North Africa and the middle east: just the US Government re-arranging their puppets?

[phildwyer]

There's a a tendency for people to become isolated from the real struggle when they enter the academy. It leaves then talking about big players and Geo-political stuff. It leaves their view one of shitness.

And there's a tendency for tinpot revolutionary fantasists to become over-excited at the sight of angry men throwing Molotov cocktails.

 

[1%er]

I think the US is desperately trying to limit the damage caused by events outside its control. Manouvring to ensure that regime change doesn't occur and that the mass movements now in motion do not result in damage to their geo-political interests. The degree to which they succeed depends on the degree to which they can stem or hijack or pacify these movements. Personally I think they are fucked. These events will sooner or later engulf the Palestinian territories and offer the only real hope for the Palestinians under occupation. For decades leftists have been criticising the policy of the Palestinian leadership which preferred to put its faith in Arab regimes rather than the masses. These events offer an alternative. Genuine mass support for an end to the occupation.

I think this about sums it up. It was very interesting that the first statement from the military in Egypt made it clear that they intend to honour "All" agreements currently in place, this was clearly directed towards Israel and the EUA.

 

[kyser_soze]

There's a a tendency for people to become isolated from the real struggle when they enter the academy. It leaves then talking about big players and Geo-political stuff. It leaves their view one of shitness.

And there's a tendency for tinpot revolutionary fantasists to become over-excited at the sight of angry men throwing Molotov cocktails.

So there's clearly somewhere in the middle which manages to combine both views Which is what dylans has been doing, I reckon.

What are the US' interests in Egypt? I mean real interests, not some pisspot stuff about trade.

 

[butchersapron]

And there's a tendency for tinpot revolutionary fantasists to become over-excited at the sight of angry men throwing Molotov cocktails.

I prefer them if they're arabs too.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

If anything, Washington looks like it's been totally shellshocked by all this

I thought they played events fairly well (mostly by staying out of it). Obama isn't a complete sociopath like Bush. He may work with dictators, but it leaves a bad taste in his mouth.

I'm certain they believe they can work with whoever takes Mubarek's place.

 

[butchersapron]

So there's clearly somewhere in the middle which manages to combine both views Which is what dylans has been doing, I reckon.

Wtf do you think i've been doing by emphasising over and over that no revolutions have happened - that we're at an early stage and so on? That US led democracy is most likely in Egypt and Tunsia without a social revolution?

There very few opposing views here. This is the ground that most of us start from.

 

[Spion]

Because it opens a whole new world up. They can sail past Israel to syria any number of ways.

They could have made the same journey at any time AFAIK. That they do so now is the most significant fact, IMO

 

[Spion]

So there's clearly somewhere in the middle which manages to combine both views Which is what dylans has been doing, I reckon.

What are the US' interests in Egypt? I mean real interests, not some pisspot stuff about trade.

The canal as a route for oil tankers

 

[kyser_soze]

Wtf do you think i've been doing by emphasising over and over that no revolutions have happened - that we're at an early stage and so on?

I was being a little flippant seeing you and phil go head-to-head

 

[butchersapron]

They could have made the same journey at any time AFAIK. That they do so now is the most significant fact, IMO

No they couldn't.

 

[kyser_soze]

The canal as a route for oil tankers

I suspected that would be one of the reasons. The other, I assume, is keeping life quiet for Israel.

 

[butchersapron]

I was being a little flippant seeing you and phil go head-to-head

Sorry, seeing this stuff turned into something it's not by some lazy fucker because he's bored gets on my tits. Every banal thing you say has been talked about on the threads phil.

 

[Spion]

No they couldn't.

Why not?

 

[Santino]

I prefer them if they're arabs too.

It also helps if they have some objectionable views we can be relativist about.

 

[butchersapron]

Why not?

Warships never allowed through before this.

 

[Spion]

Warships never allowed through before this.

You're mistaken. Go and check it out. A quick google provides egs of US and Israeli warships transiting the canal

 

[discokermit]

Why not?

i don't think they have since '79

 

[Idris2002]

You're mistaken. Go and check it out. A quick google provides egs of US and Israeli warships transiting the canal

I don't think those were quite the warships BA was thinking of, dear.

 

[butchersapron]

You're mistaken. Go and check it out. A quick google provides egs of US and Israeli warships transiting the canal

Not Iranian

 

[phildwyer]

Sorry, seeing this stuff turned into something it's not by some lazy fucker because he's bored gets on my tits. Every banal thing you say has been talked about on the threads phil.

Brilliant pix!

 

[kyser_soze]

Iranian warships weren't allowed through.

Of course the Iranian tactic to to goad Isreal into a predictably stupid reaction - it's not like it's an aggressive and paranoid regime already, and absolutely gagging for an excuse to actually drop the bomb on some arabs.

Because goading a violent paranoiac with access to a big gun is a genius idea.

 

[Spion]

Not Iranian

When did they try before?

 

[Spion]

Iranian warships weren't allowed through.

really? got any evidence for that?

 

[1%er]

really? got any evidence for that?

If you google "Iran use the Suez channel" almost every article say it, I believe this is the first time since 1979.

 

[butchersapron]

When did they try before?

Before 1979

 

[discokermit]

If you google "Iran use the Suez channel" almost every article say it, I believe this is the first time since 1979.

doesn't mean they 'weren't allowed' though.

 

[Spion]

If you google "Iran use the Suez channel" almost every article say it, I believe this is the first time since 1979.

I realise that. The question is did they try to transit the canal between 79 and now. Some posters are saying they weren't allowed

 

[butchersapron]

So why didn't they?

That they now are is significant. Sort of proving my point.

 

[rover07]

Eygpt cannot prevent any country's warships entering the Canal unless that country is at war.

 

[butchersapron]

Eygpt cannot prevent any country's warships entering the Canal unless that country is at war.

There's an international treaty but grow up.