chicot

So getting rid of Saddam (a sworn enemy of Iran) and replacing him with a Shiite-dominated government on very friendly terms with Iran somehow helps to box them in

W was actually right about the spread of democracy in the Middle East but it has little to nothing to do with Iraq, in fact Iraq is now also seeing protests against the government. It was Tunisia that was the catalyst - people realised that if they all stood up to these dictators they could actually be toppled. Egypt then confirmed it and now, even though Gaddafi seems to be using every means at his disposal, it seems he's doomed as well. As for Syria, I think one reason may be that Assad is not as unpopular as these long-serving dictators and he has actually been making some reforms. Still, if the domino effect continues that could change.

Slim to none. Unlike Mubarak, who seems to have had very little true support, there is actually quite a lot of support for the Iranian regime especially in rural areas. In addition to that, I think the Iranian army is pretty well controlled unlike the Egyptian army, which basically washed it hands of Mubarak. No, I think Algeria, Libya and Yemen are much better bets for revolution than Iran.

Very different circumstances.

Actually there are toilets. Not the greatest admittedly but still. camp map

No, 70 billion dollars should be enough for him not to need to work again.

They were both consenting adults. Much ado about nothing.

If you truly had some wierd and ignorant belief that Palestinians were more closely related to the Australopithecus than Jews then I apologize for mistaking your stupidity for racism. If, on the other hand, you were trying to imply that Palestinians are somehow less evolved than other humans then my original assertion stands and you are indeed a racist. You're the only one who knows for sure whether you deserve an apology or not.

Definition of race: n. 1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics. 2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race. 3. A genealogical line; a lineage. 4. Humans considered as a group. You're assuming race has to mean 4) but it can also mean 1-3.

Fair enough. I'll assume he's brainless rather than racist then.

I think you're confusing his racism with ignorance I think his intent was pretty clear and, to me, to try and imply that any people or ethnic group is subhuman is racism pure and simple.

My apologies. I never realised you were a racist. Sorry to keep you from your KKK meeting.

Actually the people now known as Palestinians have been there as long as have the Jews. That they had not yet become muslims does not change the fact that the ancestors of the Palestinians were in fact there. The truly ironic thing is that genetically the Jews and Arabs are quite closely related - they just chose to have different imaginary friends. Regardless of how we got here, the fact is the Israelis are going nowhere and neither are the Palestinians. The status quo is untenable. It is in Israel's own best interest to come to an agreement now when it is in a position of strength rather than have one forced upon them when this is no longer the case. Jews are the genetic brothers of Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese

Assuming you are referring to the partition plan, you may consider that offering 56% of the land to a people who comprised only 33% (and of those many were very recent arrivals) of the population a fair and just solution. I do not. In any event, the Zionists never intended to stick to the partition plan either - it was always their intention to grab as much land as they possibly could. “after we become a strong force, as the result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine.” Ben Gurion “The partition of the Homeland is illegal . It will never be recognized.The signature of institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel (the land of Israel) will be restored to the people of Israel, All of it. And forever“. Menachem Begin

To be honest, I dont know that much about Nasser save for that fact that many Arabs revere him even today as he is seen as the only Arab leader willing to stand up to the West and Israel (noble failure being considered preferable to subservience). Your criticisms of him may be fair and valid as far as I know. Having said that, he was in control of Egypt for under 20 years. Sadat and Mubarak together had 40 years in which they could have rectified matters. They did not do so, instead using their time in office to line their own pockets and those of their cronies. For all his faults, that is one thing that Nasser never did.

Revolutions are seldom neat and tidy. You chide the arab world about being "backwards" and want them to join the modern age and yet when they try to do so, you get nervous. The demonstrations in Egypt were quite peaceful until Mubarak decided to send his goons into action. Institutions and laws do not just come into being - they need to be created. Getting rid of a corrupt dictator is a first step on the road to doing that.

Maybe they wouldn't want to eliminate it if they were allowed to live in it as equal citizens. It's quite hard to look kindly upon a nation whose creation caused you to lose everything and whose laws forbid you to return on the grounds that you are of the wrong ethnic group. As I have always said, the right of return whether based on actual return or financial compensation should apply equally to Palestinians forced to leave Palestine and Jews forced to leave Arab nations. BTW what do you think of the goings on in Egypt? Are you in favour of democracy in Egypt, no matter what form of government they choose or would you prefer a friendly dictator?

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't the Indians have the right to become full and equal citizens of the US? Yes, they should have the same right of self defence that any other nation has.

I don't intend to. I dont think any Arab nation should normalize relations with Israel or have peace treaties with them until there is a fair resolution to the Palestinian plight.

Not in the least. I would like to see the end of the current Israeli state and it's replacement with a bi-national state in which the rights of all it's citizens (both Jewish and Arab) would be guaranteed. I believe that both Israelis and Palestinians have an equal right to the land of Israel/Palestine and thus it should be shared by them both. That does not mean that I wish all Israelis to be killed.

This seems to be an incredibly hard concept for many to grasp but wanting to see the end of the current regime in Israel, even wanting to see the end of the current Israeli state does not actually equal wanting to "kill all Israelis", just as wanting to see an end to the Apartheid regime in South Africa didn't mean that you wanted to see all the white South Africans killed.

So they should have expelled him for something he was going to do in the future? I'm not quite sure why exactly it is the US's job to defend Israel. I would have thought with their large nuclear arsenal they were well capable of defending themselves. As for their mission statement, I guess that depends on who you want to believe. If you're hellbent on believing that the muslim brotherhood are a grave threat to western civilization I doubt I could convince you otherwise. Here's a snippet from the council of foreign relations article I linked to earlier: "Establishing an Islamic state based on sharia is at the center of the Muslim Brotherhood's ideology, both in Egypt and among the group's many offshoots abroad. But the Brotherhood in Egypt has often said it is committed to gradual and peaceful Islamization and only with the consensus of Egypt's citizens. In recent times, some leaders have dismissed the idea of an Islamic state and expressed commitment to work with other secular and liberal parties."

That's it exactly. The worry is that Mubarak uses the time to try and cling on. Incidentally, the article you linked to in a previous post made a very interesting point about the muslim brotherhood. The reason the muslim brotherhood was the most powerful political opponent of Mubarak is precisely because he wanted it that way. He could go to the West and ask for their support claiming that it was him or radical Islam as the alternative. If (I know it's a big if) Egypt does become a free democracy I very much doubt it will be such a major player once more moderate and secular political parties are allowed to form.

I think the problem is that the anti-Mubarak protestors have zero trust in Mubarak and his word, and fear that he's going to use the interim period to try and cling on to power or at least try and perpetuate his corrupt system. I'm not sure of what the current Egyptian contitution is but a new one seems to be a key demand of the protestors.

I can see there's not really not much point in trying to debate any of this with you so I wont bother any more.