(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.”
There is no confusion. Horatio says “it kind of walks and quacks like” a coup". That is in no way saying it is “not a coup”.
If Horatio wanted to say ‘it is not a coup’ he could have easily written that it is not a coup.
There is no need to rewrite his words unless you realize that your argument is bogus. And it is.
Can’t your whole argument be summed up with: you don’t care how democratic/lawful the military action was, they had to hit the “reset button” because Morsirl I was trying to set up a theocracy. Now you are sure democracy will flourish and the military will allow it as long as “anti secularists” don’t attempt to participate.
If so, I doubt anyone misunderstands. They are just less convinced and/or more committed to ideal of pure democracy.
Its not that “I don’t care” about the ‘lawfulness’ or ‘unlawfulness’ of taking Morsi down. Its that I recognize there is real power in control of events which is the combination of mass protest and the natural power of the military which dispenses the funding for 40 present of Egypt’s economy. There is not many situations in the world if any where this combination of ‘power’ exists and comes together.
If you are asking if I care much about Morsi’s plight… Not at all. He was given a chance… He blew it.
I agree pretty much with this argument:
*Trinopus on 07-14-2013 at 06:00 PM wrote A : "I What is the “right answer” when someone is legitimately elected, and then uses authoritarian techniques to demolish the instruments of democracy? I agree with TriPolar to the degree that no legal means of opposition were going to succeed in removing Morsi: he had already corrupted the civil service and the courts to the degree that they could not act against him. It was either the military, or a series of protests of the same sort that drove Mubarak out…
…Or simply surrendering to Morsi and tyranny. No option was going to be pleasant, but the military coup was probably the least unpleasant." <Cite
*A - Cutting off aid to Egypt is the law (Cutting off aid to Egypt is the law - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board)
The problem I have with Mace is that the facts are that my argument has been consistent since last summer when the coup d’état took place. My argument is perfectly in line with my exact wording from back then when I wrote on 07-11-2013 at 09:58 PM, **[U]“Call it a coup D’état if you like. It doesn’t matter **within a deeper perspective.”
Mace has constantly distorted my argument and accuses me of what he calls 'argument de jour. Here is Mace’s exact latest word on this:
John Mace wrote on 02-16-2014 at 04:28 PM, “So, we have a new characterization! The coup was a) not a coup; b) an “uncommon coup”; c) “more like a constitutional act”; and now it’s d) “a flaw in the run-up to democracy”. I guess it can be any number of things, however contradictory, depending on whatever is needed to back up the argument du jour.”
With regard to your statement " Now you are sure democracy will flourish and the military will allow it as long as “anti secularists” don’t attempt to participate."
You are close but not close enough. My argument, if you go back and look at what I’ve written, does not deny ‘anti-secularists’, as you all them, the right to participate in the political process. They just have to abide by the law, even the martial law, that has been put into effect to restore civility and economic activity, which democracy needs in place to flourish.
I didn’t say I was ‘sure’ of anything. I said "I like the odds’ … (unlike Mace … I prefer to use the exact words that are written here over time… Not a revised rendition that cannot be backed up in writing anywhere and any way.
NotfooledbyW wrote on 07-11-2013 at 09:58 PM, "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."
If there is no confusion, then why did he write: “This arguably does not meet the strict definition of a coup”. Like you, it matters not if he contradicted himself later. He argued (do you know what the word “arguably” means) that it was not a coup. Even if wrote “it was a coup” on the blackboard 1,000 times, that does not erase the time when he wrote that it was not a coup.
You see, everything you write on this MB remains written, even if you contradict yourself later. You should remember that. If you want to negate a statement, you need to say these 4 words that I know are anathema to you: I made a mistake.
On 07-09-2013 at 09:52 AM John Mace stated in the full context (see above) that “Obama is the decider as to whether this is a coup or not, so it’s really up to him”.
That means I’m quite confident that John Mace’s argument last July was that it was ‘really’ up to Obama to decide whether or not it was a coup or not, unless Congress intervenes.
I took no exception to that. So what input was available to Obama to make a decision on whether or not it was a coup? Could it be that Obama/members of Congress/his advisers could hear what Egyptians themselves are saying about it? And if one prominent internationally known Egyptian dissident, freedom fighter and author who may have influenced the protest movement that led to the overthrow of Mubarak, gives her opinion on that question - what conclusion does John Mace jump into? It appears that he thinks I wrote that an Egyptian becomes the president of the United States for expressing an opinion on the matter.
On 07-11-2013 at 05:55 PM John Mace chortles this, “That would be interesting if the statute said that an Egyptian gets to decide if it was a coup or not.”
Where does this nonsensical interpretation come from? Can’t an Egyptian have an opinion on whether they see what happened as a coup or not? So when John Mace begins with something that makes no sense, his only defense as all these months pass is to continue making no sense.
Now Mace is going on about this statement:
“This arguably does not meet the strict definition of a coup”
Mace goes on as if the writer of that statement had no intention for using the word ‘strict’ in it. The meaning that word adds to the statement has blown right over John Mace’s head. It’s as if the word is not there.
When that phrase is commonly used it means the writer is saying that event “x” meets the definition of “x” in some way. just not in the strictest sense. If it “walks and quacks like a duck … it must be a duck” in some way. But there is nuance or special circumstances why this duck does not fit the strict definition of a duck. The writer does not contradict himself at all. Mace is throwing mud at the ceiling and hope something sticks. Gravity ain’t helping him at all.
He never wrote *“that it was not a coup”. *You are extremely confused if you see it somewhere that he did.
Yes everything remains written… An that means things that ARE NOT WRITTEN can be inserted later in a rewrite… and that includes you. You can’t rewrite things and get away with it when the original is available for all to see.
You yourself wrote something similar… ‘Very complicated" On 07-09-2013 at 09:52 AM you wrote, "So, reading the news today it looks like there are Senators in both parties who are taking both sides on this. Very complicated.’’
In other words I’m saying Finding agreement on a ‘strict definition’ of a coup may be very difficult to come by because its all very complicated.
But I thank you for proving Mace to be wrong when he wrote, “I have no idea what your argument (singular) is. You’ve made so many contradictory arguments that I doubt anyone reading this thread has any idea what your argument is.”
See, your came pretty close and my argument it not affected by calling it a coup or deciding it is not a coup… As I said in the first… place… call it coup if you like… it does not matter…
Has the USA ever experienced a major rebellion starting with absolute rejection of a fair and legal national democratic and constitutionally held election for President, VP and members of Congress? And if so, did that rebellion lead to rebel bacjed military action against the US Federal government?
Will anyone answer that with a ‘no’ ?
See, that might be one of the reasons some people are having trouble understanding your position. Why are you talking so much about American history? You really think Egypt is that much like America 200 years ago? Is “Well, America did/didn’t do that” such a slam dunk argument that you devote page after page of poorly formatted posts about it? Tip: It’s not!
He did not write those exact words, which is why I did not put them in quotes. He wrote that it “arguably” was not. Do you know what the word “arguably” means" It means “one can argue that…”
Now, are you going to come up with some rule that we cannot in this forum? If so, we can go back and find every instance where you’ve done that.
Why would you assume such a rediculous position on my part that Colonial America and modern Egypt are much alike. My question is not confusing and assumes no such similarities between two hundred years ago and the present day,
Here is the question again just for you:
Has the USA ever experienced a major rebellion starting with absolute rejection of a fair and legal national democratic and constitutionally held election for President, VP and members of Congress? And if so, did that rebellion lead to rebel bacjed military action against the US Federal government?
If you cannot answer it or don’t want just move on. No need for conjecture about what my unstated position is on non- related matters.
Aaaarg! I am not assuming that. The opposite - which is why your continued insistence on discussing American history in this thread is so damn stupid. Why the hell is my admitting that “Yes indeed. There WAS a civil war in America!” help your argument in any way with regards to Egypt?
(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.”
Again if one wishes to convey that it arguably was not a coup; one would simply write, “it arguably is not a coup”.
Horatio did not write what you imagine that he did.
It is a fact and you are wrong. Wrong in the strict definition of that word.
Why not say yes and find out what’s my point instead of calling it stupid before I have a chance to explain it.
What’s wrong with civility and rational discourse?
Is your answer yes?
Did you suggest that my opponents here are perhaps more committed to the ideal of pure democracy than I am?
Is American democracy one of the highest standards for which those committed to legitimate democracy would cite as one of the best examples of democracy that works.
Ok, yes. The answer is yes. I did some research and it turns out there was indeed an American rebellion 150 years ago that rejected a fair election. Wow. Even in a democracy as awesome as America. Learn something new every day.
Americans like me who love our own democracy and are committed to it need not expect the revolutionary freedom and democratic movement in Egypt resolve internal differences by absolute respect for their very first election.
And it is ridiculous to question the Egyptian mass protest movement’s commitment to democracy because millions of them rebelled against what the winner of the election was doing in opposition to the ideals of democratic freedoms they have fought for the past three years.
You didn’t need me to answer “yes” for you to say that. “Emerging democracies may take a few stumbles out of the block” stands on it’s own without arguing about the American Civil fucking War - especially when you agree that 150 yrs ago America is nothing like modern Egypt.
edit to add: By the way, I am actually Canadian but I think I gave a false impression I’m American a few posts back.
What “freedom” and “democratic movement in Egypt” are you talking about? It wasn’t an expression of democracy; it was a military coup. And the only difference being resolved is that the majority wanted something the military didn’t want them to have. So the military frustrated the will of the majority, overthrew the legitimately elected leader, shut out anyone who refused to vote for what the military wanted, and threw their political opponents in jail.
Coups are Democracy.
War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.