Depends on the treaty, of course? Regardless, this is a game of semantics. We would end our obligations to them, thus ending their obligations to us. That is bad.
Depends on the treaty, of course? Regardless, this is a game of semantics. We would end our obligations to them, thus ending their obligations to us. That is bad.
In practice it is simpler than you think. Since very few treaties outside of perhaps WTO membership have robust non compliance mechanisms in place, treaties are basically only in force as long as each party thinks it is in their interest. So if a new government arises that doesn't like some treaty obligations they will probably just ignore them. The only thing to prevent them from doing it is the behavior of other states, but that is almost entirely a political, not legal consideration.
Usually when you see countries adhering to shitty treaty terms it's because they lack the power to get better ones, not out of respect for legal principles that would bind them.
werepossum
Elite Member
- Jul 10, 2006
- 29,873
- 463
- 126
Agreed. Egypt has traded a relatively benevolent dictator for a theocracy, but it's their choice and one virtually every Middle Eastern Islamic nation will make - the exception being Iraq due to its split sects. The only way to force Western values on these people would be to totally destroy and rebuild their society, including changing their religion - not really an act in line with Western values. Obama supported Mubarak until he was clearly going to fall; any greater or more overt support from the Great Satan would have been counter-productive.
People have the right to self-determination. If their decisions result in their eventual destruction, at least they chose their dictator and path rather than having an imposed dictator choose for them.
Proggie deck: 52 race cards and a couple of jokers - in case you need to play the race card.
AFTER we completely withdraw from Iraq?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.–Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement
Iraq has been on its own for a year now, in political control since June 2004, and under its present system of tripartite government since May 2006. We've been largely training Iraqis and fighting foreign fighters since. Our last combat units were withdrawn in December 2011; now we're down to training units, infrastructure medical and engineering units, sufficient company-sized combat detachments to provide self-defense for military and civilian non-combatants, and patrol and air cover air forces and support - although I have heard rumors we're sending a brigade combat group back to Iraq just in case the fighting in Syria spills over.
I share your wonder that anyone is surprised about this outcome. The Islamic faith includes a system of theological governance, providing for complete life and death control over the individual. Frankly it's far more surprising to me that so many majority-Muslim nations have managed to fend of becoming a theocracy, let alone that a few have actually become more or less functional democratic republics.
A popular uprising without a strong leader resulted in chaos, the most organized and ruthless group or party then took over. Now the Muslim Brotherhood has a chance at governing, let them fix the Egyptian currently economic woes. If they can't, a hungry Egypt will throw them out. The Muslim Brotherhood are Islamist but they are nothing like the Iranian Revolution Guard, the Egyptians won't tolerate.
Last edited:
As I understand it, and I do not have a background in international treaties, laws, or constitutions:
The constitution or its equivalent is the scaffolding of a government and where the powers of the elected officials are derived from including the power to negotiate treaties.
The nullification or destruction of that legal construct would give any countries the ability to choose to not honor, simply by not recognizing that the new government is the old government.
For well documented examples, see the Maoist revolution in China, the American Civil War, and the Iranian revolution.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
I am surprised no one on this thread has looked at the current Egyptian government and relates it to the current problems Morsi has. As a more accurate history is as follows.
(1) Regardless if the Egyptian protests against Mubarak was an outgrowth of the Arab spring or would have been inevitable anyway, the results were the same. As Egyptian street protests against the corrupt Mubarak kept growing. And when Mubarak called on his army to violently suppress those peaceful demonstrations, and his own army refused, it was the basic end of Mubarak.
(2) Once Mubarak was forced to resign, the Egyptian army became a caretaker government until Egyptian democratic elections could be held. As the Egyptian army also had some help from former Egyptian government ministers and the former corrupt Mubarak appointed courts. The first Egyptian elections involved Egypt's lower house legislature, months later, elections were held for the upper house. And finally the election of the Egyptian prime minister was held. Which was won by Morsi, a MB backed candidate. As the ultra rightist Salifts finishing second in the legislative elections, and ex Mubarak ministers finished second in the Presidential election.
(3) At that point in time Morsi and his democratically elected government was very popular. As their government was in place and prepared to pass legislation. However the judges appoint by Mubarak wanted to hang onto to power, and did so by invalidating the entire election for Egypt's lower house over procedural matters. As it soon became apparent that corrupt Mubarak era judges would perpetually prevent the formation of a democratically elected government.
(4) Morsi started slow and soon gained the support of the Army and the people. But still the courts hamstrung everything Morsi tried as democratically elected judges would have been next. After six months or better of that grid-lock Morsi blundered and gave himself temporary dictatorial power. And even if Morsi has majority support in Egypt, he alienated enough of the Egyptian people to make his acceptably as a democratic elected leader highly questionable.
Meanwhile, while the Egyptian people squabble over the Morsi question, Egypt is in a state of semi-anarchy, always a danger to itself and its neighbors. And also ripe for a military coup or any wanna bee dictator.
(1) Regardless if the Egyptian protests against Mubarak was an outgrowth of the Arab spring or would have been inevitable anyway, the results were the same. As Egyptian street protests against the corrupt Mubarak kept growing. And when Mubarak called on his army to violently suppress those peaceful demonstrations, and his own army refused, it was the basic end of Mubarak.
(2) Once Mubarak was forced to resign, the Egyptian army became a caretaker government until Egyptian democratic elections could be held. As the Egyptian army also had some help from former Egyptian government ministers and the former corrupt Mubarak appointed courts. The first Egyptian elections involved Egypt's lower house legislature, months later, elections were held for the upper house. And finally the election of the Egyptian prime minister was held. Which was won by Morsi, a MB backed candidate. As the ultra rightist Salifts finishing second in the legislative elections, and ex Mubarak ministers finished second in the Presidential election.
(3) At that point in time Morsi and his democratically elected government was very popular. As their government was in place and prepared to pass legislation. However the judges appoint by Mubarak wanted to hang onto to power, and did so by invalidating the entire election for Egypt's lower house over procedural matters. As it soon became apparent that corrupt Mubarak era judges would perpetually prevent the formation of a democratically elected government.
(4) Morsi started slow and soon gained the support of the Army and the people. But still the courts hamstrung everything Morsi tried as democratically elected judges would have been next. After six months or better of that grid-lock Morsi blundered and gave himself temporary dictatorial power. And even if Morsi has majority support in Egypt, he alienated enough of the Egyptian people to make his acceptably as a democratic elected leader highly questionable.
Meanwhile, while the Egyptian people squabble over the Morsi question, Egypt is in a state of semi-anarchy, always a danger to itself and its neighbors. And also ripe for a military coup or any wanna bee dictator.
werepossum
Elite Member
- Jul 10, 2006
- 29,873
- 463
- 126
Pretty much. I suspect the Muslim Brotherhood will want to continue the treaty until they are confident they have enough weaponry to destroy Israel and we will want to continue the treaty to maintain our ties with Egypt's military. For that matter, the Egyptian military is moderately pro-West and if the Muslim Brotherhood tries to move against Israel without taking the time to gradually replace pro-Western officers with salafist officers, we may well see another coup.
I doubt this. The US provides far more weaponry to Israel than it does to any other country, there's just not a credible path for Egypt to 'bide its time' in that manner.
KlokWyze
Diamond Member
People aren't surprised they're just disappointed the liberated didn't do what we wanted them to do.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Egyptian military may be moderately pro-Israel, but where does this assumption come from that the Egyptian election was only all about Israel or that the New Muslim brotherhood backed government of Egypt would dedicate itself only to the destruction of Israel?
When the new mid-east reality, post the 1973, left Israel with super conventional war military hegemony. And that Israel without even trying could beat the combined armies of all combined Arab mid-east armies.
So get off your unreality fantasy werepossim, the threat to Israel lies in stateless terrorists who have not given Israel a moment of peace since 1948, and never will, unless Israel starts treating 35% of its population in a more fair and equitable manner. And as long as long as Israel keeps violating the Geneva convention by settling on land they do not own, democratic and dictatorial Arab and Persian nations will wait for the rest of the world to realize Israel is a rouge nation they cannot support. As Israeli survival as a nation will never long term happen without a Palestinian State or a more draconian forced assimilation of its Palestinian large minority with full voting rights.
Meanwhile, werepossim, we can ask, what has the Morsi Egyptian government done that has been hostile to Israel?
werepossum
Elite Member
- Jul 10, 2006
- 29,873
- 463
- 126
Well - the US provides a lot of parts to Israel, many if not most of which are re-exported. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe we import about as many weapons systems from Israel as we export to them. My point however was that Egypt is currently ordering more M1A1 Abrams tanks as well as (if memory serves) MLRS; they aren't going to want to piss us off until they are ready to act as they'll need to stock up on spares they cannot produce locally.
The motto of the Muslim Brotherhood is: "Allah is our objective; the Quran is our law, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations." It is an ideological organization in scores of countries with the express goal of establishing a worldwide Islamic caliphate. Unless you assume that Israel is going to be wiped off the map by someone else first or will voluntarily convert to the glories of submission, the question isn't if the Muslim Brotherhood will go to war with Israel, but rather when. Its plan for subverting the USA from within (see Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development) simply will not work on Israel, and Israel being located on what Salafists consider holy ground I doubt they are inclined to wait for a miracle. Already spokesmen are calling for the Parliament to "re-evaluate" the peace treaty with Israel. I'll be amazed if they aren't at war within a decade.
EDIT: By the way, Israel came within a hair's breadth of losing the Yom Kippur War to Egypt and Syria. Egypt is now ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood, a group whose express purpose is establishing a worldwide Islamic caliphate. Syria will be ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood within a year. The provocation in the '73 war was Israel's refusal to cede back the territory Egypt lost in the '67 war. How long before that demand comes again?
EDIT2: Oh, by the way, Hamas isn't stateless any longer. Its parent organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, now rules a country. Within a year, Hamas' political wing will run two countries, on either side of Israel.
Last edited:
No, the US is a huge net exporter of military equipment to Israel. They are in fact our single largest recipient of military aid by a country mile. There's really no evidence that Egypt would be considering any military action against Israel for a number of reasons.
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
There are different levels of dumb. A majority of Egyptians was dumb enough to vote for (or stay home from voting against) this Constitution, that's fair. Nobody is dumb enough to take on Israel or the U.S. in a conventional arms war. Even the Iranians and North Koreans aren't that deluded.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Werepossim, where do you get the idea that Hamas is a stateless terrorists group.
As organizations like Al-Quida and their local off spring better fit the definition. As a stated terrorist group has to worry about attracting too much retaliation to the State that sponsors them.
While a stateless terrorist group like Al-Quida wants to invite the maximum retaliation and damage to the State they borrow, so the larger blame goes on Israel for its disproportional brutality. And while Arab states do nothing hostile to Egypt, their citizens open up their wallets to fund all kinds of stateless terrorist groups.
And the bigger the Israeli retaliation and more outrageously Israel behaves in regard to settlement policy, the more funding anti-Israeli terrorists get. At this point, now that anti-Israeli terrorists have mostly adopted overgrown bottle rockets, the threat to Israel is minimal, but I warned this forum that sooner or later the rockets would have longer ranges and probably contain chemical or biological warheads. It has not happened yet, but its almost certain that it will.
I certainly am not siding with terrorists here, but I know enough about PEOPLE and countries through history to understand, there will be no peace in the mid-east without a return of fairness to the Palestinian people.
Terrorism is not a cause war and conflict, and instead its mostly a symptom of social inequity.
As organizations like Al-Quida and their local off spring better fit the definition. As a stated terrorist group has to worry about attracting too much retaliation to the State that sponsors them.
While a stateless terrorist group like Al-Quida wants to invite the maximum retaliation and damage to the State they borrow, so the larger blame goes on Israel for its disproportional brutality. And while Arab states do nothing hostile to Egypt, their citizens open up their wallets to fund all kinds of stateless terrorist groups.
And the bigger the Israeli retaliation and more outrageously Israel behaves in regard to settlement policy, the more funding anti-Israeli terrorists get. At this point, now that anti-Israeli terrorists have mostly adopted overgrown bottle rockets, the threat to Israel is minimal, but I warned this forum that sooner or later the rockets would have longer ranges and probably contain chemical or biological warheads. It has not happened yet, but its almost certain that it will.
I certainly am not siding with terrorists here, but I know enough about PEOPLE and countries through history to understand, there will be no peace in the mid-east without a return of fairness to the Palestinian people.
Terrorism is not a cause war and conflict, and instead its mostly a symptom of social inequity.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Yet they are smart enough to help fund unconventional means of warfare via proxy terrorist groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, etc and use the fallacious group of Arab refugees deceivingly called Palestinians as "martyrs" at the expense of Israel.
Last edited:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 361
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter