"We're back to Mubarak's time", Egyptian Government cracks down on Secular activists - Polidicks

[url]http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/27/egypt-secular-activists-arrested-protest-law[/url] [QUOTE]Arrest warrants were issued for two of Egypt's highest-profile activists on Wednesday, a day after 79 other secular campaigners were detained in Cairo in the largest crackdown on non-Islamist dissent since the fall of Mohamed Morsi. It was the first use of a draconian new protest law that was enacted on Sunday and has been condemned by the UN and human rights groups. Ahmed Maher, the leader of a youth movement that helped spearhead Egypt's 2011 revolution, and Alaa Abd El Fattah, an activist targeted by every administration since Hosni Mubarak, were accused of masterminding a protest outside the Egyptian parliament. "We're back to Mubarak's time," said Maher by telephone, while he considered whether to hand himself in to the police. ...The activists were among the first to be arrested under a new law that demands protesters seek permission from the police to demonstrate in public. Those arrested had gathered without permission outside the Egyptian parliament to protest against the way Egypt's new constitution is set to allow the army to try civilians in military courts – and police used the new law to arrest them within minutes. One activist who tried to apply for permission to protest said he was made to wait four hours at a police station before his application was rejected on the pretext that he had made a mistake on the form.[/QUOTE] I knew this military intervention was a bad thing. Its a shame people were too busy celebrating the removal of the Brotherhood.

Why is it that only assholes seem to be put in charge over things that matter?

[QUOTE=GreenLeaf;43000620]Why is it that only assholes seem to be put in charge over things that matter?[/QUOTE] Power corrupts and the corrupt seek power.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;43000886]Power corrupts and the corrupt seek power.[/QUOTE] This. The well-intentioned and altruistic have no desire to rule.

Why does the UN "condemn" shit like this, but always refuse to actually do anything about it? Seriously, the fuck is the point of the UN? They never do anything but say "hey please don't... could you please stop... hey... c'mon man..."

Because some genius decided to give the USA, Russia and China veto powers. That way whenever something is politically inconvenient to China, Russia or the USA, the UN can't do shit. Which is most things.

[QUOTE=Jrose14;43003298]Why does the UN "condemn" shit like this, but always refuse to actually do anything about it? Seriously, the fuck is the point of the UN? They never do anything but say "hey please don't... could you please stop... hey... c'mon man..."[/QUOTE] when did becoming stupid about the UN become so popular learn what its actually about lmao its not the god damn GDI from command and conquer

[QUOTE=NoDachi;43003531]when did becoming stupid about the UN become so popular learn what its actually about lmao its not the god damn GDI from command and conquer[/QUOTE] The UN is a world peace-keeping organization designed to prevent wars and other forms of crisis from happening. They are funded by many countries around the world, who supply troops and other resources in exchange for compliance and the hope that they can solve many of the worlds human-related problems. This is a crisis, and a human-related problem. The UN wrote into international law what the fuck Human Rights were to be defined as, and promised to enforce them. They almost NEVER enforce them, but just sit back crying whenever something happens. And, the bigger countries in the UN, like the U.S. and China, often veto anything that involves sending in UN troops or resources because they view it as inconvenient. Even if they don't veto it, half of the UN countries breach human rights [i]themselves[/i] and therefore normally don't give a shit because why would they. Hell, in recent news, Saudi Arabia and a few other horrible human-rights abusers have gotten on the HUMAN RIGHTS COUNSEL for the fucking UN, further making it appear and pretty much be a useless organization that is just used for some countries to feel more civilized. The UN is a joke. It has done almost nothing since it was formed to prevent genocide, war, human rights violations, etc. For fucks sakes, even in Rwanda (where 20% of the countries population, mostly the Tutsis by the Hutus, were massacred in attempted genocide) the UN walked in with a tiny armed force, and immediately left because they lost some soldiers because, who would have thought, the Hutus wanting to commit genocide fought back, and they withdrew because it was 'too risky.' Someone saying sending some troops to fight off extremely unorganized gangs and militias was too risky cost almost 1 million lives. That is just [i]one[/i] example of the UN failing, or refusing to even attempt, at doing what they were founded for. So don't sit there calling me an idiot because I believe that the UN is useless, which it almost certaintly is. Also I have no fucking idea what the 'GDI' are.

No its not. The UN is the most successful body in international politics in the history of our entire species. Its designed to provide a dialogue platform between world powers to stop them going to war with each other, and it has done so superbly. Seriously even five minutes on the wiki page could point out almost everything you've just said is false. Its a shame you felt compelled to write so much about something you know so little.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;43003942]No its not. The UN is the most successful body in international politics in the history of our entire species. Its designed to provide a dialogue platform between world powers to stop them going to war with each other, and it has done so superbly. Seriously even five minutes on the wiki page could point out almost everything you've just said is false. Its a shame you felt compelled to write so much about something you know so little.[/QUOTE] Five minutes on the wiki page, eh? [quote]One of the UN's primary purposes is "promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion", and member states pledge to undertake "joint and separate action" to protect these rights.[/quote] [editline]28th November 2013[/editline] [quote]Another primary purpose of the UN is "to achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character".[102] Numerous bodies have been created to work toward this goal, primarily under the authority of the General Assembly and ECOSOC.[115] In 2000, the then-192 United Nations member states agreed to achieve eight Millennium Development Goals by 2015.[/quote]

You know, everything was fine during Mubarak's time.... Except some issues, but when Morsy/Military Government came in, it sort of got WORSE. Mubaraks time = Neutral, sort of safe.

[QUOTE=Harnbrand;43002195]This. The well-intentioned and altruistic have no desire to rule.[/QUOTE] arguably, some of the world's worst dictators were well-intentioned and altruistic. hitler genuinely believed that his cause was a good one for the progress of germany. same thing between stalin and russia - the world even. of course, by our moral definitions, both of their actions were heinous and misplaced, but that doesn't mean that they weren't well-intentioned. part of the reason that world conflicts are so common is because we're so apt to believe the worst of people, when the reality is often not the case. instead, it's just circumstances colliding, with very unfortunate results. like, for example, power corrupts, but for different reasons. by giving a single person a large amount of power, they self-reinforce their opinions and are then further reinforced by the yes-men in their employ. they end up being led to irrational decisions because they can just remove anyone who cares to disagree with them. this is why democracies comparatively function so well - they prevent the use of a supreme leader, yes, but it functions against corruption mostly because there's inherent clashes of opinion that force people to challenge their own ideas and create apt reforms to meet the best solution.

[QUOTE=joes33431;43006283]same thing between stalin and russia - the world even. [/QUOTE] no not really. i think stalin was legitimately just a sociopath.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43006290]no not really. i think stalin was legitimately just a sociopath.[/QUOTE] oh no, don't get me wrong, he was mentally ill. but on top of that, he legitimately believed in his version of communist ideals. there was this whole line of thinking involved that communist revolution was this 'turning tide of history' that couldn't be stopped - for all we know, stalin could have legitimately believed that he was destined to lead this 'revolution'.

I dont ever remember the supporters asking for a military coup, it just happened so dont go all blaming them, I think they still had right to protest about the shit mubarak was doing and not doing.

The UN is just the countries of the world coming together to decide stuff. They only act when states decide to act

[QUOTE=Jrose14;43003975]Five minutes on the wiki page, eh? [editline]28th November 2013[/editline][/QUOTE] Yes which the UN has done greatly. Thank you.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;43007526]Yes which the UN has done greatly. Thank you.[/QUOTE] as far as opening up diplomatic channels between nations and providing humanitarian aid, the united nations works about as well as it can. however, as far as peacekeeping and peace enforcement go, successes have been limited. before Gorbachev came to power, the UN was basically forced into a passive position, or else it would risk offending the sensibilities of one of the greater powers, and lead to everything dying in a nuclear mushroom cloud. successes after the cold war have been limited, though, too: lots of peacekeeping operations in the 1990's failed pretty badly. particularly in somalia, former yugoslavia, and the DRC. a lot of it had to do with the fact that the main powers never really committed themselves or their resources to stopping these things. they wanted peace, but they expected the ends to be gained with unrealistically limited means. now of course, by no means is this the united nations' fault in of itself, but a failure is still a failure. they didn't really even do much about the 1994 genocide in Rwanda either, nor did they adequately respond to the bangladesh atrocities for years. again, this is because the united nations, to some extent, acts as a body of states with individual autonomy, rather than a singular organization. structural problems exist, too - the UN's security council is inherently corrupt in that it gives large amounts of power to some big-ass nations. the idea of a security council makes sense, in theory - the nations with the largest amount of military resources need to be convinced in order to allocate them effectively. the problem is that it has much more power than the general assembly.

[QUOTE=Jrose14;43003919]The UN is a world peace-keeping organization designed to prevent wars and other forms of crisis from happening. They are funded by many countries around the world, who supply troops and other resources in exchange for compliance and the hope that they can solve many of the worlds human-related problems. This is a crisis, and a human-related problem. The UN wrote into international law what the fuck Human Rights were to be defined as, and promised to enforce them. They almost NEVER enforce them, but just sit back crying whenever something happens. And, the bigger countries in the UN, like the U.S. and China, often veto anything that involves sending in UN troops or resources because they view it as inconvenient. Even if they don't veto it, half of the UN countries breach human rights [i]themselves[/i] and therefore normally don't give a shit because why would they. Hell, in recent news, Saudi Arabia and a few other horrible human-rights abusers have gotten on the HUMAN RIGHTS COUNSEL for the fucking UN, further making it appear and pretty much be a useless organization that is just used for some countries to feel more civilized. The UN is a joke. It has done almost nothing since it was formed to prevent genocide, war, human rights violations, etc. For fucks sakes, even in Rwanda (where 20% of the countries population, mostly the Tutsis by the Hutus, were massacred in attempted genocide) the UN walked in with a tiny armed force, and immediately left because they lost some soldiers because, who would have thought, the Hutus wanting to commit genocide fought back, and they withdrew because it was 'too risky.' Someone saying sending some troops to fight off extremely unorganized gangs and militias was too risky cost almost 1 million lives. That is just [i]one[/i] example of the UN failing, or refusing to even attempt, at doing what they were founded for. So don't sit there calling me an idiot because I believe that the UN is useless, which it almost certaintly is. Also I have no fucking idea what the 'GDI' are.[/QUOTE] The UN has been massively successfull compared to many other organisations in the past. It is utterly slow, ponderous, had massively huge issues during the cold war, but even so has managed to bring a large number of conflicts to an end.

Especially in Africa. [url]http://www.economist.com/node/21556608[/url]

[QUOTE=NoDachi;43009969]Especially in Africa. [URL]http://www.economist.com/node/21556608[/URL][/QUOTE] Uhh on the contrary the UN in Africa has been infamous with their rapes and not giving a fuck + by them being there they are just fueling the fire of: "gimme food pls" okay here's food. "gimme food pls" okay here's food, rinse and repeat. Masking tensions by having a big boy there to tell people not to fight and try to stop them isn't fixing the problem. As soon as they aren't able to do this they will just be at each others throats again. A lot of the time the only way to get rid of these issues is just fight them out.

[QUOTE=Aman;43010041]Uhh on the contrary the UN in Africa has been infamous with their rapes and not giving a fuck + by them being there they are just fueling the fire of: "gimme food pls" okay here's food. "gimme food pls" okay here's food, rinse and repeat. Masking tensions by having a big boy there to tell people not to fight isn't fixing the problem.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry the UN hasn't managed to miraculously solve every known difficulty in the world. Its almost like you didn't even read the article.