easy process. If Sissi can maintain relative calm, even while being a brutal dictator, maybe he will begin to enter into that transition to democracy after a time. Neither you nor I know what he will do in the future. He seemed to be very popular when he started this process, I just hope he is what's best for the country right now. He took over from Morsi who seemingly took a terrible situation and made it much worse. Let's see what happens.
And finally: Look at Syria and tell me if life is worse there than in Egypt right now. I think we both know the answer.
It seems to be very easy here to have an typical American point of view which often proves to be wrong because their arrogant objectives.
jaredsxtn Wrote: Dutch Wrote:
It seems to be very easy here to have an typical American point of view which often proves to be wrong because their arrogant objectives. You can disagree with me without resorting to calling me arrogant. I have a different world view shaped off of my understanding of world history and democracy in general. To suggest I don't understand what I'm talking about shows that you are sorely lacking when it comes to being able to debate someone else without denigrating them. I would be happy to debate you regarding my world views and explain my views in a sober manner, but I won't have a discussion with someone who calls me or anyone else arrogant because I don't look at the world in the same exact way you do.
I in no way suggested an Egyptian democracy should be molded after American democracy, nor have I ever said such a thing about any other nation. What I did say is that I disagree with Jamesn's view of what is going on there and I strongly disagree that some nations need a 'tough guy' who slaughters his own people in the name of keeping the peace.
AmcmurryFreedom Wrote: Jared, I am also one in the belief that strong leaders who rule with an iron fist, cruelty, and kill the opposition is not how a country should be lead. Just imagine if Democrats and Republicans shot it out in order to kill the opposition to their views. In McConnell's character, that guy I can see having sights on specific people in opposition to his style of politics. I saw the 60's show on TV recently and had an opportunity to watch the coverage on Jack Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He had easy support to commit troops and missiles to Cuba and Russia, but he opted not to rush into that over reaction. Listen to Kennedy's Peace speech, which highlighted how America under his direction remained calm and strong, but not to over react with war. That is strong leadership, not like some of the ruthless dictators and rulers history has recorded.
Some of the worst of leaders:
Adolph Hitler.....responsible for over 20 million deaths
Saddam Hussein....responsible for over 1 million deaths
Kim Il Sung.........................ditto..............................
Ho Chi Minh.........................ditto.............................
Kim Jong il.............................ditto..........................
Idi Amin.......responsible for over 250,000 deaths
Augusto Pinochet....responsible for over 100,000 deaths
Francois Duvalier....responsible for over 30,000 deaths
These are reports from just the past century of cruel leaders that spend their power to kill off their opposition, rule the people with a fist and place the poor people and cries for their help in prisons or work camps.
Jared, your right, America or any country does not need a abusive ruler to lead a nation.