RkFast Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 (edited) I say let the Islamists take over. Then promply put TWO Carrier Air Wings in the Med, a third in the Red Sea and tell all the ragheads "Just TRY to make a move on Israel and see what happens." But we dont do such things anymore becuase we can never project power and have become a bunch of pussies. Where the !@#$ is Reagan or JFK when we need them? Edited February 2, 2011 by RkFast
LeviF Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 I find it interesting that the administration made no moves whatsoever until three days of street unrest proded DC into action. Now, all of a sudden, BO and company are dispensing wisdom and platitudes. Is Mubarak any more distasteful today than he was five years ago in terms of human rights, sharing political power, etc.? No, but he was probably the only Arab leader that Israel was even remotely comfortable with. He wasn't an enemy of the West, at the very least.
Booster4324 Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 Wow first Jordan and now this. SANAA, Yemen – Yemen's U.S.-backed president, in power for more than three decades, pledged Wednesday not to seek another term in office in an apparent attempt to defuse protests inspired by Tunisia's revolt and the turmoil in Egypt.
meazza Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 Wow first Jordan and now this. It looks like Mubarak supporters are becoming violent. http://www.justin.tv/rockinroosters12?#/w/823452944/5
OCinBuffalo Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) Nice irrelevent seque. You and VA engaged in a "Dumb and Dumber" contest? What? LA accurately described the Jimmy Carter/Iran history. How is that dumb? How is it dumb to point out that Obama has been in every way, shape, and form, Jimmy Carter Round 2 with respect to PUBLIC foreign policy? Privately, Obama missed a perfectly good chance to help the Iranian people with their uprising, and has gone around the world apologizing as though we have done something wrong by holding psychotics and their supporters accountable. Unfortunately, ALL the evidence points to the the supposition that Obama WILL pull a Carter, and we WILL have a new psychotic state on our hands. PataJoe: there were 30 years of the Shah before Carter got into office also. That doesn't excuse his utter lack of competence and courage when he was in charge. 30 years of Mumbarak will not excuse Obama if he follows Carter's weakness. Deal with it. Edited February 3, 2011 by OCinBuffalo
DrFishfinder Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 The questions that need answers are: Who is behind this? Why now? What do they really want? ....and probably more
chicot Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 The questions that need answers are: Who is behind this? Why now? What do they really want? ....and probably more 1) The Egyptian people. 2) They saw what happened in Tunisia and realized they could deal with their corrupt dictator in the same manner. 3) Long term - better economic prospects and more freedom. Short term - Mubarak to leave and non-rigged elections.
DC Tom Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 1) The Egyptian people. 2) They saw what happened in Tunisia and realized they could deal with their corrupt dictator in the same manner. 3) Long term - better economic prospects and more freedom. Short term - Mubarak to leave and non-rigged elections. The short term is more likely severe economic dislocation and civil war, at this point. Which means the long term is more likely less freedom and worse economic prospects.
chicot Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 The short term is more likely severe economic dislocation and civil war, at this point. Which means the long term is more likely less freedom and worse economic prospects. The question was what they wanted rather than what was likely, hence my answer. I'm not as pessimistic as you on this - I dont think civil war is actually that likely. Mubarak is done and once he leaves his paid goons will melt away. Sure there's a risk of chaos but there's always that risk with a revolution but what's the alternative? Allowing Mubarak to rule until he dies and passes on the presidency to his son and the whole corrupt system continues?
UConn James Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) WaPo: Egypt protests show George W. Bush was right about freedom in the Arab world I'm not saying I totally agree with this piece, but... ----- What? LA accurately described the Jimmy Carter/Iran history. How is that dumb? How is it dumb to point out that Obama has been in every way, shape, and form, Jimmy Carter Round 2 with respect to PUBLIC foreign policy? Privately, Obama missed a perfectly good chance to help the Iranian people with their uprising, and has gone around the world apologizing as though we have done something wrong by holding psychotics and their supporters accountable. Unfortunately, ALL the evidence points to the the supposition that Obama WILL pull a Carter, and we WILL have a new psychotic state on our hands. PataJoe: there were 30 years of the Shah before Carter got into office also. That doesn't excuse his utter lack of competence and courage when he was in charge. 30 years of Mumbarak will not excuse Obama if he follows Carter's weakness. Deal with it. +1 History repeats itself is going to be the narrative of the 2012 election. Especially if the current polls hold and Mitt Romney --- and his Reagan hair --- gets the nomination. Edited February 3, 2011 by UConn James
whateverdude Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 The question was what they wanted rather than what was likely, hence my answer. I'm not as pessimistic as you on this - I dont think civil war is actually that likely. Mubarak is done and once he leaves his paid goons will melt away. Sure there's a risk of chaos but there's always that risk with a revolution but what's the alternative? Allowing Mubarak to rule until he dies and passes on the presidency to his son and the whole corrupt system continues? In a fast collapse of a government the power void will be filled by the group with the best organized leadership infrastructure which will be the Muslim Brotherhood. My bet is that the secular protesters do not want this type of reform or radicalization. Looks like they are going to get it.
DC Tom Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 Allowing Mubarak to rule until he dies and passes on the presidency to his son and the whole corrupt system continues? How about saying "Hey, let's do this within our governmental process!" Elect someone else in September, after Mubarak steps down like he says he will, and get the army to commit to enforcing the election and Mubarak's stepping down (since everyone seems to trust the Egyptian army, who themselves seem reasonably apolitical), and get the US to commit to it as well (since everyone seems to be bitching about the lack of US commitment to democracy) up to and including accepting if not forcing Mubarak's exile to the US if he doesn't step down after a legitimate election. If it devolves into a chaotic and immediate deposition of Mubarak, it'll be chaos, and the result will be the strongest and most organized bullies rising to power, which is likely to be violent Islamists.
chicot Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 In a fast collapse of a government the power void will be filled by the group with the best organized leadership infrastructure which will be the Muslim Brotherhood. My bet is that the secular protesters do not want this type of reform or radicalization. Looks like they are going to get it. You forget about the army. They're far more likely to fill the void than the muslim brotherhood.
DC Tom Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 You forget about the army. They're far more likely to fill the void than the muslim brotherhood. Military dictatorship. That's an improvement.
chicot Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 Military dictatorship. That's an improvement. I never suggested that. The army fills the void and prevents the country falling into chaos while a new constition is written, political parties organised and free and fair elections held. You yourself stated "since everyone seems to trust the Egyptian army, who themselves seem reasonably apolitical". Well, ok if everyone seems to trust the army and they seem reasonably apolitical why are they not better qualified to provide stability during the interim period than the corrupt and hated Mubarak regime, about which neither can be said?
DC Tom Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 I never suggested that. The army fills the void and prevents the country falling into chaos while a new constition is written, political parties organised and free and fair elections held. You yourself stated "since everyone seems to trust the Egyptian army, who themselves seem reasonably apolitical". Well, ok if everyone seems to trust the army and they seem reasonably apolitical why are they not better qualified to provide stability during the interim period than the corrupt and hated Mubarak regime, about which neither can be said? Valid point...but doesn't Egypt already have a constitution? Is there something wrong with it, or is Mubarak simply not following it? And if an apolitical organization steps in as a "caretaker" government, is it still apolitical? Are they still going to be trusted after being given civil governmental power? And re-read my previous post - my visualization of the army's role was as a LAST resort (Mubarak doesn't do what he's publicly agreed to do), not a first one. My main point is: there's a lot of ways to set a very bad set of precedents on which to base a new government (immediate deposition of Mubarak, violent revolution, military takeover - benign or not). There's fewer, and much more difficult, good ones.
UConn James Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 How about saying "Hey, let's do this within our governmental process!" Elect someone else in September, after Mubarak steps down like he says he will, and get the army to commit to enforcing the election and Mubarak's stepping down (since everyone seems to trust the Egyptian army, who themselves seem reasonably apolitical), and get the US to commit to it as well (since everyone seems to be bitching about the lack of US commitment to democracy) up to and including accepting if not forcing Mubarak's exile to the US if he doesn't step down after a legitimate election. If it devolves into a chaotic and immediate deposition of Mubarak, it'll be chaos, and the result will be the strongest and most organized bullies rising to power, which is likely to be violent Islamists. That's like the old floral-patterned sofa in the basement. In January, everyone says it has to get thrown out once the snow melts... and yet, five years later, it's still there. Sometimes, initiative needs to be taken when the will is strong, or else it'll never get done. Leave Mubarak in power for 8 months, and their army soon will become very political.
chicot Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 Valid point...but doesn't Egypt already have a constitution? Is there something wrong with it, or is Mubarak simply not following it? And if an apolitical organization steps in as a "caretaker" government, is it still apolitical? Are they still going to be trusted after being given civil governmental power? And re-read my previous post - my visualization of the army's role was as a LAST resort (Mubarak doesn't do what he's publicly agreed to do), not a first one. My main point is: there's a lot of ways to set a very bad set of precedents on which to base a new government (immediate deposition of Mubarak, violent revolution, military takeover - benign or not). There's fewer, and much more difficult, good ones. I think the problem is that the anti-Mubarak protestors have zero trust in Mubarak and his word, and fear that he's going to use the interim period to try and cling on to power or at least try and perpetuate his corrupt system. I'm not sure of what the current Egyptian contitution is but a new one seems to be a key demand of the protestors.
chicot Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 That's like the old floral-patterned sofa in the basement. In January, everyone says it has to get thrown out once the snow melts... and yet, five years later, it's still there. Sometimes, initiative needs to be taken when the will is strong, or else it'll never get done. Leave Mubarak in power for 8 months, and their army soon will become very political. That's it exactly. The worry is that Mubarak uses the time to try and cling on. Incidentally, the article you linked to in a previous post made a very interesting point about the muslim brotherhood. The reason the muslim brotherhood was the most powerful political opponent of Mubarak is precisely because he wanted it that way. He could go to the West and ask for their support claiming that it was him or radical Islam as the alternative. If (I know it's a big if) Egypt does become a free democracy I very much doubt it will be such a major player once more moderate and secular political parties are allowed to form.
DC Tom Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 I think the problem is that the anti-Mubarak protestors have zero trust in Mubarak and his word, and fear that he's going to use the interim period to try and cling on to power or at least try and perpetuate his corrupt system. And that's not an unreasonable position. That's why I suggested the army hold him to it. To rephrase my previous idea: make the army's role not a government caretaker, but as an honest and independent broker and guarantor of a deal between the people and Mubarak. Mubarak agrees to leave and not interfere in honest elections. The protestors recognize that concession, and in turn concede to work within the current governmental and electoral process as defined by Egyptian law. The army holds everyone to their word - a far different cry from the army providing interim leadership. Of course, that would have worked better yesterday, before the Mubarak supporters started coming out and picking fights... I'm not sure of what the current Egyptian contitution is but a new one seems to be a key demand of the protestors. That I hadn't heard - not that I'd really expect to, given the shallow nature of western news sources.
Recommended Posts