If you were a dictator....

[FriendOfZeus]

"A two worded answer, "Saddam Hussien". U have to understand how a dictatorship works, study the life of Saddam and you will understand what dictatorships, oppression, political prosecution, and the "rape" of free speech means. Same thing happened with ur abed el-nasser. I never believed in the sincerity of his apology or the reasons he gave for his so-called resignation. I simply can't trust a dictator, it might all be staged, just like the WWE wrestling ...
How do we evaluate this? in a dictatorship or a police state, it is simply impossible...."

U are taking a one sided perspective on this issue inso it will not help u build a cohesive and objective argument.
As i see it, everything in this world has its goods and its bads. We cant have a serious debate if u keep linguering on the basis that dictatorship is the sum of all evils, u need to be open to other suggestions.
Their are many dictators, but u seem too keen to abreviate "dictatorship" with "Sadam hussein", "Hitler" and "Stalin".
As i stated Jamal was loved by his people, loved out of respect and appreciations, not out of fear and persecution, thats the difference. And i have seen the evidence of my claim with my own eyes, the experience of living in egypt and getting accomodated with the climate of thinking their made me grasp how much Jamal is loved their. Even the people that hate him have to give him credit for the things that he did, and they do hold high respect for him.

"When, seriously, did u last see rich people protesting? Rich people sit in their F***ing (3 letters...don't delete it jess ) homes and never protest....By great numbers I mean the families of political prisoners,those who believe in their causes and ofcourse the parties they belonged to....Maybe before we continue this discussion"

While i certainly dissaprove of imprisoning political adversaries, but u just cant compare hitler to jamal, i mean that most of the political prisoners had specific sentences, when they were over they got out ALIVE, while stalin killed 10 million people. Jamal did imprison people but not as nearly to the extent as ur describing. Could plz bring facts to solidify ur argument.

Most of the people that were against him were rich aristochrats who got most of their belongings and richess taken , inso they staged a political war against him to regain what was lost. Jamal had to secure his position by fighting them. Who do u think is the bad guy here?

A second thing, looking at the Intelligencia is a proper means to verify the peoples will; at the time titans like abd l halim hafez and um qulthum loved and supported jamal and even aided in the war effort by collecting funds and giving from their own money.

"this question is more than relevant, what do you think of the fall of the soviet union?""

From which perspective?

"Who puts his country on the line when his only affirmation is from the 'allies" you mentioned?I would say only a stupid person does....A general in the army who overthrows a monarchy, becomes a hero , yet is too stupid to understand how "real" politicians work..."

And how do real politicians work?

[Gilgamesh]

U are taking a one sided perspective on this issue inso it will not help u build a cohesive and objective argument.
As i see it, everything in this world has its goods and its bads. We cant have a serious debate if u keep linguering on the basis that dictatorship is the sum of all evils, u need to be open to other suggestions.
Their are many dictators, but u seem too keen to abreviate "dictatorship" with "Sadam hussein", "Hitler" and "Stalin".

I didn't say it is the sum of all evils, not yet at least. U failed to name any other "good" dictator so that is why we can't have other examples besides the ones i mentioned.

As i stated Jamal was loved by his people, loved out of respect and appreciations, not out of fear and persecution, thats the difference. And i have seen the evidence of my claim with my own eyes, the experience of living in egypt and getting accomodated with the climate of thinking their made me grasp how much Jamal is loved their. Even the people that hate him have to give him credit for the things that he did, and they do hold high respect for him.

Well, I never said I hated him or even deny his accomplishments (1952, the socialization of lands....) but u need to understand how the public works. You have a president who came after a King and before Anwar Sadat and Hosne mobarak; He is loved by comparison...easy to understand and I don't blame egyptians for that...

While i certainly dissaprove of imprisoning political adversaries, but u just cant compare hitler to jamal, i mean that most of the political prisoners had specific sentences, when they were over they got out ALIVE, while stalin killed 10 million people. Jamal did imprison people but not as nearly to the extent as ur describing. Could plz bring facts to solidify ur argument.

I told you mainly the comparison with Hitler is about the war. Here is what mostly pisses me off about them both; You have a man, a dictator, who somehow thinks he has the right to deprive people of their rights to serve a "higher cause" (aryan race, freeing palastine....whatever). I will be researching the number or percentages prisoned on political bases.

Most of the people that were against him were rich aristochrats who got most of their belongings and richess taken , inso they staged a political war against him to regain what was lost. Jamal had to secure his position by fighting them. Who do u think is the bad guy here?

If he actually filled the prisons with rich people who were unwilling to help in the socialization process...this is another point to be debated. Rich, real rich people, never end up in prisons, their supporters do.( a pity btw)

From which perspective?

Plain easy, do you think it was a good or a bad thing? Do you prefer if it still existed as in earlier years?

And how do real politicians work?

Number one rule...Avoid wishful thinking, abd el-naser's trap in his war against israel was his arrogance and wishful thinking ( remember hitler and what he did to his generals when they warned him from attacking russia)

[FriendOfZeus]

"I didn't say it is the sum of all evils, not yet at least. U failed to name any other "good" dictator so that is why we can't have other examples besides the ones i mentioned."
I'll be doing my research regarding this matter.

"Well, I never said I hated him or even deny his accomplishments (1952, the socialization of lands....) but u need to understand how the public works. You have a president who came after a King and before Anwar Sadat and Hosne mobarak; He is loved by comparison...easy to understand and I don't blame egyptians for that..."

Their is contradiction here, at one point u state that jamal did accomplish good things and on the other hand ur saying that the people love him by comparisson. So by what u are saying the people ignored is accomplishements and loved him solely because he overthrew a king.....

"I told you mainly the comparison with Hitler is about the war. Here is what mostly pisses me off about them both; You have a man, a dictator, who somehow thinks he has the right to deprive people of their rights to serve a "higher cause" (aryan race, freeing palastine....whatever). I will be researching the number or percentages prisoned on political bases."

Jamal's aim wasnt to deprive the people right to anything, he was just trying to make a better country the way he knew best. He didnt oppress his people nor did he try to enslave, this is apparent by his many accomplishements and political ideology. He was known for his humility, he didnt consider himself to be any higher or more important than the average farmer back in the day.
You got to recognise that jamals aims werent to oppress, subjugate and enslace the people, like so many other dictators, but he really cared about them and fought for them. U are choosing not to see that when all the historical facts are directly staring at you.

"If he actually filled the prisons with rich people who were unwilling to help in the socialization process...this is another point to be debated. Rich, real rich people, never end up in prisons, their supporters do.( a pity btw)"

He didnt put rich people in prison, no, he just seised their belonings and aquired their vast lands. The rich upset; started movements that would fight his regime and their followers paid the price.

"Plain easy, do you think it was a good or a bad thing? Do you prefer if it still existed as in earlier years?"

Its always better to have 2 sides, equally matched fighting each other, than to have one dominating side. It will controll everything and make people do whatever it pleases, and that is surelly apparent in the u.s.a's foreign affairs, where the neo conservative, wilson's ideology following morrons motto is "use force whenever necessary". The soviet union created a balance in the world, ensuring that the u.s will never become too strong and vice versa....The u.s.a is the biggest dictator when talking about its foreign affairs. Even though the world was threatened by nuclear war, i think we were far better off than having the u.s.a taking over, just like we would be better off if the soviet union would have won and took over

"Number one rule...Avoid wishful thinking, abd el-naser's trap in his war against israel was his arrogance and wishful thinking ( remember hitler and what he did to his generals when they warned him from attacking russia)"

Wishfull thinking? ur making it sound like as if jamal was praying for a magic wand upon which he would summon great armies. Come one man, every general makes mistakes, he was just counting on the wrong allies, enno how was he supposed to know that they were going to turn their backs on him.

[Gilgamesh]

"Well, I never said I hated him or even deny his accomplishments (1952, the socialization of lands....) but u need to understand how the public works. You have a president who came after a King and before Anwar Sadat and Hosne mobarak; He is loved by comparison...easy to understand and I don't blame egyptians for that..."

Their is contradiction here, at one point u state that jamal did accomplish good things and on the other hand ur saying that the people love him by comparisson. So by what u are saying the people ignored is accomplishements and loved him solely because he overthrew a king.....

Read again what I said, he is loved for his accomplishments, but these accomplishment might (just might) be not as big as they are and just appear that huge when compared by his predecessor and those who followed him to office...

"I told you mainly the comparison with Hitler is about the war. Here is what mostly pisses me off about them both; You have a man, a dictator, who somehow thinks he has the right to deprive people of their rights to serve a "higher cause" (aryan race, freeing palastine....whatever). I will be researching the number or percentages prisoned on political bases."

Jamal's aim wasnt to deprive the people right to anything, he was just trying to make a better country the way he knew best. He didnt oppress his people nor did he try to enslave, this is apparent by his many accomplishements and political ideology. He was known for his humility, he didnt consider himself to be any higher or more important than the average farmer back in the day.
You got to recognise that jamals aims werent to oppress, subjugate and enslace the people, like so many other dictators, but he really cared about them and fought for them. U are choosing not to see that when all the historical facts are directly staring at you.

Again, I never his his AIM is to oppress or subjugate. We agree that (if not check some sources) between 1960 and 1967 the economy was suffering after all the success in 1950's; along with that came the overspending on military so that they would be ready for a possible war. Now what I said is,since he is a dictator, it is impossible to know if all egyptians or the majority of them are with putting war against Israel as a priority to fixing the economy. The might have been, but it is impossible to know and that is the problem with the whole thing. He and some unelected advisors decided to overspend and then go to war.

Its always better to have 2 sides, equally matched fighting each other, than to have one dominating side. It will controll everything and make people do whatever it pleases, and that is surelly apparent in the u.s.a's foreign affairs, where the neo conservative, wilson's ideology following morrons motto is "use force whenever necessary". The soviet union created a balance in the world, ensuring that the u.s will never become too strong and vice versa....The u.s.a is the biggest dictator when talking about its foreign affairs. Even though the world was threatened by nuclear war, i think we were far better off than having the u.s.a taking over, just like we would be better off if the soviet union would have won and took over

Basically we agree up to the last sentence. I dont want any superpower acting as a pervert adult between a group of children, but if we are to have superpowers, two is better than one. However, soviet union, if they stayed alone as a superpower would be as bad as the U.S and even in a more explicit manner. This subject deserves to be a thread on its own btw.

Wishfull thinking? ur making it sound like as if jamal was praying for a magic wand upon which he would summon great armies. Come one man, every general makes mistakes, he was just counting on the wrong allies, enno how was he supposed to know that they were going to turn their backs on him.

Well...i am not too knowledgeable with military matters but it has always been the trait of dictators to think they can't be beaten in war. He relied on allies? Thats all cool, he is an "angel" and a "prophet" compared to his allies.

Just so i dont wanna sound too polarized and against, i consider him one of the best arab leaders of this century, but not the "superhuman" he was described as. He did lots of mistakes and egyptians usually say he didnt know about it all. Anyway, better have him than any other Arabic dictator.

[FriendOfZeus]

Read again what I said, he is loved for his accomplishments, but these accomplishment might (just might) be not as big as they are and just appear that huge when compared by his predecessor and those who followed him to office...

Dude he acutally rejuvinated the country's economy, fought for egypts lands and rights, started great projects that would lift and push egypt into the 20th century. His impact on the whole of the country was huge, how can u undermine the impact he had on egypt?

Again, I never his his AIM is to oppress or subjugate. We agree that (if not check some sources) between 1960 and 1967 the economy was suffering after all the success in 1950's; along with that came the overspending on military so that they would be ready for a possible war. Now what I said is,since he is a dictator, it is impossible to know if all egyptians or the majority of them are with putting war against Israel as a priority to fixing the economy. The might have been, but it is impossible to know and that is the problem with the whole thing. He and some unelected advisors decided to overspend and then go to war.

hmmm "Again, I never his his AIM is to oppress or subjugate"------> "Now what I said is,since he is a dictator, it is impossible to know if all egyptians or the majority of them are with putting war against Israel as a priority to fixing the economy. The might have been, but it is impossible to know and that is the problem with the whole thing."

So are u trying to say that concentration camps or some kind of persecution on the part of jamal prevented the egyptians from saying what they really wanted? If so how?---> "Again, I never his his AIM is to oppress or subjugate"

Basically we agree up to the last sentence. I dont want any superpower acting as a pervert adult between a group of children, but if we are to have superpowers, two is better than one. However, soviet union, if they stayed alone as a superpower would be as bad as the U.S and even in a more explicit manner. This subject deserves to be a thread on its own btw.

I meant to say that we would better off THEN having the soviet union taking over sorry.

Just so i dont wanna sound too polarized and against, i consider him one of the best arab leaders of this century, but not the "superhuman" he was described as. He did lots of mistakes and egyptians usually say he didnt know about it all. Anyway, better have him than any other Arabic dictator.

So by what ur saying can i conclude that Jamal is better than some democraticly ellected presidents?

[Gilgamesh]

Dude he acutally rejuvinated the country's economy, fought for egypts lands and rights, started great projects that would lift and push egypt into the 20th century. His impact on the whole of the country was huge, how can u undermine the impact he had on egypt?

I already said I believe his impact was great up to 1960...so we agree here to some extent...

hmmm "Again, I never his his AIM is to oppress or subjugate"------> "Now what I said is,since he is a dictator, it is impossible to know if all egyptians or the majority of them are with putting war against Israel as a priority to fixing the economy. The might have been, but it is impossible to know and that is the problem with the whole thing."

So are u trying to say that concentration camps or some kind of persecution on the part of jamal prevented the egyptians from saying what they really wanted? If so how?---> "Again, I never his his AIM is to oppress or subjugate"

This is out of context here...I said two posts ago that he did that to serve a higher cause which is his fight with Israel. Now the problem is that under a dictatorship, people don't get to choose if they actually thing of that "higher cause" as a real priority. Reread the flow of the argument leading to this point.

I meant to say that we would better off THEN having the soviet union taking over sorry.

No problem

So by what ur saying can i conclude that Jamal is better than some democraticly ellected presidents?

I kinda saw this coming. I had dictator in italics to emphasize it. The problem is I can't see 20th century Arabic leaders actually elected by the people, or elected by free people, or elected by free people under a law set by the people....and so on. In a sense, every arabic leader is a dictator since not only he is not elected properly but also has unlimited powers and no checks and balances from the people.