Forum
Fuck Off Mubarak!
#22
Posted 17 February 2011 - 8:21 PM
#25
#27
Posted 22 February 2011 - 9:43 PM
Once the people start to realize that their voice does make a difference, there is just no stopping them. We are very lucky indeed to live in a time where such things are possible, not in small part thanks to this wonder of technology called internet. To be able to share opinions and information with people from all over the world... ahh, so much good will come from this!
#29
Posted 23 February 2011 - 4:55 PM
Mubarak obviously had more respect for his own people, and he must have understood that by not forcing the army to attack he could still stand down honourably. Ok, it's not right to compare to Gorbachev but maybe Mubarak was advised to take after him? Gaddafi on the other hand... He must be senile or otherwise bad tempered, both qualities entirely unfitting for a leader. And since he's already had protesters butchered there's no clean not to mention honourable way out (he must be painfully aware of this, considering how desperately he's clinging to his position). I think the longer he stays the less likely he's getting out alive.
I still think the Western world should not intervene any more than they have. Military action would only fuel extremist and xenophobe elements, which could in part make it much harder to form new governments any better or more democratic than the old.
#33
Posted 23 February 2011 - 6:58 PM
There's a number of Arabian states with dictatorships still. Much more in Africa - Sudan or Mugabe's Zimbabwe. A change there would be very welcome.
And in Belarus also, for sure. The country needs a change.
#34
Posted 23 February 2011 - 7:44 PM
Do you guys realize how serious a revolution really is? It's not like "oh, that country's in a bad state, I hope they revolt". Revolution is the complete destruction of the old society. If the people who are doing it are well-intentioned and keep those good intentions after taking power, then the chances of actual improvement are better. If not, or if those good intentions turn out to involve more destruction, things may only become worse. Regardless, revolutions are almost always violent and destructive things. You can't just use it as a cure-all.
#35
Posted 23 February 2011 - 8:14 PM
Champiness, on 23 February 2011 - 08:44 PM, said:
Do you guys realize how serious a revolution really is? It's not like "oh, that country's in a bad state, I hope they revolt". Revolution is the complete destruction of the old society. If the people who are doing it are well-intentioned and keep those good intentions after taking power, then the chances of actual improvement are better. If not, or if those good intentions turn out to involve more destruction, things may only become worse. Regardless, revolutions are almost always violent and destructive things. You can't just use it as a cure-all.
yeah, champi, I know what a revolution is. and I am hoping for one for sudan, zimbabwe, belarus and a couple of other countries.
just because they are quite often (not almost always, remember 1989/1990) violent and destructive and they do not neccessarily change things for better that does not mean they should not come up in certain parts of the world.
#36
Posted 23 February 2011 - 8:16 PM
sandelic, on 22 February 2011 - 01:43 PM, said:
Once the people start to realize that their voice does make a difference, there is just no stopping them. We are very lucky indeed to live in a time where such things are possible, not in small part thanks to this wonder of technology called internet. To be able to share opinions and information with people from all over the world... ahh, so much good will come from this!
Scales, on 23 February 2011 - 08:55 AM, said:
Mubarak obviously had more respect for his own people, and he must have understood that by not forcing the army to attack he could still stand down honourably. Ok, it's not right to compare to Gorbachev but maybe Mubarak was advised to take after him? Gaddafi on the other hand... He must be senile or otherwise bad tempered, both qualities entirely unfitting for a leader. And since he's already had protesters butchered there's no clean not to mention honourable way out (he must be painfully aware of this, considering how desperately he's clinging to his position). I think the longer he stays the less likely he's getting out alive.
I still think the Western world should not intervene any more than they have. Military action would only fuel extremist and xenophobe elements, which could in part make it much harder to form new governments any better or more democratic than the old.
Very nicely said, you 2. I like the input from everyone, and can learn a lot by just reading what everyone says.
I don't preach violence but I think sometimes revolutions are a necessary evil in a time when evil prevails.
#37
Posted 23 February 2011 - 8:20 PM
also, all of us would live under permanent threat of a nuclear (and obviously final) war.
#38
Posted 24 February 2011 - 12:33 AM
BoywiththeGoldenEyes, on 23 February 2011 - 09:20 PM, said:
also, all of us would live under permanent threat of a nuclear (and obviously final) war.
second that.
i also know that revolutions are mostly violent und cruel. but it's good to see that people without many resources AND in a repressive nation can change things. we europeans had our big revolutions back in the days (france, germany, italy,...) and like boywiththegoldeneyes said, it was important to have them. if it's not violent, brutal it's (almost) not a revolution, no, it's "just" protest. That's why the privileged who live in free countrys with democracies should think of why they life in a free country
#39
Posted 24 February 2011 - 4:10 AM