Thoughts on Egypt, Libya, Tunisia etc.

Anyone seen a good non-biased assessment of how all of this will most likely affect the U.S.? Not looking for "ZOMG THE MUSLIMS ARE GONNA GET US!" blogs, but something from someone with a clue without an agenda.

oldpbnoob wrote: Anyone seen a good non-biased assessment of how all of this will most likely affect the U.S.?

brihard wrote: Oil prices are spiking considerably already. That'll have a definite and relatively immediate economic impact. As it stands, while this is significant, what's more important is where protests AREN'T happening- particularly Saudi Arabia. If things start brewing up there, I expect it would end up unfolding less like Egypt and more like Libya. The Saudi monarchy has nothing to fall back upon if they lose power. I'm concerned that this will galvanize pan-Arab Islamism. Idon't think the most significant effects of this will be felt for some years yet. This IS a game changer for the middle east- the people have realized their power both within their nations and collectively in the region. But it's going to go horribly, horribly wrong in some cases- again, witness Libya. Not sure yet what the foreign policy ramifications are going to be...

But honestly, does anyone see this type of thing happening in Saudi Arabia? IIRC, doesn't the state essentially subsidize everything there? I thought I remember seeing a 60 minutes spot where they mentioned the amount of money and social services that were provided by the government. It seemed like they had a pretty decent quality of life because the wealth created by oil fields was, while not necessarily fairly, distributed among the people.

Edited by oldpbnoob - 21 February 2011 at 4:01pm

I got the impression that a lot of the uprisings were as much for lack of jobs/wealth etc as they were for democracy. Seems like the call for democratic reform is veiling the real motivation.

This is madness.

scotchyscotch wrote: I just saw the Libyans ordered the air force to bomb protesters. The pilots defected and took the planes to Malta where they're seeking asylum. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/21/libya-pilots-flee-to-malta

Yep, they happened. Quadaffi's (sic) son says that they were trying to blow up gov't ammo depots before the protesters could take them, but wound up missing their mark. Knowing the Libyan dictatorship's past moves, I'm prone to say that they're full of excrement.

Egypt's protests and change came about mainly due to the educated middle class getting fed up with paying for school and paying taxes only to see unemployment and no benefits from the gov't. While the Muslim Brotherhood may get some sort of headway from the ouster of the old regime, I don't think they'll have the backing of the poor that they need unless the middle class doesn't act quickly (just look at the Bolshevik revolution for a parallel). Tunisia has more of an opportunity to become slightly more fundamentalist, but not by much. Tunis and its surroundings have always benefited greatly from trade with Europe and I doubt that thousands of years of surviving off of not pissing off your trade partners will anchor them in a stance that if not exactly "pro-west" will be far from the extremism we see in the middle east.

I'd like to see the UN step into Libya and put Quadaffi on trial for crimes against humanity, but then again, that's like saying "I'd like a million dollars" and have it just happen.

An observation:

The first people into a market, area or situation are usually the first to master/exploit said market or situation.

Microsoft was the first into the PC market and thus mastered it.  Nintendo was the first into the console market and thus mastered it.  Ford was the first into the mass-produced automobile market and thus mastered it.

Every aforementioned company, while not currently as great as they were at one time, were the first into their market and were the best at what they did; they mastered their respective areas.  This is the nature of man; first figure out, then conquer.

That said, the following baffles me: Africa is the accepted continent of the origin of our species.  This is a fact.  Africa was the first into the market that which is being human.

Yet, still to this day they have yet to understand what it means to be human (i.e. civilized).

This confuses me.

Hysteria wrote: That said, the following baffles me: Africa is the accepted continent of the origin of our species.  This is a fact.  Africa was the first into the market that which is being human. Yet, still to this day they have yet to understand what it means to be human (i.e. civilized). This confuses me.

Oddly enough, I had pondered this a while back. I had thought about posting up as a topic, but didnt get around to it. It fascinates me as well that it is the origins of human civilization, yet is quite possibly at the lowest rung of civilized humanity, while so many other areas were populated so much later, yet seem to be farther along. By rights, shouldn't Africa be a couple of millenia ahead of all of us?

But Africa isn't exactly resource poor is it? Some of the richest deposits of gold, silver, and iron are abundant there arent they?  There are still vast forests there as well. What resources did Europe have that Africa did not?