Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest ColDayMan

In The World: Egypt

Recommended Posts

Not all protests are the same. The students, intellectuals and other protesters in Tienanmen were basically just expressing their dissatisfaction, not seeking to completely dismantle the country's government. They wanted somewhat abstract political reforms and freedoms as opposed to Egyptians wanting the entire Egyptian ruling party to be banished immediately. The Chinese protesters were also were not freezing their entire country's economy, whereas Egypt has barely been functional since the protests began. 

 

Additionally, there were no radical Islamic protesters at Tienanmen whose priorities include the destruction of Israel and US interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Egypt promises constitutional reform

Egypt's government promises change, but protesters want Mubarak to go

Wednesday, February 9, 2011 

By Hannah Allam, McCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS

 

CAIRO - The embattled Egyptian government yesterday named panels of jurists to reform the constitution of this one-party state.  It was the latest effort to regain the initiative in shaping Egypt's future from the tens of thousands of chanting protesters in Cairo's main square.

 

Anti-government protesters, who appeared to come out in record number yesterday, quickly rejected the committees and stuck to their refusal to negotiate until U.S.-backed President Hosni Mubarak steps down.  Many of them called for suspending the constitution.  If Mubarak didn't respect the rule of law, they reasoned, they shouldn't have to adhere to a constitution that was altered to keep him in power.

 

Vice President Omar Suleiman said in a televised address that committees of legal experts are to hammer out amendments to Egypt's constitution, which sets no limit on presidential terms, restricts political candidacy almost exclusively to the ruling party, and leaves little room for judicial oversight of elections.

 

egypt-0209-art-grfbikcs-1egypt-protests-19-jpg-large.jpg

Egyptian protesters gather in Cairo's Tahrir Square

 

MORE: http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/national_world/stories/2011/02/09/egypt-promises-constitutional-reform.html?sid=101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mubarak quits as president of Egypt

Friday, February 11, 2011 - 11:16 AM

Associated Press

 

CAIRO - Egypt's Hosni Mubarak resigned as president and handed control to the military on Friday after 29 years in power, bowing to a historic 18-day wave of pro-democracy demonstrations by hundreds of thousands.

 

Mubarak had sought to cling to power, handing some of his authorities to Vice President Omar Suleiman while keeping his title.  But an explosion of protests Friday rejecting the move appeared to have pushed the military into forcing him out completely.  "In these grave circumstances that the country is passing through, President Hosni Mubarak has decided to leave his position as president of the republic," a grim-looking Suleiman said.

 

It was the biggest day of protests yet in the upheaval that began Jan. 25, growing from youth activists working on the Internet into a mass movement that tapped into widespread discontent with Mubarak's authoritarian lock on power, corruption, economic woes and widespread disparities between rich and poor. 

 

Nobel Peace laureate Mohammed ElBaradei, whose young suporters were among the organizers of the protest movement, told The Associated Press, "This is the greatest day of my life."

 

MORE: http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/02/11/mubarak-quits.html?sid=101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the way he went about yesterday's speech I'd say there's a 50/50 chance that he sticks around and gets prosecuted by whatever government emerges out of all this.  I think the sensible thing would have been to resign and apologize in the speech yesterday and then leave the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's great to see, but I worry that his stepping down isn't what it seems.


"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Muslim Brotherhood/Islamist Parties will now control the majority of Egyptian Parliament, and they will be rewriting their constitution to better reflect Islamic dogma. Thank god they are so tolerant of other cultures and women or else I'd be a little down.

 

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/150311#.TtfbHoR0r8B

 

Muslim Brotherhood Takes Elections by Storm

 

"Islamist parties are expected to control Cairo's parliament by the spring with the Muslim Brotherhood projected to be in the driver's seat."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3032619/ns/nbc_nightly_news_with_brian_williams/#52758647

 

I hope that above link works.  It should take you to the opening of tonight's NBC Nightly News which led with the unrest in Egypt.  The reporting includes some amazing on-the-street footage from NBC's Chief Foreign Correspondent Richard Engel.  Engel has been in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya.  Basically, any dangerous area at its most dangerous time.  This time Engel and his cameraman come under gunfire during his report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we’re seeing here is a rather brutal example of the fact that there is all too often a fundamental difference between democracy and liberty.

 

The “Muslim Brotherhood” fanatics may have won the election.  So did the Nazis in Germany.

 

The men who wrote our Constitution  noted this difference.  Which is why it places certain basic right well out of the reach of simple majorities.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^the analogy between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Nazis is just about perfect. They've succeeded in making Mubarak look like Thomas Jefferson in restrospect. I don't know why we keep walking on eggshells and cozying up to the MB when it seems now that the majority of Egyptians--even some who initially supported them--have rejected their extremism. The only solution is to shut the Muslim Brotherhood down and dismantle them if Egypt is to survive as a civilized society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only solution is to shut the Muslim Brotherhood down and dismantle them if Egypt is to survive as a civilized society.

From what little I know, the MB certainly deserves the boot for bait & switch. Dunno if dismantling or outlawing them is a good idea, tho. You can't kill an idea - they'd just come back with a new name, new sheep's clothing. Might be better if people clearly knew who they were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only solution is to shut the Muslim Brotherhood down and dismantle them if Egypt is to survive as a civilized society.

From what little I know, the MB certainly deserves the boot for bait & switch. Dunno if dismantling or outlawing them is a good idea, tho. You can't kill an idea - they'd just come back with a new name, new sheep's clothing. Might be better if people clearly knew who they were.

yeah, I guess the real problem is that unfortunately a significant part of the population really do know who they were/are and don't mind the idea of living under Shariah law. It's a form of madness (I would have used the word "evil," but I don't want to appear to be making a value judgement, much less be accused of being culturally insensitve by all the highly culturally sensitive people :roll: who regularly inhabit these threads--lol) that's infected so much of the Middle East.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only solution is to shut the Muslim Brotherhood down and dismantle them if Egypt is to survive as a civilized society.

From what little I know, the MB certainly deserves the boot for bait & switch. Dunno if dismantling or outlawing them is a good idea, tho. You can't kill an idea - they'd just come back with a new name, new sheep's clothing. Might be better if people clearly knew who they were.

yeah, I guess the real problem is that unfortunately a significant part of the population really do know who they were/are and don't mind the idea of living under Shariah law. It's a form of madness (I would have used the word "evil," but I don't want to appear to be making a value judgement, much less be accused of being culturally insensitve by all the highly culturally sensitive people :roll: who regularly inhabit these threads--lol) that's infected so much of the Middle East.

 

We're allied with the Turks, and in Turkey this is precisely the military's Constitutional duty....to intervene if the government gets too theocratic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Do you have something more credible than the opinion of a "Fox News' Middle East and terrorism expert"?

 

I don't see any facts in that.... ummmmmm.... article.  If the administration or the GOP leadership in Congress was indeed supporting the MB (as alleged by Newsmax and apart from recognizing the legitimate electoral victories), why wasn't the aid to the military immediately cut off when the democratically elected government was ousted by the military?  It seems by continuing to send billions to the Egyptian military, Washington is doing the exact opposite of what you claim.  I realize it doesn't play well into your narrative, but just try to take a..... wait for it..... "fair and balanced" view of the situation and see what you conclude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Do you have something more credible than the opinion of a "Fox News' Middle East and terrorism expert"?

I don't see any facts in that.... ummmmmm.... article.  If the administration or the GOP leadership in Congress was indeed supporting the MB (as alleged by Newsmax and apart from recognizing the legitimate electoral victories), why wasn't the aid to the military immediately cut off when the democratically elected government was ousted by the military?  It seems by continuing to send billions to the Egyptian military, Washington is doing the exact opposite of what you claim.  I realize it doesn't play well into your narrative, but just try to take a..... wait for it..... "fair and balanced" view of the situation and see what you conclude

oh I'm sorry, I guess someone with the following résumé is not expert enough for your impossibly high standards (when I find someone more "credible" I'll repost. Until then I'll just rely on your informed commentary):

Dr. Walid Phares is an American citizen of Lebanese descent who was born on December 24, 1957, grew up in Beirut, and emigrated to the United States in 1990. He holds undergraduate degrees in Law, Political Science, and Sociology from Saint Joseph University and the Lebanese University in Beirut. Following his undergraduate studies, Phares practiced law in Beirut for for a period of time, then went on to obtain a Masters Degree in International Law from the Université de Lyon in France and a PhD in International Relations and Strategic Studies from the University of Miami.

 

Phares taught at the Department of International Relations at Florida International University (FIU) in 1992 and was a visiting professor of Comparative Politics at Florida Atlantic University (FAU) in Palm Beach County from 1993-1994. He was hired as a full-time Professor of Middle East Studies and International Relations in the Department of Political Science at FAU in 1995. While at FAU, Phares sponsored several student organizations focused on human rights including Haiti Watch, Human Rights Organization, the Latin American Student Association, and the Society for the Study of the Middle East. In 1995 he launched the the Florida Society for Middle East Studies (FMES) the second-largest of its kind in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have any facts to post.  I can't find any.  And I wasn't questioning the guy's background.  I was questioning his credibility....... as I'm sure you would for ANY expert who does not work for Fox News).  He doesn't say exactly how Obama and the GOP leadership have been cozying up to the MB.  He just alleges they have.  Based on what?  How about you try to explain with specifics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have any facts to post.  I can't find any.  And I wasn't questioning the guy's background.  I was questioning his credibility....... as I'm sure you would for ANY expert who does not work for Fox News).  He doesn't say exactly how Obama and the GOP leadership have been cozying up to the MB.  He just alleges they have.  Based on what?  How about you try to explain with specifics

 

It's a ten minute video.  I'm not sure what he says because I'm on my work computer, but it's not just the brief article.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing relevant in the video which isn't quoted in the article.  It's clearly a biased, completely unsubstantiated opinion with no FACTUAL support.  What is the administration or the GOP leadership in the Senate doing to 'cozy up to' the MB as EVD alleges?  What specific actions?  You both are capable of thinking independently.  Don't post another baseless opinion of a third party.  Go ahead and explain in your own words

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have any facts to post.  I can't find any.  And I wasn't questioning the guy's background.  I was questioning his credibility....... as I'm sure you would for ANY expert who does not work for Fox News).  He doesn't say exactly how Obama and the GOP leadership have been cozying up to the MB.  He just alleges they have.  Based on what?  How about you try to explain with specifics

 

maybe the reason no actual "facts" were stated in the article or interview is that by now it's common knowledge by pretty much everyone who has followed the Egyptian crisis even marginally that the administration has thrown its support behind the Muslim Brotherhood since the early days of the so-called Arab Spring. I'm surprised you of all people don't know this. Maybe a source more "credible" than Fox News (and by the way the Steve Malzberg show is on Newsmax, not Fox, a fact which you seemed to miss; not that there's any difference between the two based on your biases) will help you out:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/opinion/roger-cohen-working-with-the-muslim-brotherhood.html?_r=0

 

"CAIRO — Perhaps the most radical change in U.S. foreign policy under President Obama has occurred here in Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood, long shunned as a collection of dangerous Islamist extremists, is now the de facto object of American support."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's only common knowledge amongst the Hannity viewers and Limbaugh listening audience.  It's hardly common knowledge to anyone else who has followed the Egyptian crisis.

 

So no facts.  That's convenient.  And the Cohen "opinion" doesn't allege any as well.... at least not the facts you suggest.

 

Here's the facts.  The administration takes much more of a non-interventionalist approach than the previous administration, or really any administration in recent memory.  It doesn't try to pick winners and losers by interfering in the electoral process and it doesn't artificially keep unelected regimes in power.  Cohen correctly notes that the administration believes such interference is a major cause of American angst in the Middle East and is one of the root causes of the terrorist threats against us.  It's thought process goes a little beyond "they hate us because of our way of life, dadgummit!"

 

The administration didn't "throw its support behind the Muslim Brotherhood since the early days of the so-called Arab Spring."  It recognized the MB as the rightful winner of democratic elections (well after the rightfully termed Arab Spring) and tried to teach the MB our democratic principles in the hopes that those principles would be honored in implementing the new government.  The MB abused its power and a military coup occurred.

 

Here's the kicker.... all the administration had to do was declare it a coup and the $1.5 billion in aid the military relies upon for survival would have been suspended.  If it really was 'cozying up to' or otherwise 'supporting' the MB, why wasn't that done?  Why wouldn't the administration wouldn't jump at the chance to defund the military force which just deposed its preferred leadership party?  I'm sure the echo chamber has a conspiracy theory for that and it will probably make my Sunday to hear it.  I just so happen to be in the mood for the type of amusement you routinely provide. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's only common knowledge amongst the Hannity viewers and Limbaugh listening audience.  It's hardly common knowledge to anyone else who has followed the Egyptian crisis.

 

So no facts.  That's convenient.  And the Cohen "opinion" doesn't allege any as well.... at least not the facts you suggest.

 

Here's the facts.  The administration takes much more of a non-interventionalist approach than the previous administration, or really any administration in recent memory.  It doesn't try to pick winners and losers by interfering in the electoral process and it doesn't artificially keep unelected regimes in power.  Cohen correctly notes that the administration believes such interference is a major cause of American angst in the Middle East and is one of the root causes of the terrorist threats against us.  It's thought process goes a little beyond "they hate us because of our way of life, dadgummit!"

 

The administration didn't "throw its support behind the Muslim Brotherhood since the early days of the so-called Arab Spring."  It recognized the MB as the rightful winner of democratic elections (well after the rightfully termed Arab Spring) and tried to teach the MB our democratic principles in the hopes that those principles would be honored in implementing the new government.  The MB abused its power and a military coup occurred.

 

Here's the kicker.... all the administration had to do was declare it a coup and the $1.5 billion in aid the military relies upon for survival would have been suspended.  If it really was 'cozying up to' or otherwise 'supporting' the MB, why wasn't that done?  Why wouldn't the administration wouldn't jump at the chance to defund the military force which just deposed its preferred leadership party?  I'm sure the echo chamber has a conspiracy theory for that and it will probably make my Sunday to hear it.  I just so happen to be in the mood for the type of amusement you routinely provide. 

 

I hardly think Roger Cohen of the New York Times is part of “Hannity and Limbaugh audience.” But if so, then it’s a lot more diverse than even I had believed.  But I guess anyone who deviates from your knee-jerk “echo chamber” talking points must be part of the far, far, far kook "conspiracy theory" fringe.

 

Uh, first you said (according to your “facts.”--no source given, maybe it's common knowledge? :wink:) that  “The administration takes much more of a non-interventionalist approach than the previous administration, or really any administration in recent memory.  It doesn't try to pick winners and losers by interfering in the electoral process and it doesn't artificially keep unelected regimes in power.”…and then you said “It (the administration) recognized the MB as the rightful winner of democratic elections (well after the rightfully termed Arab Spring) and tried to teach the MB our democratic principles in the hopes that those principles would be honored in implementing the new government.” Umm, which is it?

 

And for the record, what happened may technically be considered a “coup,” but only in the sense that we should have seen this type of coup in Germany in 1933. In other words, the military reflected the overwhelming view of freedom loving Egyptians who saw/and see what was/is happening. Don’t you get this? I think the administration obviously knows this but again is walking on eggshells (to make that allusion again) and trying to see which way the wind is blowing at the moment to make itself look like the peacemaker-du-jour. I guess that already happened once. I see another Nobel Prize in the president’s future. Is that White House press secretary job gonna be opening up again soon? I nominate you as the perfect candidate! It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anybody is "cozying" up to the Muslim Brotherhood it has to be John McCain and Lindsey Graham, right? Called for Morsi's release and for the US to suspend aid, and having meetings with officials of the organization itself. Not that I have a problem with this, but many in Egypt do, and logically if it would be a problem for Obama to be doing such things there are people who would surely be upset at any Republicans for doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hardly think Roger Cohen of the New York Times is part of “Hannity and Limbaugh audience.” But if so, then it’s a lot more diverse than even I had believed.

 

I didn't know their ratings were so high among the Egyptian public either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Loretto, in these hate-driven days, some people are incapable of taking a rational look at the situation.  The bottom line is EVD's allegations are disproven by the administration's continuing support of the military, which could be rightfully suspended unilaterally by the administration if the Limbaugh/Hannity narrative had the slightest bit of truth to it.  People read that piece by Roger Cohen and take the opinions therein well past their logical boundaries.  What Cohen was criticizing is the discontinuance of American foreign diplomacy which has been thoroughly rejected by the American people (nearly unanimously on the left and by a growing segment of the right).  Even Romney was forced to admit in the 3rd debate that, while we can promote democracy, we can no longer tamper with the democratic process by picking and choosing who we will recognize as the legitimate elected officials.

 

Yes, it was indeed McCain and Graham who went and met with the MB.  It was Graham who admonished the current "Prime Minister" (installed by the military) of ruling without a mandate from the people.  Rand Paul, in fact, proposed a legislative amendment to have the military aid cut-off.  Does that qualify as 'cozying up' to the MB?  His amendment was defeated in the Senate 86-13.

 

SOS Kerry, on the other hand, met with Morsi before being deposed and warned him to ease up or he would face another uprising.  He didn't listen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, first you said (according to your facts.--no source given, maybe it's common knowledge? :wink:) that  The administration takes much more of a non-interventionalist approach than the previous administration, or really any administration in recent memory.  It doesn't try to pick winners and losers by interfering in the electoral process and it doesn't artificially keep unelected regimes in power.and then you said It (the administration) recognized the MB as the rightful winner of democratic elections (well after the rightfully termed Arab Spring) and tried to teach the MB our democratic principles in the hopes that those principles would be honored in implementing the new government. Umm, which is it?

 

Go look straight in the mirror and ask yourself if you honestly thought about it before posting this question.  Did the administration try to pick winners and losers in the Egyptian election?  Did it recognize the legitimate winners?  How does attempting to teach our democratic principles following the elections constitute interference in the electoral process?  Refusing to interfere in the decision of the people as to who shall lead them does not equate to cutting off diplomatic relations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, first you said (according to your “facts.”--no source given, maybe it's common knowledge? :wink:) that  “The administration takes much more of a non-interventionalist approach than the previous administration, or really any administration in recent memory.  It doesn't try to pick winners and losers by interfering in the electoral process and it doesn't artificially keep unelected regimes in power.”…and then you said “It (the administration) recognized the MB as the rightful winner of democratic elections (well after the rightfully termed Arab Spring) and tried to teach the MB our democratic principles in the hopes that those principles would be honored in implementing the new government.” Umm, which is it?

 

Go look straight in the mirror and ask yourself if you honestly thought about it before posting this question.  Did the administration try to pick winners and losers in the Egyptian election?  Did it recognize the legitimate winners?  How does attempting to teach our democratic principles following the elections constitute interference in the electoral process?  Refusing to interfere in the decision of the people as to who shall lead them does not equate to cutting off diplomatic relations.

I guess one could ask, based on our policy of "non-interference," why is "...attempting to teach our democratic principles following the elections constitute interference in the electoral process?" not interfering. If Egyptians elected a particular style of government, what business is it of ours to then try and shape it in our image?

 

and I don't think I ever said that Obama doesn't still support the military, but does so only tepidly at this point; unwilling to acknowledge the unmitigated disaster the Muslim Brotherhood has been. As I said, he's trying to see which way the wind is blowing as to who will ultimately get his full support. Again, you really should apply for that press secretary job, as it seems like you're genetically hard-wired to be unable to make even the tiniest criticism of the administration regardless of the issue. Are you getting kickbacks from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice try.  I've lodged plenty of criticisms, even if I spend most of my time in these threads with the overwhelmingly easy task of debunking what you thought you learned yesterday.  I harshly criticized the President's 'evolving' approach to gay rights, as well as his performance in the first debate with Romney.  I criticised the bank bailouts (even if that was mostly done under GWB).  I've certainly criticized the adoption of a conservative plan for comprehensive health care reform (maybe not as much as I've laughed at the conservative opposition to it).  I've criticized the administration's annoyingly rampant use of social media outside the election season.  I just try to make sure my criticisms are based in fact, not fiction.  And it's not really in my nature to just piss and moan all day long.  Check the Kasich thread and I bet you'll find my posts are much more favorable to him than disfavorable.  You, on the other hand, are a glass half empty kind of guy.  I'd like to meet the guy who pisses in your Wheaties every morning.  You have been unwaveringly critical of each and every action or position taken by the administration (show me one single post in which you were not.... just one)..... and nearly every time your criticism is not premised in fact or logic.  I welcome the easy target practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to meet the guy who pisses in your Wheaties every morning. 

It's hard to even reply to someone capable of this kind of sick imagery :wtf: maybe it's time for a cooling off period.

 

Oh that's an old phrase.   

 

Hts's arguments remind me of some of us back during the Bush Administration when we'd criticize him for being too liberal lol.

 

The thing is, though, Obama's been so predictably left-statist that it's really hard to come up with a single time that he's been right "before the fact" (hindsight does not count).    I was able to do it for Clinton.  I can't, easily, for Obama.

 

In particular, his foreign policy has been ineffectual at best and malignant at worst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's silly. He, in regards with this mess in Egypt, is in a completely impossible situation. No matter what Obama does or says, the Republicans will scream at him with somewhat credible arguments. And they know it. And they LOVE it (just in case they've been less less aroused by Benghazi lately, this will do the trick nicely).

 

Just imagine the reaction if he stripped away funding for the Egyptian military because it was a coup: "Oh my god, Obama is anti-Israel! Now Egypt will let the Palestinians sneak in weapons through the tunnels. Does Obama even care what will happen to Jerusalem? And now Saudi Arabia and other Arab states will have influence with Egypt at our and Israel's expense! The man is an idiot, and calling it a coup is anti-democratic (because the people wanted a new government) and terrible foreign policy and common sense (because we will no longer have a voice with Egypt). What an ineffective president!"

 

Or we can have them challenging his inactions today. "How dare Obama continue to fund the Egyptian military. He won't respect the Camp David rules, and his inaction makes him/us look impotent. Women and children are being slaughtered, and it is a slap to the face of democracy to sit quietly by as a democratically-elected president is imprisoned. What an ineffective turd!"

 

Lose lose, and the Republicans LOVE it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good lesson- if you have no ideas about how anything should be done, you can criticize whatever the opposition does and never be open to any scrutiny yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...