H.Action is calling the path that millions of Egyptians are taking … absurd and they won’t 'get to ‘good enough’ unless its done H.Action’s way. One standard for everybody. Now that they had a coup d’état that deposed an elected president according to H.Action on 02-02-2014 at 11:23 PM the Egyptians "don’t get to “good enough” for this intolerable infraction of deposing an Islamist driven fool of a first president.
Putin backs Sisi ‘bid for Egypt presidency’
Putin with Sisi
BBC
So, by calling it “absurd” he’s “imposing” his will on them? Once again you are redefining the English language.
Nope. You have rearranged my chosen words again. I did not write anything about HA imposing his ‘will’ on the good people of Egypt. HA is imposing his standards for democracy and elections into this discussion or argument if you will. It is absurd to impose a standard on Marmite Lover in this debate that is based upon an aged and experienced for well over two hundred years democracy and one that did not face the same sorts of issues in its first few years of existence that Egyptians are facing today.
HA has argued that they don’t get to good-enough democracy because they didnt follow HA’s standard for how to get started.
Had they followed HA’s standard and left Morsi in power to acquire more executive power and fill the military and bureaucracy with Islamist State minded supporters it may have been too late to save the revolution and liberty and a very real democracy.
So NfbW, why should we think this is the beginning of real democracy rather than a return to military controlled sham elections? That’s been the model in Egypt for decades. What’s different?
No, imposing his “standards” is something you added later when you moved the goal post.
Alternatively, you could admit you misspoke once in awhile instead of pretending what you wrote wasn’t what you wrote.
Because J.Mace was right:
(-John Mace 01-17-2014 03:22 PM) “The Arab Spring meant getting rid of the Old Guard, and ushering in the new. <“Cite”
Because P.Tense is absolutely wrong:
(-PastTense 01-17-2014 12:51 PM) It appears the only two options for Egypt are military dictatorship or Islamic theocracy. <“Cite”
Because J.Mace is wrong:
(-John Mace 01-17-2014 02:47 PM) There is still a good possibility of civil war, or at least some significant domestic “unrest”. <“Cite”
Because D.Ajashi is right:
Damuri Ajashi 01-17-2014 05:38 PM If you have a unified military on the same page, then civil war is averted no matter how many poorly armed Islamic brothers don’t like it. IOW, there was never really a chance of civil war if the military didn’t permit it. <“Cite”
M.Lover found two US Reps who got it right:
Marmite Lover 01-21-2014 03:37 AM “Cite”>Rep. Rohrabacher: “Totally on board with Sisi’s program” and says “Morsi undermined democracy with desire for radical caliphate and lied to the people”
Rep. Sanchez: “It’s truly amazing when a military sides with the people and says enough! let’s try this democracy thing again… The next government will be elected by the “real people” of Egypt” <“Cite”
My thoughts:
From a much earlier thread… lots of rational, intelligent commentary was available.
(-Horatio Hellpop 07-06-2013 09:44 PM) The situation is a little murky. The Egyptian military has specific duties and privileges spelled out in Egypt’s constitution that, by some interpretations, allow or compel them to remove a president who threatens Egypt’s security and stability. Morsi arguably fit the bill. This arguably does not meet the strict definition of a “coup,” although it kind of walks and quacks like one.
Cutting off aid to Egypt is the law (Cutting off aid to Egypt is the law - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board) <“Cite”
(-Richard Parker 07-07-2013 10:43 AM) The problem here is that you have a joint action by the military, opposition leaders, and a mass movement. Does that constitute a “military decree”? Maybe it does, but it turns on the definition of “military” and “decree.” Can you point me to the part of the statute or the case law that defines the key terms?
If you can’t, then there’s plenty of wiggle room. <"Cite
(-TriPolar 07-07-2013 11:06 AM) If within a short time (which could be days) an interim civilian leader is selected this wouldn’t properly be considered a military coup. One of the problems Egypt faced is an inability to change it’s duly elected leader when circumstances warranted it, which made Morsi more of a duly elected dictator than president. On top of all that it’s something subject to interpretation, and as an act of congress it is congress that does the interpretation through action, inaction, or modification of the law. If the president interprets this law in a manner not acceptable to congress they can impeach him, short of that there’s no way that continuing the funding to Egypt can be considered illegal. <"Cite
And last but not least for now, I have a high degree of confidence that this decade’s Egyptian dissidents and revolutionaries will carry the fight for their liberty, rights, dignity and freedom, until they are satisfied with it.
It is quite ignorant of outside observers to have labeled the Morsi regime a functional democracy even for the brief year it survived. It had not achieved that status at all. It could have become a functional democracy had Morsi recognized his role in being the first post Mubarak president as representing all the people and doing only things that would put the economy back on track.
I wrote this a couple of weeks back… so it and all of what I’ve posted hopefully answers your question.
**(-NotfooledbyW 07-11-2013 09:58 PM) **I have read some interesting commentary in the European Press and one of them was about Mubarak’s former secret police. They were a hundred thousand strong. They were mentioned with the need to take a look at how the alliances have been shifting since Mubarak was ousted. One writer observed that it looks like the former Mubarak Secret Service members seem to be allied and protecting the Secularists of seventeen million who took to the streets calling for Morsi to resign. So this go around there is an alliance against the theocratic Muslim Brotherhood made up of the secularists/ protestors/ rebels plus the perhaps 100,000 former Mubarak Secret Police and the Egyptian military.
Think about it. Secularists have the toughest and most weapon laden groups on their side now. There may not be a civil war … and perhaps that is why the Muslim Brotherhood may have calmed down and figured out just what they are up against… and are now saying stuff like this:
Quote: “Cite” “We will continue our peaceful resistance to the bloody military coup against constitutional legitimacy,” the Brotherhood said. “We trust that the peaceful and popular will of the people shall triumph over force and oppression.”
A senior Brotherhood leader, Essam el-Erian, echoed the sentiment in comments published on the website of the Brotherhood’s political arm, the Freedom and Justice party.
“The people will restore their freedom and dignity through peaceful sit-ins in square, demonstrations and protests,” he was quoted as saying. “All Egyptians must stop dragging the country to violence and avoid falling into the vicious circle of violent and counter-violence.”
<“Cite”
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-...eful-defiance/
And the writing about the Secret Police comes from this excerpt and link:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/co...side-for-once/
“Cite”> For once, this is a conspiracy theory that appears to have some credence. The Amn al-Dawla, or State Security Investigations Service, was a hated organization during Mubarak’s time, a sign that Egypt, despite its tourist friendly image, was a police state in much the same mold as Syria or Iraq.
Its 100,000 staff monitored every walk of Egyptian life, even organizations such as hospitals and universities, and to get on the wrong side of them politically was to have one’s card marked for life (or, in some cases, death).
It was no surprise, therefore, when after Mr Mubarak’s fall in 2011, its headquarters were ransacked by crowds of angry demonstrators. Back then, anyone who even looked vaguely like a state-security man – burly, middle-aged, bad dress sense – could get surrounded by a mob and beaten up.
But while state security lost its stranglehold of terror that time, and has been in something of a directionless flux ever since, no organization with 100,000 people in it just disappears completely. And crucially, its leaders did not form a warm relationship with the Egypt’s new Muslim Brotherhood masters when they swept to power in last year’s elections.
From the Brotherhood’s point of view, state security had beaten up and tortured far too many Brotherhood followers to ever be trusted to any real degree. And from state security’s point of view, far too many Brotherhood types had pasts as violent militants, who had no business being anywhere near the reins of power.
Hence the sight of plain clothes men mingling in recent weeks with the crowds of anti-government protesters, this time with a view to protecting them rather than singling out people to cart away for questioning. So is there a genuine change of heart, or is it just a good instinct for self-preservation?
<“Cite”
I still like the odds for the secularists - the military - and the 100,000 strong former Mubarak tough guys - and many forward looking religious conservatives coming together to hold the Muslim Brotherhood’s itch for Iranian style Theocracy in check.
I’d call what happened to Morsi was a smack down or to paraphrase Jefferson… it was a good bit of ‘refreshing the tree of liberty’ when it had to.
Call it a coup D’état if you like. It doesn’t matter within a deeper perspective. <“Cite”
Cutting off aid to Egypt is the law (Cutting off aid to Egypt is the law - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board) <“Cite”
Nope! You have made another error. I have made this point on this thread about those ‘standards’ since January 21.
H.Action and you apparently can’t get the part about Morsi being the first president… and completely refuse to accept that the Morsi lie potentially had profound impact on the freedoms and rights of tens of millions of Egyptians who rose up to spark the flames of liberty in Egypt in the first place.
Yet you keep demanding and imposing over 200 years of working democracy on those people who have only been at it for a couple of years now.
Here’s more earlier mentions of those standards…
(-NotfooledbyW 02-02-2014 12:22 PM) I believe a quick review of J.**Mace’s commentary **shows that his frame of [sp]political scientific reference on the revolution in Egypt is based upon comparing 2010 thru present Egypt’s elections to current elections in the USA. That is not scientific or fair to start with so Mace’s point of view on much being discussed is not conducive to scientific or factual discussion anyway.
I do try my best to stick with facts and verify them as much as possible. Anecdotes can give a human touch to supportable facts. That the elections held in Egypt must be held to our standards this early in your revolution is not what I would consider a fact. <“Cite”
You need to think of a new excuse to cover the large number of errors you are making.
re: post#807
But all that stuff you said just show that a secular government will happen (yay! The secret police are on our side!), not a democracy. Secular governments are basically what the military has been keeping in place for 60 years by, as now, outlawing certain people from running in elections. You are happy that the military is doing the exact same thing it’s always done and somehow expecting it to be different from how it’s always been. That’s some powerful optimism.
You are wrong about several things but the primary one is that the military is doing the same thing the have always done. Can you explain why you see it that way?
Mainly that they not going to allow any Islamist candidates - banning the MB just like they did in the early 50’s. When the original military coup happened it was also well celebrated. Could you describe what they are doing different and what “several” things I am wrong about in my four sentence post?
What do you mean by ‘not allowing Islamist candidates?’ If you mean candidates who will uphold the democratic principles of freedom of religion but are devotees to the religion of Islam, the religion of peace, as GWBush called it.
If you mean extremists who will not accept freedom of religion, then the victors of the 2011 revolution that brought the former political order down have every right to ban certain types of ideological human beings from participating in the process of setting the new political order.
The victors of the American Revolution set up the new Constiturion but did not find it necessary to dictate to the states who had the ‘right’ to vote.
Surely you are aware of this:
So why can’t the victors of the revolution frame a their first elections so that only propertied males have a right to vote and run for office.
It worked here originally by restricting probably two thirds of the population from participating in the first elections.
Their revolution is still on. They should not be forced to submit to a religious tyrant having just thrown off the yoke of a secular tyrant. Now should they?
One big difference this time is that the military rulers gave the Muslim Brotherhood/Morsi/Islamists a shot at the highest office of the land. That’s new. Morsi blew his revolutionary audition.
What you are wrong about would be:
(-CarnalK today at 04:09 PM re: post#807)* But all that stuff you said just show that a secular government will happen (yay! The secret police are on our side!), not a democracy. * <“Cite”
No! All that stuff I posted shows that a secular modern constitutional democracy is very much possible. The deal with the secret police is potentially a big move or indicator for democracy being established in Egypt. When some of the 100,000 former secret police join the mass protest by an estimated 17 million in what I call the second revolt in Egypt, it matters that those 17 million plus 100,000 are calling for democratic rule in opposition to Islamist anti-(FREE)-democratic rule where freedom of religion - an inalienable right in here in the US - may not be respected or maintained.
(-CarnalK today at 04:09 PM re: post#807)*Secular governments are basically what the military has been keeping in place for 60 years by, as now, outlawing certain people from running in elections. * <“Cite”
Let’s go with what H.Action labels the government in Egypt prior to Mubarak’s forced resignation. It was an Authoritarian/Illiberal I believe. The military was not particularly indebted to the secular aspect of the illiberal authoritarian government. And I don’t believer that government oppressed or thwarted the practice of Islamic and other religions during the period of which you speak. It appears to have been in the business of oppressing extremism and or opposition to the Mubarak regime. I thing you are wrong because when secularists began getting out of hand the military appeared to at first at least try to crush it. It became apparent that peaceful protest with the millions that rose up against the Mubarak regime in the Arab Spring was too much for the Egyptian military and police to contain or repel.
(-CarnalK today at 04:09 PM re: post#807)* You are happy that the military is doing the exact same thing it’s always done and somehow expecting it to be different from how it’s always been. That’s some powerful optimism. * <“Cite”
The difference now is that the military could not save Mubarak by the onslaught of mass peaceful protest and organized demonstrations against it. Then the military sat out the first election and let Islamists run for office and those Islamists won the presidency as the Military stood down.
I started reading and I was like “omg, he learned how to use the quote function!”, then you disappointed. Oh well.
Well, the problem with that is who gets to decide which is which. The military has been deciding this for 60 years but I am sure it will all be different this time.
That is what happened but not what’s “different” about the next election. That’s what was different about the last election. We’ll see exactly what the military decided is the best plan going forward. A rational person might guess they decided “I guess we gotta stay in charge or the Islamists will win every election”.
So, you really want to compare the voting rights of the Muslim Brotherhood with negro slaves in early America? Most interesting.
Not just slaves… It was women and males without property… The comparison is if it was good enough for our democracy … why can’t Islamists Extremists Organizations be restricted from voting. The continuation of my point is that the victors of the rebellion gets to decide how to set up the transition to the new legal political order.
Right. But that’s not democracy. Why do you hate democracy?
I love our Democracy. But you are telling ne that for half a century after its beginning we had no democracy in the good ole US of A - the land of the free?
When did America go from no democracy to having a democracy. A functional democracy in your mind?
Would it be right and fsir to give the Egyptians the same amount of time to go from revolution - a taste of freedom - to a functional democracy such as ours?
You seem to have made my point that Egyptians deserve a great deal of time to develop a democracy that deserves theirs and the rest of the world’s love.
Just so you know I love our democracy’s transition from infancy to maturity despite its you full shortfalls.
Perhaps you think it should have emerged in perfect functional democracy condition as you expect it to happen in Egypt right now?
OWNING slaves was good enough for our democracy. Would you forgive that too of this poor fledgling democracy? Sheesh.