Whereever he went to (I just read about Sharm el-Sheikh as well, but it is probably from the same source), he does not need to bother coming back.
I only hope that the military council really does allow the country to hold free and fair elections. I guess the best thing now would be to install a temporary government, and have elections as planned in september, to give ample time to prepare for that.
Well, and it gives a big warning to the other autocrats in the area - if it can happen in Egypt, it can happen anywhere.
I hope this is a good day for Egypt.
Stefan
|
I guess the best thing now would be to install a temporary government, and have elections as planned in september, to give ample time to prepare for that.
From what the article said, it looks like multiple high-ranking military leaders will hold power as a council. I too hope they allow for fair and free elections.
I guess the best thing now would be to install a temporary government, and have elections as planned in september, to give ample time to prepare for that.From what the article said, it looks like multiple high-ranking military leaders will hold power as a council. I too hope they allow for fair and free elections.
Well, they should know what happens if they try to cling to power now...
|
|
Well, they should know what happens if they try to cling to power now...I guess the best thing now would be to install a temporary government, and have elections as planned in september, to give ample time to prepare for that.From what the article said, it looks like multiple high-ranking military leaders will hold power as a council. I too hope they allow for fair and free elections.
True. Here's hoping they've got some forward thinkers who actually do have the best interests of the Egyptian people at heart.
WOOHOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! EGYPT IS FREEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
I only hope that the military council really does allow the country to hold free and fair elections. I guess the best thing now would be to install a temporary government, and have elections as planned in september, to give ample time to prepare for that.
Well, and it gives a big warning to the other autocrats in the area - if it can happen in Egypt, it can happen anywhere.
I hope this is a good day for Egypt.
Stefan
Same thing happened in Iran with the Fall of the Shar. There will be no September Elections.
The whole thing reminds me somewhat of the Glasnost era in the late 80ies/early 90ies in Eastern Europe. Sure, there are differences, but 1. there were autocratic regimes and 2. the populace knew that there was another lifestyle available and 3. it spread like wildfire and could not be contained once it had begun. The Middle Eastern countries are not a more-or-less unified bloc like the communists were, and there is no superpower trying to control its lessers. Religion did play a role as well, the meetings and demonstrations in eastern Germany started at churches for the most part, and either the catholic or eastern orthodox religion was important in most other countries as well. But the arabian/middle eastern leaders pay at least lip service to religion, other than the communists. I guess these parallels and differences will be of big interest if this era has run its course and the outcomes are to be seen.
I heard that there is unrest in Algeria as well, with demonstrations tomorrow, but the situation there is very different, with a civil war in the not-too-distant past and terrorism recently - it is a deeply shattered and traumatized society there. The regime plays on the fear of the populace of more chaos, unrest or even another civil war, but the young generation is disaffected as well, and it is large, with 25% being under 15 years, and the young adults suffering from high unemployment. It may be that change there will be several years or even a decade in the making, but it will come as well - and with islamic terrorism recently, they probably won´t let any regime of that kind come up.
I think that the militant and extremist islamism the world had to suffer from in the last decade or two is slowly being seen even in the countries of its origin as the abomination it is - that this brings war, suffering and regress to these countries. The secular autocracies are exposed as the criminal things they are as well, and I think we will see a very dynamic development there in the next few years or even decades. This will be no picnic, for sure, and I expect bloodshed and setbacks in this development (like in Iran presently). We might see the effect the internet and modern technology can have in spreading information - it has become harder than ever to suppress information, and with that information comes the desire to participate in what the modern world has to offer. (Incidentally, I think Wikileaks is a good thing in the end, even if I don´t subscribe to the quasi-religious fervor some of its protagonists show.)
Stefan
Same thing happened in Iran with the Fall of the Shar. There will be no September Elections.I only hope that the military council really does allow the country to hold free and fair elections. I guess the best thing now would be to install a temporary government, and have elections as planned in september, to give ample time to prepare for that.
Well, and it gives a big warning to the other autocrats in the area - if it can happen in Egypt, it can happen anywhere.
I hope this is a good day for Egypt.
Stefan
I don't recall the army ever being in power during the Iranian Revolution. Shah handed over power to a civilian government which Khomeini then overthrew.
Here, Mubarak is stepping down for a military council in a country that receives a billion dollars in military aid from America every year. I'm sure America wouldn't be allowing this to happen if they didn't know and trust each and every one of the members of this council.
So I don't see this as in anyway analagous to Iran at all.
I, personally, think that if the United States, the Egyptian government and military just allowed free, honest elections (whatever that means) they'd probably get a resurgence of Nasserism this time tempered by a realpolitik relationship with Israel.
But I'm no expert.
I don´t think that the muslim brotherhood is influential enough to come to power in Egypt. This might even be a positive effect of the Mubarak regime: he tried to curtail their power, and had some success. And I don´t think that the Egyptian populace will have anybody ever again telling them what to think. The situation in Egypt is wholly different than that in Iran back then, there are no religious leaders in sight who have a similar backing like Chomeini had, and I don´t think that anybody would succeed in forcing his ideas upon the country. In Iran, religious extremists fed the revolt long before Chomeini came back - I see nothing like that in Egypt. I rather feat an attempt from the military council to remain in power now they have it.
Stefan
|
|
Regarding the Muslim Brotherhood - they don't have to come to power. At this point, I'm guessing they'd be happy to just be a part of a legitimate, duly elected government. Even just a small part. If they've shown anything in their history, it's that the Brotherhood is patient. Once they've got their foot in the door (or even just a toe), they can use their influence to slowly swing things around to how they want.
...personally I just wish they could reinstate the Pharaoh. I'd have voted for him.I might be wrong, but I don't think the position of "Pharaoh" was ever a "democratically-elected" title.
-- Andy
It was, however, occasionally used about Mubarak. And the last real king of Egypt didn't turn out that great.
|
|
The scary thing is that I think Egypt is just the beginning. According to CNN the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the group that really started to ramp everything up since yesterday, has offshoots in Yeman, Saudi Arabia, and a few other places. If they bring Egypt down then by then end of next week the whole face of the Middle East could look a whole lot different.Lets ratchet down the Islamaphobia here. Mubarak's being ousted from power PEACEFULLY is a good thing overall
True - Murbarak being ousted is good. But I don't think voicing a legitimate concern regarding the Brotherhood and its goals is Islamophobia.
From what I´ve heard so far, the muslim brotherhood is somewhat islamistic, but I don´t think that they are the islamistic threat that some make them to be. It is a big organization and has various wings, some of them moderate - they don´t present an unified islamistic front throughout the middle east. And don´t forget that in Egypt, about 10% of the population are Koptic (and a few other) christians (numbers vary wildly), who struggled in the past and suffered repression - they don´t want any more radical muslim government installed. How much power they can bring to bear is another question, but between a rather secular young generation and non-islamic religions, a hypothetical power grab by the muslim brotherhood is not automatically successful. I think that they will be one voice in the political chorus of Egypt, but not necessarily the loudest.
I rather fear a military dictatorship that might be in the making right now, but then, the people of Egypt ousted their hated president once, so they won´t suffer this gladly if at all.
Stefan
|
|
it is if it's the "muslim" that triggers the panic button. In that area of the globe, Islam is the "normal" set of religions that Christianity is to us. And quite frankly I won't shed a tear if this leads to a string of dictators and ogliarchs being marched out of power.
True - Murbarak being ousted is good. But I don't think voicing a legitimate concern regarding the Brotherhood and its goals is Islamophobia.
So, in other words, you're assuming right off that it was the word "muslim" in the organization's title that "triggers the panic button" in David. I didn't know mind reading was one of your skills! I'm impressed.
Or, perhaps it was just the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood might not be as much of an ally to the U.S. that makes people hope they don't achieve power. I, for one, would certainly prefer a democratic government that was friendly to our interests.
As for shedding tears over the fall of dictatorships - I think the only people who might be doing that are the dictators themselves, and maybe their families and flunkies. Personally, I say: the more democracy, the more freedom, the better.
|
|
The protests have removed the face of dictatorship.
However right now, the military still has all the power and the Civilians still have none. The big question is how much if any, the generals are to share. They have shown restraint so far in how they've handled themselves, but a lot of them are no fans of democratic process.
Egyptian Military have dissolved Parliament and suspended the Constitution, and 'promised' elections in Six months...
So no Parliament or Constitution for the next six months.
How it will now work: Islamic brotherhood (5% of population) will be invited to govern, Women will be required to wear a sack over their heads (new head dress policy), and Protesters will be shot.
|
|
My country once was ruled by a Parliament in collusion with a Monarch. Some fly guys wrote a letter to the Monarch, told him to "Shove it! We're out of here!," and moved on.
My country called that letter "The Declaration of Independence." If you want to check it out there copies of it out on the Internet.
Anyway, long story short (this happened several hundred years ago), my folks had to fight some ... but they convinced the Monarch and his Parliament we meant business. We we tossed together a Constitution (for what it was worth), amended it a few years later, and proceeded to do what people do.
I think my country turned out "all-right." Better than most, but that's me.
We've got a ways to go, as far as meeting the goals we yapped about in our "Shove-it!" letter, but I think we're doing okay.
By 'your people' I take it you mean the minority of Americans who wanted power and the petty warlord who torched my family farm because we refused to provide food to his terrorists. Yeah - we moved to Canada. We should have just shot Washington the Rapist...the world would be a better place.
yellowdingo,
It's pretty clear the what was called a "Parliament" <chuckle> and "Constitution" <snicker> in the Arab Republic of Egypt ... well, it just wasn't "working" for the majority of the Egyptian people.
By majority you mean the 5-10% of the population who protested.
According to the news, the parliament was indeed seen as a farce anyway, reminding people of the bogus elections. Much the same about the constitution. It was something that the protesters wanted. You never know what comes of this, and it might indeed end up as a military dictatorship. Yet, the military is seen as a protector of the common people there (in contrast to the secret police), and so is given trust to change things for the better. I´m not entirely convinced that this is going to end well, but OTOH, the Egyptian people know that they can make a difference, and the military council knows this as well.
Besides, Great Britain never had a constitution, so this is not necessarily crucial. I know that a comparison between UK and Egypt is not valid at all, but a country can work without a constitution.
Stefan
Egypt before the uprising = Military dictatorship under Mubarak
Egypt after the uprising = Not decided yet, could become a military dictatorship, could become a theocracy (but I honestly doubt it), or meybe even a democracy.
WOOHOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! EGYPT IS FREEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
a little more free, but not much
Islamic brotherhood to form government in Egypt...Oh look I was right. That makes me king.WOOHOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! EGYPT IS FREEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!a little more free, but not much
Islamic brotherhood to form legal political party in Egypt. Oh look, yellowdingo is prone to hyperbole.
The muslim brotherhood has one man in the council that works on a new constitution. I think this is a wise move, as they are part of the new Egypt then and less likely to work against it (well, the moderate part of the brotherhood, anyway - the more extreme forces won´t be satisfied no matter what, short of trying to remodel Egypt into a second Iran.)
Stefan
|
|
Islamic brotherhood to form legal political party in Egypt. Oh look, yellowdingo is prone to hyperbole.Islamic brotherhood to form government in Egypt...Oh look I was right. That makes me king.WOOHOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! EGYPT IS FREEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!a little more free, but not much
Hyperbole...? Elections dont elect minority points of view.
Welcome to the Woods, I say.
CBS Reporter Raped by Cairo 'Protesters'
Welcome to the Woods, I Say.
The article you have linked says specifically that she wasn't raped.
Whatever, sexual assault of any kind, as I'm sure we can all agree, is wrong.
Same day of news-surfing reveals that 3,200 (my number may be wrong, I'm writing from memory) females serving in the U.S. military were sexually assaulted by their fellow soldiers.
Should I try to make the implication that every member of the U.S. armed forces is a dangerous rapist? If I were to follow yellowdingo's lead I would, but I won't.
Oh, and minority viewpoints get democratically elected all the time. There's low voter turnout, there's parliamentary representation based on vote, there's coalition governments, etc., etc.
EDIT: I was raised in New Hampshire. I'm quite used to the Woods.
This sexual harassment is a despicable crime. It seems to be an everyday occurrence in Egypt, according to the reports (which in no way is an excuse). What does it prove? That european-looking women are a target for sexual harassment in Egypt? That hardly comes as a surprise, I guess, after reading the other reports that state that harassment is an all-too-common crime there even for native women.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with the democratic development of Egypt, I´d say. It speaks volumes about the mindset of the typical Egyptian male, however.
Stefan
|
|
** spoiler omitted **
On the Contrary Andrew...The Overthrow of a democracy that refused to pander the backwards belief systems of a dangerous minority through lawful force of its own does not equal democracy. It equals muslim fundamentalist state with millitary backing.
Failure to support the Elected State of Egypt pretty much condemns everyone who advocates the American Method of Democratization. 10% of the Population overthrowing the Government through violence and influence of the military is not acceptable - not ever. The minority Faction of the Revolutionary war that became the US did pretty much murder its way to power down a road of dead objectionists and Pro British. My own family experienced that American Revolution first hand - the 'Americans' cared nothing for majority rule. They wanted power and killed anyone who got in the way of it. They were a minority. Moderates were pushed aside and killed simply for being the majority.
I still don´t see where the Muslim Brotherhood is overthrowing the Egyptian nation. Granted, the danger is there, but I don´t think it is as big or as inevitable as you paint it.
Stefan
This sexual harassment is a despicable crime. It seems to be an everyday occurrence in Egypt, according to the reports (which in no way is an excuse). What does it prove? That european-looking women are a target for sexual harassment in Egypt? That hardly comes as a surprise, I guess, after reading the other reports that state that harassment is an all-too-common crime there even for native women.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with the democratic development of Egypt, I´d say. It speaks volumes about the mindset of the typical Egyptian male, however.Stefan
Abuse of women has no relation to a democratic movement? What are we in 1800's?
I prefer that the United States handle this the way Ron Paul has suggested- cut off all aid and stop interfering in Egypt's domestic affairs.
As for Dingo's nasty remarks about Washington, I just laugh.
I've always been faintly amused by Canadians, Australians, etc who brag about their status as 'colonials.' :)
Their queen Lizzie is not even a legitmate monarch. The true royal line is the House of Stuart. If they are going to be Loyalists, at least they could be loyal to their rightful king.
|
|
I prefer that the United States handle this the way Ron Paul has suggested- cut off all aid and stop interfering in Egypt's domestic affairs.
As for Dingo's nasty remarks about Washington, I just laugh.
I've always been faintly amused by Canadians, Australians, etc who brag about their status as 'colonials.' :)
Their queen Lizzie is not even a legitmate monarch. The true royal line is the House of Stuart. If they are going to be Loyalists, at least they could be loyal to their rightful king.
Who said I'm loyal to Monarchy? I'm A Commonwealth Citizen, like the guy sitting in the White house with Duel Citizenship...
My Loyalty is to a world spanning Commonwealth where any act of Government, Law, Constitution, Sovereign causing Government, Law, Constitution, Sovereign to be held in hatred and contempt is a Seditious act and thus an assault on the Comonwealth and therefor Treason - and the penalty for resisting arrest under charge of treason is death.
So what is your point?
I prefer that the United States handle this the way Ron Paul has suggested- cut off all aid and stop interfering in Egypt's domestic affairs.
As for Dingo's nasty remarks about Washington, I just laugh.
I've always been faintly amused by Canadians, Australians, etc who brag about their status as 'colonials.' :)
Their queen Lizzie is not even a legitmate monarch. The true royal line is the House of Stuart. If they are going to be Loyalists, at least they could be loyal to their rightful king.
Who said I'm loyal to Monarchy? I'm A Commonwealth Citizen, like the guy sitting in the White house with Duel Citizenship...
My Loyalty is to a world spanning Commonwealth where any act of Government, Law, Constitution, Sovereign causing Government, Law, Constitution, Sovereign to be held in hatred and contempt is a Seditious act and thus an assault on the Comonwealth and therefor Treason - and the penalty for resisting arrest under charge of treason is death.
So what is your point?
Well, I disagree with Citizen Dingo's politics, but he does have a legitimate point about the American Revolution. It wasn't a wonderful love-fest. A rough estimate is that one-third of the population was pro-Revolution, one-third was pro-Britain and the other third didn't particularly care one way or the other.
People make a big deal about the French Revolution, how bloody it was and all that and then talk about the American Revolution like it was accomplished by an act of the Continental Congress and an afternoon tea party.