Arab Spring takes another leader...

[Farnan]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,3120519.story

The President of Yemen has annouced he is stepping down...

[Lord Zhang Ku]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,3120519.story

The President of Yemen has annouced he is stepping down...

I know, hopefully the Yemeni's will be able to form a true democracy.

[Armenum]

I know, hopefully the Yemeni's will be able to form a true democracy.

Honestly, I am very doubtful that will happen. From the outside it may look like a "democratic" revolution, but it can very easily be the replacing of one seemingly undemocratic leader with another. In essence, the rivals of the president taking advantage of the popular uprising to take power.

[MehemtAli_Pasha]

can someone ever be criminally immune? i am mean, this guy is almost saying "hey i know i killed some of you rats, but will you not come after me after i am gone!"

[Poet]

can someone ever be criminally immune? i am mean, this guy is almost saying "hey i know i killed some of you rats, but will you not come after me after i am gone!"

Don't you know Pervaiz Musharraf the bastard son of Bush Junior?

There were very few Democrats in that movement...

And generally the Mujahideen didn't support Al Qaeda, it didn't even exist in that organization. But I digress.

The Arab Spring is not like the Mujahideen. The Mujahideen were fighting a foreign invader and their goal was removal of the foreign invader. The Arab Spring has a goal of a more accountable and democratic governance, which Al Qaeda and America is opposed to.

Corrected.

[Farnan]

Corrected.

Ummm...

The US pressured (ie forced) the President of Yemen to back down, is supporting the Libyan rebels militarily, supports the movement in Syria, and the person behind the fall of Mubarak had recently had a chat with the Pentagon prior to overthrowing Mubarak.

So where is your proof that America opposes the movement?

[Dr Zoidberg]

So where is your proof that America opposes the movement?

Proof? Poet? Farnan, you should know better than that!

[Babur]

Proof? Poet? Farnan, you should know better than that!

Actually a lot of posters in TWC don't like to give sources

[Farnan]

Criminal immunity is a legal term meaning that he cannot be prosecuted for a certain crime. It is often given to former dictators to encourage them to step down, as many know they would be facing death without it.

[MehemtAli_Pasha]

i know what the term means but i am just arguing the legitimacy of it. it's not the people's right to sentence or not to sentence a criminal, it's more of a right of those who lost their lives. it's despicable to even negotiate for such thing.

[Dr Zoidberg]

i know what the term means but i am just arguing the legitimacy of it. it's not the people's right to sentence or not to sentence a criminal, it's more of a right of those who lost their lives. it's despicable to even negotiate for such thing.

What's the alternative? Have him stay in power and kill more people?

[MehemtAli_Pasha]

What's the alternative? Have him stay in power and kill more people?

unfortunately no. i just hope they get him somehow.

[YuriVII]

What's the alternative? Have him stay in power and kill more people?

Don't worry man, there is gonna be democracy in Yemen. They are gonna give women their rights, and respect the dignity of minority Jewish and Christian populations. Thanks to this revolution, I predict they will be like Germany this time next year. Because they have the power of democracy!

[Dr Zoidberg]

Don't worry man, there is gonna be democracy in Yemen. They are gonna give women their rights, and respect the dignity of minority Jewish and Christian populations. Thanks to this revolution, I predict they will be like Germany this time next year. Because they have the power of democracy!

You mean like this?

[Justice and Mercy]

i know what the term means but i am just arguing the legitimacy of it. it's not the people's right to sentence or not to sentence a criminal, it's more of a right of those who lost their lives. it's despicable to even negotiate for such thing.

No it's not, as long as the agreement isn't taken to be morally or legally binding.

Properly, take over and then kill the man.

You might say that it ceases to have any utility for other countries that want to pass such a deal, but it's not the responsibility of THAT people to worry about future revolutions in other countries.

Honestly, I am very doubtful that will happen. From the outside it may look like a "democratic" revolution, but it can very easily be the replacing of one seemingly undemocratic leader with another. In essence, the rivals of the president taking advantage of the popular uprising to take power.

Or: It IS a "democratic revolution" and it will come to be that one man is taken to represent the people as a whole.

Not exactly an original event, hmm?

In any democratic form of government, the questions arise: How is the will of "the people" determined, and how should it be administered?

The answer that any honest man comes to is: There is no will of "the people." The manner in which the law is written and administered determines who exactly, is "the people" at any given time.

THIS is why democracy is evil. Democracy is simply a system in which some men leash and harness the energy and life of others, the only question is: How shall it be determined who holds the leash?

Note that this describes nearly every government in history, with one, glorious, notable (and never quite fully realized, with the most obvious taint being slavery) exception. The United States of America. For the first time in history, the government was almost completely subordinate not to "the people", but to the individual. Thus, every man could live his own life as he wished, not harnessed or leashed by any other.

American exceptionalism is historical fact.

[MehemtAli_Pasha]

No it's not, as long as the agreement isn't taken to be morally or legally binding.

Properly, take over and then kill the man.

You might say that it ceases to have any utility for other countries that want to pass such a deal, but it's not the responsibility of THAT people to worry about future revolutions in other countries.

i would think Ali Saleh would guarantee himself a safe exist before even thinking about stepping down. what's happening to Mubarak and his fellows over in Egypt sends the red alarm to all dictators out there.

[Justice and Mercy]

i would think Ali Saleh would guarantee himself a safe exist before even thinking about stepping down. what's happening to Mubarak and his fellows over in Egypt sends the red alarm to all dictators out there.

Perphaps, but attempts should be made along with a proclamation of intent (to try and execute the tyrant).

[justicar5]

Note that this describes nearly every government in history, with one, glorious, notable (and never quite fully realized, with the most obvious taint being slavery) exception. The United States of America. For the first time in history, the government was almost completely subordinate not to "the people", but to the individual. Thus, every man could live his own life as he wished, not harnessed or leashed by any other.

American exceptionalism is historical fact.

Exceptional in blood lust maybe.... sorry declaring South America your playground and systematically destroying the place (either directly or by proxy dictators) to keep it under the thumb is not a unique or exceptional, just murderous and criminal.

[Armenum]

Or: It IS a "democratic revolution" and it will come to be that one man is taken to represent the people as a whole.

Not exactly an original event, hmm?

In any democratic form of government, the questions arise: How is the will of "the people" determined, and how should it be administered?

The answer that any honest man comes to is: There is no will of "the people." The manner in which the law is written and administered determines who exactly, is "the people" at any given time.

THIS is why democracy is evil. Democracy is simply a system in which some men leash and harness the energy and life of others, the only question is: How shall it be determined who holds the leash?

Note that this describes nearly every government in history, with one, glorious, notable (and never quite fully realized, with the most obvious taint being slavery) exception. The United States of America. For the first time in history, the government was almost completely subordinate not to "the people", but to the individual. Thus, every man could live his own life as he wished, not harnessed or leashed by any other.

American exceptionalism is historical fact.

While democracy in itself is a formidable notion, it has unfortunately been hijacked to be interpreted as a government that is favourable to the West, especially US. I just see a glaring hypocrisy in the push of "democracies" on countries that US isn't fond of, when on the other hand they have well supported governments and leaders who led oppressive regimes. It seems democracy is just a tool used to cover up the real, more sinister motives.

[Babur]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,3120519.story

The President of Yemen has annouced he is stepping down...

well I hope there isn't another civil war