What a sham. The US and Saudi Arabia are facilitating the continuity of terrorism in that country by not allowing a full revolution. By definition, if Saleh, Saudi and the US are happy with the terms, then it must be wrong. The people of Yemen do not agree with the terms as far as I've heard. Why are the yemeni people not a party to these negotiations? The purpose of this revolution is not to meet the whim of Saudi, the US and Saleh. What a load of crap. I hope they capture him.
What free and real information do you think the people of Yemen are basing their political decisions on? What newspapers do they read? What libraries do they have access to? What education system do they have? (since it's only 700 years of forced Islamist tradition, I guess all they know is Islamist tradition so how would they choose anything else?)
So true, could not have said it any better. Those people don't deserve freedom as they are Islamic and not educated like us. These people should observe values and customs of countries that are advanced and understand that it is the leap they need to make or remain in the condition that will keep them where they are. There is quite a bit of oil in that country, its good to see that oil companies there are not benefiting the people as they are not ready for it, all they will do with it is create terror. Think about the 700 years of Islamic values. Think about it.
I only meant my rhetorical question as a rhetorical question. How do Arab Spring revolutions push forward into something new and unknown? Not so much Egypt or Tunisia where information is maybe more common but backwoods Yemen? Hell, I was in East Texas yesterday, and I wonder how far behind those people are.
Yes, if you had a full revolution in Yemen, I assume you would end up with Islamist tribal clans and warlords. I only have assumptions, please give me information. What would they know of participatory democracy, free speech and assembly, a bribery free civil service system, freedom of religion, especially in a court system, women's rights???
US hypocrisy wrt democracy both at home and abroad hurts us. At home corporations have free speech, OWS not so much. ******** by Philip Weiss on November 22, 2011 39 Jodie Evans and Medea Benjamin have issued a call on Obama to condemn the attacks in Tahrir Square. (Thx to Paul Mutter) Excerpt: As we watch the Egyptian police and military viciously attack democracy activists on the streets of Cairo, using U.S. weapons, it is outrageous that the Obama Administration has failed to issue a strong condemnation of this latest attempt to crush a revolution that has inspired people around the world, including millions of Americans... A principled U.S. position would be to immediately issue a strong condemnation of the violence unleashed by the Egyptian military on its people. The U.S. government should suspend all military aid to the Egyptian government until it stops attacking peaceful protesters, and until it releases the 12,000-plus citizens jailed since Mubarak’s ouster and commits to handing over power to a transitional civilian government as soon as parliamentary elections are completed. President Obama should coordinate with other Western allies and supporters of the Egyptian government to develop a clear and strong policy in support of a rapid transition to democracy and apply the full weight of international diplomatic, economic and legal pressure on the military junta towards that end. Anything less will be a stain on the United States that will haunt this administration, and the United States more broadly, for years to come. .... http://mondoweiss.net/2011/11/obama-must-condemn-egyptian-militarys-crackdown.html
You understand that, until recently, it was an educated American man who was leading the Islamist war lord terrorism from Yemen? Fundamentally, we differ here. Reason being, I don't think you can hold a people responsible for something, when they have never had a say in how it plays out. For example: the American people live in a democracy where they have a say in who gets elected, and by extension, they have a say in what their elected officials do. Therefore when the US attacks other countries, everyone in the defending country is within their right to hold every voting and non-voting American responsible for the actions of its government. But if, say, Saudi Arabia attacked another country - is it the fault of the Saudi PEOPLE? Can you hold them responsible for anything? Doesn't the responsibility remain with the non-elected officials only? In fact, in this example, once again the American people must share some of the responsibility because they have voted in the officials who have placed those rulers in power and kept them there. In the case of Yemen, the last time they were free to pick their officials, they did it as well as anyone else has done and that should be good enough. Yes, it's possible that conservatives will rise to the top, much like it's possible in the US. Yes, it will scare a few people around the world, but not as much as it scared the Middle Eastern PEOPLE when George Bush came into power. More importantly, a conservative American president can do and does far more damage (total deaths, total destruction) than 5 consecutive elected Yemeni officials would be able to do. To assume that Islamists will take over is a joke. It has never happened ever happened in the Middle East that in a free, fair and democratic society, a population has voted in an extremist government. In contrast, it is happening in Europe as we speak. So I say, sure, it's nice to be an idealist and expect Yemenis to elect someone who meets our standards. But let's look at ourselves first shall we? Extremist Clan 1: Democrats. Extremist Clan 2: Republicans. Lobbyists, corporations, wars, invasions, support of corrupt governments, all of these exist in these "educated" democracies. They are better now because people were given the freedom to choose, not because someone denied them access to democracy until they shaped up. They're just more eloquent. All the countries who have those things have been afforded the opportunity to seek those things and develop themselves in a way they see fit. Do you really think a sovereign nation's political education should be put into the hands of others? Please. No one would accept that. You wouldn't accept that. There is no basis for claiming that another sovereign doesn't deserve the chance that you had, and there is no evidence to suggest they will screw up other than what the media tells you. The same media that predicted it would happen in Egypt. The same media that alleges that Islamists came into power in Iran by people's choice. If you don't want **** to go wrong, protect independence, transparency, fairness and equality. Most importantly, it's none of anyone's business but their own. They can vote in whoever they want, and our concerns can only start when there is a threat to our own sovereignty. At the moment, the Yemeni people are worried about how soon water is going to run out, how they're going to make money, how they're going to get rid of the biggest drug problem in the world, and what's standing in their way is a US-supported autocracy facilitating the transition of power from Saleh's hands into another cronnie's hands. Once we have established that the Yemeni people are responsible for the actions of their government, then I'm on your side. Till then I can never agree with what you're saying here.
I know very little about Yemen, but my impression is that it is very backward and primitive even compared to other isolated and controlled Islamic nations. My point is, if the entire reality of the people is what they are taught from Mullahs, with no liberal education, no exposure to ideas outside of conservative interpretations of the Koran, isolated from ideas of democracy, theories of governance and modern ideas of gender equality, how would any internal revolution produce anything other than a new set of Islamic traditional leaders? With the same ideas of family/clan structure? second class citizenship for women? "Most importantly, it's none of anyone's business but their own." They have no idea what their business is or could be. That takes rational thought, wide study and discussion of alternatives, weighing options, consideration of minority rights, economic general welfare and strategic planning. Your not going to get an elected government with a civil system and equal rights, because that's like quantum physics for kindergartners. And that is why it is necessary to walk it up for while, with some hand holding and apparent hegemony to avoid chaos and extremism. But, maybe it very nice there.
You are correct, it is quite backward. Has planting leadership in a country ever worked? I don't think so. What it does is keep the country from moving forward. True, you are not going to get a system that fits the standards of developed countries. However, do they not deserve the right to determine their own future? If anything trying to determine whats right for them only gets them to hold onto the one the thing they have control over, that's their religion. Iran is a prime example of what happens when you try to force leadership that supports your interests rather than that of the peoples.
I should have been clearer with my point, my bad I was in a bit of a rush. What I'm saying is: 1) Yemen should have the chance that any other country had to reach their optimum government for their people. Because whereas people all deserve the same freedoms, not all people are the same, so the same organs of governance will not work universally. 2) The only way out of their belief system is freedom not coercion. 3) Intrusion into another sovereign nationa's political process is unacceptable unless that political process is detrimental to your own country's sovereignty. Yemenis have not ever been tested on that stage, nor is there any evidence to show they will act significantly different than the mean. Give me a break. You have one more alternative than they have. Republican or democrat? Interesting that you act like America doesn't consist of two and a half tribes. In fact I would argue that tribal clan systems are identical to the representative democracy model the US has in place. FYI tribes subscribe to the idea of independent arbitrators of conflicts, a central constitution, state law, seaparate treasury function, etc. It's not until Islam invaded all corners of the Middle East and Spain that things started going south. They are not as idiotic as you are making them out to be, not even close. Even Islam was able to bring rational thought, wide study and discussion of alternatives, weighing options, consideration of minority rights, economic general welfare and strategic planning to Yemen over 1,000 years ago.
You didn't see me questioning Tunisia, Egypt, Libya or Syria. On the contrary, I'm all for them and feel like they will evolve a democratic system in a decade or two. Yemen just seems a different animal.
I agree with you. Just saw your next post: Unfortunately, in my opinion (contrary to yours), to a gradually lesser degree than Yemen, the same holds true for all these Islamic and/or tribal nations. And even in countries like Morocco, Egypt, Tunisia, Islamists are taking over. I am not very optimistic for all these countries.
No, the situations are not comparable. I was just responding to the statement that installing a new, democratic government never worked.
The revolution wasn't strong enough to get him. If it was, a negotiated settlement like this wouldn't be necessary. But, I'm not sure how it is that removing Saleh from power hampers a revolution if they still want one (and I mean that sincerely -- I don't know, and can't figure it out). I think it only hampers prosecution of Saleh.
I'll answer with more detail and thought later, but tyrants will essentially delay departure and once they are ready they will anounce that they will reach an agreement. In addition, he will be handing over power which means there won't be a revolution in all organs of government, and his loyalists will remain scattered in different pockets, intentionally making it difficult for the country to function. Prosecuting Saleh is part of a full revolution. Not prosecuting Saleh is denying the yemeni people a full revolution. Facilitating his exit with an agreement is just an eloquent way of saying "harboring a fugitive." The U.S. has killed criminals and innocent people alike for doing things like this. There has to be money and jail time for Saleh and his cronnies, this is the essence of the revolution - to stick to principles and that no one is above the law. If he tries to leave, personally I hope they kill him with no remorse for him or his security people. He is a criminal on the run, that's all it is and they are his accomplices.
70 dead and thousands injured in a soccer game riot today in Port Said Stadium,Cairo. The images of the fans chasing down the opposing team players were nuts !! here's a link -- http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/02/01/egypt-clashes-stadium-deaths.html
