Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: "Orderly transition" in #Egypt

320 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 7 8 9 10 11 13 Newer→ Last

  • Steve Barnes,

    I think it comes down to the fact that there is no longer three degrees of separation, there is only personal media, forget the term social media, it is pointless and inaccurate. It is a new way of saying "it's not what you know it's who you know". We are at the point where we can all know each other and that is the new dynamic. Wikileaks, no more secrets. Twitter, no more secrets, No more secrets means no more lies?
    Beautopia?
    We usually only see these things in retrospect but now retrospect is only seconds away...

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • Christiaan,

    The response by the U.S. so far underlines how they pay lip service to democracy. It's just a propaganda weapon they use when it aligns their so-called strategic interests.

    They're happy to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, bleating about democracy, but when the people of an autocratic nation rise up against their own dictator they insist it's not their place to say he should step down and can't even bring themselves to stop funding the autocrat.

    If they eventually do it will be with reluctance and only out of not wanting to look like a pack of wankers supporting the killing of kids.

    Portugal • Since Dec 2006 • 121 posts Report Reply

  • Marcus Turner,

    Did anyone else catch the analysis/summary by Robert Fisk on Morning Report? I found it enlightening.

    Since Nov 2006 • 212 posts Report Reply

  • Tim Michie,

    Auckward • Since Nov 2006 • 614 posts Report Reply

  • Christiaan,

    Video said to be of a diplomatic car that ran over 20 people in Cairo on the 28th Jan. I don't know what's worse, the video or some of the comments justifying it (warning: some may not want to watch this):

    Edit: god, somebody's posted more links of similar situations in the comments.

    Portugal • Since Dec 2006 • 121 posts Report Reply

  • Angus Robertson, in reply to Christiaan,

    The good thing about America is that its strategic interest does align with democracy more than it doesn't. It gets trumped by greater strategic desires for things like a stable oil supply, but mostly America is better off if other places are freer and more democratic.

    Auckland • Since May 2007 • 984 posts Report Reply

  • giovanni tiso, in reply to Russell Brown,

    I can get behind this article.

    As can I. The developments of the last 36 hours on the other hand are, if not altogether surprising, deeply distressing.

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Angus Robertson,

    its strategic interest does align with democracy more than it doesn't

    That's hilarious

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Christiaan,

    I've heard all my life how good America is and I don't really give a toss anymore. America is a seething heap of hypocrisy, run by a greedy ruling elite with extremely narrow interests. Fine, back dictators and invade other countries for oil, I just wish it would stop pretending the sun shines out of its principled ass.

    Portugal • Since Dec 2006 • 121 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Important resource: Transcribing the voices of Egypt - http://egypt.alive.in/

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Christiaan,

    Video said to be of a diplomatic car that ran over 20 people in Cairo on the 28th Jan. I don't know what's worse, the video or some of the comments justifying it (warning: some may not want to watch this):

    Indeed. I've seen one of these clips and that was upsetting enough. Bastards.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • Christiaan,

    I think this is the first time AJ has stopped broadcasting live images:

    https://twitter.com/nolanjazeera/status/33297648815448064

    the Aljazeera live shot of Tahrir Sq had to be pulled as it was putting our lives at risk. Will be back up as soon as its safe to do so

    Portugal • Since Dec 2006 • 121 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to Sacha,

    That's hilarious

    I'll give Angus the benefit of the doubt in suggesting that America's real interests are aligned with more democracy, if you extend those interests to include the entire population. They can at least compete in an open marketplace with other democracies. They've got no chance against impoverished places with no human rights, where labor costs next to nothing. But the interests of the ruling elites are not aligned with that ideal, that only costs them money.

    There's also the massive war machine they have which demands strife and conflict, so common in oppressive regions. Obviously that war machine costs American taxpayers a ridiculous amount of money and they'd be so much richer without it. But the people who own the machine would not be.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Social media use cuts both ways. Mubarak government pushing propaganda via Twitter now, asks Rachel Maddow?

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Simon Grigg, in reply to BenWilson,

    They can at least compete in an open marketplace with other democracies.

    For most of the post war era they've not wanted to compete, they've just wanted markets, cheap labor [sic], and political dominance. Compete only became a concept when they were forced to.

    Just another klong... • Since Nov 2006 • 3284 posts Report Reply

  • Angus Robertson, in reply to Simon Grigg,

    For most of the post war era they've not wanted to compete, they've just wanted markets, cheap labor [sic], and political dominance.

    The USA maximises its markets when other places are more free and more democratic, because America doesn't make much anything for poor people.

    America is the dominant democracy, its political dominance is accelerated by spreading democracy.

    The point about cheap labour is correct only when that labour produces something America wants. Most typically oil, or in the case of Egypt (and possibly Israel/Palestine) the transport of trade (including a lot of oil) through Suez.

    Auckland • Since May 2007 • 984 posts Report Reply

  • Simon Grigg, in reply to Angus Robertson,

    The USA maximises its markets when other places are more free and more democratic, because America doesn't make much anything for poor people.

    I guess that wipes out most of Asia, Africa, and Central America. I'll pop downstairs and tell the kids the coke is on Uncle Sam. Angus that is utter nonsense.

    Most typically oil

    And pretty much everything else produced by Nike, Guess, Levi, Converse, Apple, HP and a billion other US owned companies.

    America is the dominant democracy, its political dominance is accelerated by spreading democracy.

    As above: I guess that wipes out most of Asia, Africa, and Central America. Tommy Suharto wants to give you a GOLKAR freedom award, paid for by Uncle Sam.

    Just another klong... • Since Nov 2006 • 3284 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    The USA maximises its markets when other places are more free and more democratic, because America doesn't make much anything for poor people.

    OK, I withdraw my benefit of doubt. You're just mistaken, rather than misunderstood. American makes a hell of a lot of things for poor people. Bullets, for instance, sell best where they are used most. Also, you don't need any skill whatsoever to sell debt to people. And you can certainly maximize your own markets if you deprive other people of choice by projecting force against your economic rivals.

    But again, I think that America is still a long term loser running such a strategy, and would actually be better off in a more peaceful, and more democratic world, as would everyone else. But the particular elites that run the place don't see things the same way.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • Angus Robertson, in reply to BenWilson,

    But again, I think that America is still a long term loser running such a strategy, and would actually be better off in a more peaceful, and more democratic world, as would everyone else.

    Thats pretty much why I see them as running this strategy now.

    They don't specialise in selling weapons that poor people can buy, what they mostly do sell is over specced uber technified military hardware. They sell debt and banking services, products which sell best when customers have money. And they do not project force against "economic" rivals, they do project force against "ideological" rivals and/or people who are too poor to matter.

    They're cold hearted capitalists who figure that a smattering of democracy, freedom and peace are good for business.

    But the particular elites that run the place don't see things the same way.

    During the cold war i'd agree with that, but not nowadays. The old elite of military and industry is being supplanted by bankers, marketeers and technologists. The new elite wants to give everybody the dream of consuming as much branded product as the could possibly want and more.

    </drunk commenting>

    Auckland • Since May 2007 • 984 posts Report Reply

  • Simon Grigg, in reply to Angus Robertson,

    They don't specialise in selling weapons that poor people can buy, what they mostly do sell is over specced uber technified military hardware.

    That's not even close to true. They've armed just about every third world dictator you can think of since 1953 - with high end, low end and medium end weaponry. The aircraft they sell to these people in 2011 include the F-35 for the rich customers and the cheap refurbished A series F-16s at knockdown prices for the likes of Pakistan (and, almost, NZ). Almost everything in between is catered for and sold.

    When they can't supply it from the own factories they buy via dealers from Russian bloc and Chinese factories, which they've done in the Middle East as South Asia amongst other places.

    The US Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program sources from weapons manufacturers all over the world. You want it - they can supply it.

    Just another klong... • Since Nov 2006 • 3284 posts Report Reply

  • Lucy Stewart, in reply to Angus Robertson,

    They don't specialise in selling weapons that poor people can buy, what they mostly do sell is over specced uber technified military hardware. They sell debt and banking services, products which sell best when customers have money.

    I think you misunderstood Ben's point; it's not that poor people buy "over specced uber technified military hardware", it's that the kind of regimes that tend to be in charge of many poor people tend to buy it (and the bullets to go with it.) And I think the last three years or so illustrate rather spectacularly that debt does indeed sell to people without a lot of money.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2105 posts Report Reply

  • Simon Grigg, in reply to Lucy Stewart,

    it's that the kind of regimes that tend to be in charge of many poor people tend to buy it

    As often as not they don't need to - it's provided gratis by the US taxpayer, Egypt being a case in example.

    Just another klong... • Since Nov 2006 • 3284 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Angus Robertson,

    And they do not project force against "economic" rivals

    Do elaborate

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle, in reply to Christiaan,

    I just wish it would stop pretending the sun shines out of its principled ass.

    The USA has such an amazing self-perpetuating propaganda machine. I think even the people who are in charge of DOING the horrible stuff believe the big lies (see The Fog of War, for example). They call that cognitive dissonance, I suppose.

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3828 posts Report Reply

  • Christiaan,

    It's not radical Islam that worries the US – it's independence
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/feb/04/radical-islam-united-states-independence

    Washington and its allies keep to the well-established principle that democracy is acceptable only insofar as it conforms to strategic and economic objectives: fine in enemy territory (up to a point), but not in our backyard, please, unless properly tamed.

    Portugal • Since Dec 2006 • 121 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 7 8 9 10 11 13 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.