And personally, I am more concerned about Egypt’s Military’s commitment to democracy.
You know, Germany has a pretty good democracy and they had Nazis. I think it’s fair to let the Egyptians have a little Fascism on the way to the ideal German style democracy. Or maybe Morsi represents the Nazis in this analogy. Hmmm.
Shodan asks: “What “freedom” and “democratic movement in Egypt” are you talking about?”
The democracy and freedom movement that toppled Mubarak that started in 2010. Where have you been? Do you think the MB started the movement that formed the election that Morsi won?
You don’t think the MB played a big part? And yes, your opponents in this thread are indeed more committed to the ideal of pure democracy than you, obviously and maybe stupidly so.
Percent. Christ, your posts are barely readable as is, it just gets worse when you typo the wrong words. Why do you consider the military having this much power to be “natural”? There is nothing natural about the military having this much direct control of the economy, nor is there any place, natural or other wise, for the military to exercise political power in an actual democracy. Military control of the government is anathema to democracy; the military is under civilian control in democracies, not the other way around.
What planet are you living on? There are and have been many, many examples where that combination of power exists and comes together. They’re called dictatorships. A lot of them in more recent times have bothered with the trappings of democracy and have sham elections where they win 90-99% of the vote from their beloved people.
It’s pretty telling that you don’t care about his plight, consider that he was given a chance and blew it, and consider it perfectly in keeping with the democratic process for the military to depose him in a coup rather than simply kick the bum from office next election. If one were to follow your convoluted logic, South Vietnam had a wonderful, functioning democracy throughout its existence. Sure, Diem won an implausible 98.2% of the vote, sure campaigning for Bảo Đại was prohibited, sure Đại supporters were attacked by Diems’s brother Nhu’s workers, but that’s all part of the normal democratic process. In the end he was given his chance and he blew it, so he departed office in what is a normal manner for a democracy, and after a couple of years of instability and rule by military junta, full democracy returned shining once again in all its full glory with the election of Thieu, member of aforementioned junta for the next ten years. Why he was so democratic and popular with the masses that just like in Egypt today he cracked down on press, and when he ran for re-election
And that democracy and freedom movement held an election where the people of Egypt picked someone the military didn’t like. So the military overturned the will of the people and then staged a referendum that excluded anyone who had a different idea from them. So the democratic movement got started, and then the military put an end to it.
But then we are going to bump up against the moronic idea that a military coup is actually an expression of democracy. Which unfortunately is one of those assertions that takes extensive revision, mistaken repetition, and outright drivel to achieve the status of being “wrong”. Before that, it’s just duckspeak.
Regards,
Shodan
Nope, I’m right. I simply stripped out what we in the business call “weasel words”. Now, he may have not meant them to be weasel words, but they are. You don’t get to back away from something just because you say “it’s technically not x” instead of “it’s not x”. “Technically” is a weasel word in that context. Something either is or is not.
Why? Is it because they are backing the mass protest movement that is seeking democracy instead of the movement that would stifle democracy? Your concern seems to be misplaced. I am satisfied to see the lack commitment by the military for establishing an Islamist state instead of a democratic one.
You have your priority and I have mine.
No, if the constitution allows for the military to remove someone from office then it’s fair to say it’s not “technically” a coup because it’s the law of the land. It doesn’t matter much anyway, it’s just semantics. What matters is whether it was the right thing to do and what the ultimate follow up is.
The answer is frigging obvious. The military overturned an election by force. That’s anti-democratic. They’ve spent decades enforcing sham elections. Your lack of concern is farcical.
Think of the brutal dictatorships around the world; do you think many people in them say “Well, at least it’s not a theocracy!”.
What business is that? The fact that you have to strip out anyones’s words tells all we need to know about you.
And if you are correct that the statement was filled with weasel words then you have just cut your argument down to meaningless drivel. Your point is that Horatio said it was not a coup but now you claim he uses weasel words which means he said nothing definite about it. There is no force either way for it being a coup or against it being a coup. You are wrong to cite it as not a coup.
“weasel word n. An equivocal word used to deprive a statement of its force or to evade a direct commitment.”
The business is debating. And when debating, weasel words are a no-no. But I don’t know that poster very well, and so I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn’t put them in there on purpose so that he could “weasel out” of a statement later.
In our business, that is debating, there is no difference between saying “x is y” and “x is technically y”. The “technically” adds no value to the statement, except giving the person making the statement a false sense of security that he can “weasel” out of it later on. He can’t. He said “x is y” whether he meant to or not. If he meant to say “x is not y”, he should have said that.
Wanking on the internet is a “business”?
a: It was a coup!
b: Maybe not technically…
a: Yes it was! That’ll be $4.99. Thank you, come again.
Your inability to see the gaping hole in the logic of even asking this question is simply Orwellian. The military has **no place **in a nation’s politics in a democracy, when the military “backs” a side democracy has ceased to exist. Who will hold political power is now being determined by force of arms.
NotfooledbyW’s just being pragmatic while refusing to admit he’s being pragmatic - pretending/deluding himself that he’s just as much of an idealist democrat as everyone else even though it’s clear that NfbW thinks stopping an Islamist theocracy is more important than holding strictly to democratic principles. If he would just admit that, we could discuss whether that’s true. For example, would we consider Turkey a “successful” democracy, despite it’s ban on “anti secularist” parties and strong military presence in politics?
To be fair to me, I’m using that phrase to mean: we who take debating seriously. But then, not all of us here do.
Well, since you aren’t running for office, that’s akin to people who take Magic:The Gathering seriously. Just saying. And I don’t think it’s more “serious” to run down a point like that when as far as I can see, it doesn’t change the substance of the debate. It doesn’t matter if we all agree it was a coup or “technically not”. We all know the fact is the military took over and replaced the leader.
I agree. Calling it “not a coup”, or even “not technically a coup” is a denial of the plain facts before us. The president was forcibly removed from office, extra-constitutionally. If that ain’t a coup, then the word has no meaning.
There was the issue of Obama needing to not call it a coup for political purposes, although that is more a sin of omission than a sin of commission. I don’t think he came out and said “this isn’t a coup”, but simply avoided saying it was. As far as I can remember anyway, and I’m not about to go look that up.
"The error in your assault on my argument is huge. The error or your assessment of what I am saying starts in this statement:
"The military has no place in a nation’s politics in a democracy, when the military “backs” a side democracy has ceased to exist"
I am not arguing a case that democracy exists in Egypt right now. I accept that democracy had a very brief period of a very weak form of democracy in action. I have explained that I see democratic ‘weakness’ in the fact that the democratically elected president in Egypt did not have normal power over the military and police as is normal in every established democracy that is functioning around the world.
So get it out of your head that I am arguing that democracy (even weak democracy) continues to exist after Morsi suffered the fate he deserved and the military took over… again.
There is NO established or functioning DEMOCRACY in Egypt right now! Is that good enough for you?
I have consistently explained that I am focused on the path to democracy.
On 01-21-2014 at 09:06 PM in a response to you I wrote, “So try to get that right too. The coup was necessary to start the** path to democracy **over and it took violence to get that done.”
On 01-21-2014 08:23 PM I wrote, “I’m not saying these arrests are proper or aligned with protecting basic human rights but there are conditions that over-ride the perfect path to democracy that you as an American thinks should be pure and painless.”
So cut the Orwellian assault. When Egypt completes their path to democracy I fully agree 100 percent that the military must be submissive to civilian rule and has absolutely no role in the politics of an fully functional and engaged and surviving democracy.
It is bizarre to describe Morsi’s brief episode as anything close to a full functioning democracy.
Proper bebating means you must back up your claims with facts.
John Mace claimed that this paragraph somewhere in it contains the phrase ‘Not a Coup’:
(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.”
So in a debate I challenged Mace to show us where that phrase appears.
Mace cannot show it so now he has assembled a story that it is so full of weasel
sords maybe - that he retains the right to insert the phrase ‘not a coup’ in there for the author.
I wonder if Mace is exclusive possessor of that power because if not - why couldn’t one insert ‘it is a coup’ based upon the affirmative statement that it walks and quacks like one.