Is the "Arab spring" over with?

[Phier]

First I think calling it an Arab spring is a misnomer being this goes beyond just Arab's but thats a minor point.

Secondly we have Tunisia and Egypt 'fall' for lack of a better word, then Libya but ONLY with extensive NATO help. Iran could be said (even though they are Persians) to have had their spring which was brutaly crushed after their last elections. Syria won't be going anywhere unless we start bombing them, and well that seems to be it.

So basically we have North Africa which has a good chance of being less free than they were prior to the revolutions, and well thats it.

Being I'm no expert on this sort of thing, is there any more to be expected or has this basically died.

[panzer 4]

the americans only helped Libya because it had.... assets.... that needed.... liberating...

but no, they wont help Syria, why would they, does Syria actually have anything to offer the USA?

[Prosaic Visitant]

the americans only helped Libya because it had.... assets.... that needed.... liberating...

but no, they wont help Syria, why would they, does Syria actually have anything to offer the USA?

1. It was France that pushed for the NFZ.
2. The US was a reluctant participant; I think they even shifted the load unto the Europeans near the end.
3. The risk of Islamists pulling a 1979 is very real, the world knows this, so why would the French and British risk having a Persia redux so close to their borders when Gaddafi proved to be a unsavory but stable partner?
4. I dare you to prove the NFZ was used for 'assets' beyond the typical ambiguous rhetoric. I want actual statistics, leaked memos, declarations etc.

@OP: The 'Arab Spring' has appeared to have fizzled out and despite the fairly inspirational shots of masses of people chanting slogans and dictators being exposed as the paranoid and appearing frail, the AS hasn't quite lived up to its hype... yet. Maybe things will get better for the Egyptians and Libyans, or maybe not. Maybe things are still to early to call, but the AS is looking increasingly finished.

Obviously one lesson is that no regime is ever truly safe and if enough people can't put food on the table, they tend to get nasty; this is obvious to us but others need reminding of this fact.

Overall, I hate to say it, but the 'Arab Spring' in 2011 bears a closer resemblance to 1848 rather than 1989.

[Phier]

Obviously one lesson is that no regime is ever truly safe and if enough people can't put food on the table, they tend to get nasty; this is obvious to us but others need reminding of this fact.

I forget the source but I think the saying goes a revolution is three days without food.

[Yosemite]

so why would the French and British risk having a Persia redux so close to their borders when Gaddafi proved to be a unsavory but stable partner?

neveremind popular unrests

[The excited one]

the americans only helped Libya because it had.... assets.... that needed.... liberating...

but no, they wont help Syria, why would they, does Syria actually have anything to offer the USA?

so true since other Arab countries don't have natural resources to offer to the west so they just publish a few criticisms instead just to make them like "look human right activist i actually do SOMETHING" and get the votes and also they are cash strapped anyway (thus they only spend money to liberate countries that has a return like more favorable contracts to drill their land for more oil at a cheaper price)

[ash874]

the americans only helped Libya because it had.... assets.... that needed.... liberating...

but no, they wont help Syria, why would they, does Syria actually have anything to offer the USA?

your focus on hypocricy and double standards is commendable
of course both turkey and the arab states which have thousands of modern warplanes have not moved a finger at all
their supporters the much glorified rising empires of china russia india and brasil are doing absolutely nothing
but mentioning that didnt cross your mind right? we must only focus on anti americanism
in fact turkey for a couple months demanded that no action will be taken in libya
only when the rebel victory seemed likely did turkey swich its tune

[Prosaic Visitant]

your focus on hypocricy and double standards is commendable
of course both turkey and the arab states which have thousands of modern warplanes have not moved a finger at all
their supporters the much glorified rising empires of china russia india and brasil are doing absolutely nothing
but mentioning that didnt cross your mind right? we must only focus on anti americanism
in fact turkey for a couple months demanded that no action will be taken in libya
only when the rebel victory seemed likely did turkey swich its tune

Quite possibly the most crushing rebut of all time.

Also, the fact that it was France and Britain and not America who pushed most for the No-Fly-Zone doesn't stop these simplistic views from emerging.

[panzer 4]

your focus on hypocricy and double standards is commendable
of course both turkey and the arab states which have thousands of modern warplanes have not moved a finger at all
their supporters the much glorified rising empires of china russia india and brasil are doing absolutely nothing
but mentioning that didnt cross your mind right? we must only focus on anti americanism
in fact turkey for a couple months demanded that no action will be taken in libya
only when the rebel victory seemed likely did turkey swich its tune

why would the arabs help them? why would you help a revolution in the neighbouring country, if your own coutnry has very similar conditions to the one where the revolution is being bred?

and your wrong btw, some Gulf nations actually did send in war planes.

and unlike america, all those nations which you mentioned have had minimal, if at any, interference with the middle east.

[ash874]

why would the arabs help them? why would you help a revolution in the neighbouring country, if your own coutnry has very similar conditions to the one where the revolution is being bred?

and your wrong btw, some Gulf nations actually did send in war planes.

and unlike america, all those nations which you mentioned have had minimal, if at any, interference with the middle east.

1. very telling response
indeed why would the arab help them

2. the arab world first asked for the intervention, then condemned it
the turncoats that they are, they cared more about ending up on the winning side than anything else

3.lie. with what weapons are qaddafi and assad killing people? american weapons? no. those are russian and chinese and s.american weapons.
those countries support the muslims in every turn and thus are directly responsible for how mental these people have become

if there is one county that owes absolutely nothing to these organisms it would be the US

but lets not forget about turkey now
you seem to be a person with some attachments to turkey
so share your information with the group
why didnt/doesnt turkey do anything
why did it call for non interference in lybia's "internal affairs"
to the point of critisizing "western imperialism" when NATO intervened

does turkey have a similiar condition to lybia or syria?
are they less connected to lybia and syria than the west?

all these are of course rethorical questions
you cant really defend hypocracy all you can manage to do is to add more garbage to the previous garbage youve been contributing to the forum

[panzer 4]

1. very telling response
indeed why would the arab help them

2. the arab world first asked for the intervention, then condemned it
the turncoats that they are, they cared more about ending up on the winning side than anything else

3.lie. with what weapons are qaddafi and assad killing people? american weapons? no. those are russian and chinese and s.american weapons.
those countries support the muslims in every turn and thus are directly responsible for how mental these people have become

if there is one county that owes absolutely nothing to these organisms it would be the US

but lets not forget about turkey now
you seem to be a person with some attachments to turkey
so share your information with the group
why didnt/doesnt turkey do anything
why did it call for non interference in lybia's "internal affairs"
to the point of critisizing "western imperialism" when NATO intervened

does turkey have a similiar condition to lybia or syria?
are they less connected to lybia and syria than the west?

all these are of course rethorical questions
you cant really defend hypocracy all you can manage to do is to add more garbage to the previous garbage youve been contributing to the forum

2. the goal of the arab is to maintain his position, while bringing that around him lower

3. Qaddafi isnt the one, im talking about Yemen Saudi.

4. Turkey, is something i have no idea about. and why does everyone think i support Turkey? its a government which i don't support. its people, thats another story. but turkey does have a point, the Americans are sending an unusual amount of "advisors" to egypt to ensure, that they vote for the "right" people.

[Yosemite]

only when the rebel victory seemed likely did turkey swich its tune

why engage yourself in a failing project? why waste billions in something that will never succeed?

[panzer 4]

why engage yourself in a failing project? why waste billions in something that will never succeed?

that is true, it is sad that is how the muslims view each other in this day and age, but unfortunately that is the truth.

[clone]

springs are never over. they may pass but will come again

[justicar5]

the americans only helped Libya because it had.... assets.... that needed.... liberating...

but no, they wont help Syria, why would they, does Syria actually have anything to offer the USA?

actually Qaddafi was a and the TNC asked for help..so lets call that one for the good guys (for once). Also the EU did not want an unstable southern neighbour flooding it with refugees.

[Magicman2051]

The Americans barely got involved in Lybia compared to other notable conflicts, in this case they helped the UN enforce the no-fly zone and then, after that, mostly allowed the French and the British to take the lead.

But no, the Arab Spring is not dead by any definition, there is still more to come.

[chamaeleo]

Of course it's over. I hear the interim governments are all printing "Mission Accomplished" banners.

[Phier]

But no, the Arab Spring is not dead by any definition, there is still more to come.

And what makes you think that? The other nations have had time to prepare now, and progress seems to be at a halt.

[Magicman2051]

Surprisingly enough both Morroco and Saudi Arabia have been busy instituting reforms intended to improve the lives of their citizens, with Morocco largely caving to an initial wave of demands and Saudi Arabia getting ahead of the protest movement and resolving the situation before it even started.

It wouldn't surprise me if we began seeing both of those nations slowly develop into more balanced societies.

The situation in Syria isn't resolved, by any definition, and we have yet to see the full effect of what happened in Egypt. This is all still a part of the one movement.

[Prosaic Visitant]

Surprisingly enough both Morroco and Saudi Arabia have been busy instituting reforms intended to improve the lives of their citizens, with Morocco largely caving to an initial wave of demands and Saudi Arabia getting ahead of the protest movement and resolving the situation before it even started.

It wouldn't surprise me if we began seeing both of those nations slowly develop into more balanced societies.

The situation in Syria isn't resolved, by any definition, and we have yet to see the full effect of what happened in Egypt. This is all still a part of the one movement.

If the Saudi and Morocan governments are serious about that, that is only a good thing; do you know what exactly they are doing?

However, the bad side effect is it will prolong the life of those regimes.

I forget the source but I think the saying goes a revolution is three days without food.

An accurate saying. Funny how it's simple things like food that kick start revolutions.