Government of Egypt Overthrown by Military

[Tani Coyote]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/04/world/meast/egypt-coup-what-we-know/?hpt=hp_t1

So the people of Egypt have been calling on sitting President Morsy to step down for a few days now. Elected with over half the vote and backed by the Muslim Brotherhood, he refused the military's demands that he relinquish power. As a result, the military oversaw his arrest and has deposed him; an acting President has been established.

Most notable is that acting President Adly Mansour is going to suspend the constitution to rewrite it and will hold democratic elections at a later date. There's great concern this move will divide the country and possibly lead to violence by the Islamic Brotherhood.

So, thoughts?

Personally I don't like it. Deposing leaders at whim doesn't sound like a good idea to me. While I understand parliamentary systems do this, those depositions are at least democratic - this was the armed forces deciding to "support the people" and get rid of a President. There was no respect for the democratic process here, and that's greatly concerning to me.

I feel sorry for the people cheering this move. They don't understand what they're saying by allowing the military to freely change the government.

[Patticus]

Now, I didn't like Morsi, and I did buy into the idea that he was trying to set himself up as dictator for life, but the opposition said on day one that they would do everything to make life so difficult for him that he would be sacked or made to resign (sounds like the Republicans versus Obama!), so I don't think even those people have rebuilding Egypt as their primary concern, and I'm not sure that I would trust them in office.

 

 

 

The military has ordered the mass arrest of prominent Muslim Brotherhood members.

 

Egypt Orders Mass Arrests Of Muslim Brotherhood Members

 

Egyptian police have issued arrest orders against at least 300 leaders and members of former President Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood, AFP reports.

 

Two prominent members close to Morsi have already been detained, including the head of the Freedom and Justice Party — the Muslim Brotherhood's political arm, and the deputy head of the Islamist movement, according to Ahram Online. 

 

Security forces also broke into a live Al Jazeera broadcast, shutting down the station and arresting presenters, guests, and producers.

 

In the wake of the president's ouster, forces deployed across the country to seize control from pro-Morsi loyalists, and the military surrounded the Republican Guard barracks where Morsi was staying with barbed wire and troops.

 

Gehad El-Haddad, media spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood, posted to his twitter account that Morsi had been placed under house arrest, along with most members of his presidential team.

 

In a statement released by the White House, President Obama said he was "monitoring the very fluid situation in Egypt" and called on the military to "move quickly and responsibly to return full authority back to a democratically elected civilian government."

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/egypt-orders-mass-arrests-of-muslim-brotherhood-members-2013-7#ixzz2Y2E82tEI

 

Shit's going down there, clearly.

[Tani Coyote]

Yeah, this isn't a "democratic coup" or anything of the sort. The military wants power, and will happily throw whoever into "power" so as to keep it for themselves. Mubarak was unpopular, so they canned him. Morsi was unpopular, so they canned him. I'm guessing the military read a few books on direct democracy and took the "changes policies quickly" part a little too literally.

The persecution of the Muslim Brotherhood is the real concern. Military regimes have turned over power in the past, however rare, but this is not what any true democratic movement would be doing. They've determined the Muslim Brotherhood won't play ball, and so they're trying to purge them before they can organise any semblance of resistance.

I would not be surprised if Egypt ends up similar to Syria; the Muslim Brotherhood obviously enjoyed widespread support, so this could be just as bad as the Sunni/Shi'ite split in Iraq if there's no stable central government to keep everyone together.

Worst part is the United States is inevitably going to back this coup I think. The Muslim Brotherhood wasn't exactly seen as favorable to American interests as I recall, so I would not be surprised if our government had a hand in this, however polite Obama's disposition may look. We were, after all, the supporters of the Mubarak regime, and the same military that backed Mubarak (and thus who we gave weapons to) is still in control.

Violence in Egypt will invite foreign intervention quick. Not just because of the oil, but the fact it has the Suez Canal. If interest was taken in Libya, Egypt's got to tread extra carefully unless they want to be a European colony again.

Edited July 4, 2013 by Ogilvie Maurice

[Tornado]

My thoughts in a nutshell:

Government of Egypt Overthrown by Military

 

"Again?"

[Tani Coyote]

My thoughts in a nutshell:

 

"Again?"

I... do not blame you.

Ultimately just goes to show this whole revolution was a farce. The state's still held by the military as it was under Mubarak. Ten bucks says this "constitution" won't be finished for a long time and elections, while promised, won't be for a while either.

Democracy controls the military, not the other way around.

[Patticus]

Part of me doesn't seem to care what the Egyptian government is like (democratic, autocratic, military etc), so long as the country's antiquities are protected; this same part of me is still in shock at the ongoing cultural devastation of Syria. The other part of me is horrified that a people so desperate for free and fair democratic rule has again fallen under the thumb of its own military.

 

I'd really rather the west not get bogged down in another expensive middle eastern quagmire war that would only really serve to turn whole other nations of people against it, but at the same time, it's so sad to see this great country fall to military despotism again.

[Tani Coyote]

The other part of me is horrified that a people so desperate for free and fair democratic rule has again fallen under the thumb of its own military.

As Robert A. Dahl said in his book On Democracy, ultimately a democracy can only thrive if the people of a country have democratic values. The Egyptian people clearly do not. I hate to sound cynical, but the fact they're so actively supporting the overthrow of a democratic regime means they've earned whatever's given to them. America hated Bush, Carter, and various others but we still let their term run out, because we've established rules in politics that we follow no matter how much we hate them at times.

To see how important the ideology of democracy is, consider India, a country that defies pretty much all the rules of a stable democracy (with rampant poverty, corruption, and ludicrous cultural diversity); the ideology is so strong it helps unify the disparate nation and has even short-circuited coups such as Indira Gandhi's. Likewise, when the military tried to overthrow the government of Spain, King Juan Carlos rallied his people to support democracy, and the coup soon aborted. Then we see the Enabling Act of Germany...

Ultimately, democracy only works if the people want it. Egyptians clearly do not. Democracy (barring direct) isn't a case of "I don't like how things are, let's change the entire government this instant." Without certain rules and procedures, the system inevitably collapses into oligarchy as one faction can flex its muscles in the name of a faux-democracy, as has happened here.

I'd really rather the west not get bogged down in another expensive middle eastern quagmire war that would only really serve to turn whole other nations of people against it, but at the same time, it's so sad to see this great country fall to military despotism again.

At most we'd probably just occupy the Suez Canal zone to ensure shipping isn't disrupted. The canal's so important to international trade Egypt will swiftly find its sovereignty trampled on if they can't keep a good grip on it.

I wish they had a way out.

It's going to take an armed revolution. I don't think the military's going to let go of power anytime soon.

And unless we help them as we did the Libyan rebels, that's an uphill battle.

[Badnik Zero]

I think the issue was that Morsi was too much of the same for a post-revolution Egypt. The time called for a strong reformer, but Morsi's politics divided people. His response was to protect his position with bogus laws, which did not help his case. I think Egypt is capable of a democracy. They just didn't think this man was the way forward. Personally I think Morsi was on the level, and even if opinion turned against him he would've been honest in the end. Ogilvie is right to say this sets a precedent for violence anytime the ruling party loses favor, but we'll see what the military does. Obama keeps talking about Egypt's aid package, which is meant to put pressure on them to hand over power. Didn't the military defer to elections last time? It's just up to the generals to decide if this card is something they plan to play again at any point in the future. They should not think they control the country so easily.

[Mauro Fonseca]

Can we get any Egyptians here to opinate? Because I don't see them very angry at this, only Westerners.

[Nepenthe]

From the way this entire thing has been spelled out for me, it's that the president who was thrown out had been setting the stage for despotic rule. If that is the case, how can you blame the Efyptian people for discarding the democratic process? You don't vote out a dictator.

[Tani Coyote]

Actually Indira Gandhi was fairly dictatorial in India for about two years, arresting plenty of opponents. She was thrown out in the next election. It ultimately comes down to respect for democracy among the rank and file. That has not been demonstrated here.

It's easy to justify a military revolution, but when you consider this is the same military that backed Mubarak, I find it sad the Egyptian people actually believe these officers care for a second about their democracy. It's all bread and circuses. These "elections" are just a public formality to keep approval, the same way Roman Emperors weren't technically monarchs, but people who held every importance office of government at the same time.

 

Can we get any Egyptians here to opinate? Because I don't see them very angry at this, only Westerners.

Outside observers actually have a better chance of an objective view. Especially since we've had democracy for decades if not centuries; Egypt is a new democracy and it's no surprise it's already collapsed.

Anyway. The aid package will hopefully apply pressure. But when we see how much of a failure economic actions were against North Korea and Cuba, I doubt it will do anything. Russia and China always being eager to peeve us when they get the opportunity, they'd just fill any weapons void we'd leave. We can't really afford to pull out since someone else will move in.

Overall, however, the Egyptian people have demonstrated poor understanding of democratic government, and I'm saddened. You do not violently throw out a democratic regime, even if it is unpopular. In a Presidential system, you wait until the midterms to send in opposition members. In a Parliamentary system, you apply pressure on your MP until they pass a vote of no confidence or dissolve Parliament. There are better ways to get rid of unpopular democratic leaders than military coup d'etats.

Precedent's importance cannot be understated. I'm inclined to think the reason America's Presidential system has thrived while almost all others collapsed into dictatorship is because the inaugural President was humble and had no plans of concentrating power. This same precedent did not follow in other places, where the Presidency quickly became a free for all.

No democracy has ever lasted for long where the government does not command the respect of the military (one reason Costa Rica has thrived while most Latin American states became tyrannical is they just flat out abolished their army). Egypt's democracy has been smothered in its crib.

Edited July 4, 2013 by Ogilvie Maurice

[SkyLlama]

Can we get any Egyptians here to opinate? Because I don't see them very angry at this, only Westerners.

 

I've got a friend I go on Mumble with who is from Egypt. I can't tell you his exact opinions, but they've been mixed at best over the course of everything.

 

Maybe I'll ask him when I can.

[Tani Coyote]

I've got a friend I go on Mumble with who is from Egypt. I can't tell you his exact opinions, but they've been mixed at best over the course of everything.

 

Maybe I'll ask him when I can.

I'd actually be interested to hear how folks in the country feel about it, too.

I can understand the mixed feelings; while it comes across at first as a good measure, it's setting a very, very bad precedent. Pick one's poison and all that.

The collective citizens of longer-lived democracies, I think, can give Egypt good advice on what does and doesn't work. I think most of us will agree this sort of overthrow is not one of the things that does. Part of democracy is accepting the government as legitimate even if you do not agree with it; you are given your chance to make change every election cycle. Violent overthrow, secession, claiming it was a rigged election, etc. are not the proper way to respond.

[Mauro Fonseca]

The collective citizens of longer-lived democracies are being spied upon and forced to suffer by their governments, but can't do anything because change has to be gradual and all that. Even in a country where people are being arrested and religious extremism is taking control. Let's blindly keep believing that come next elections it'll all be fine.

 

No, military intervention is not ideal. It's also not something to look at patronisingly and go "those silly egyptians, don't they know how DEMOCRACY FUCK YEAH works?"

 

So I'll maintain my line. I want actual egyptians opinating. Both for and against. Until then I'll be seeing people as just parroting from outside. (EDIT: and in this case, I mean by parroting from outside both what I'm doing and what, for an example, Olgilvie's doing. Who am I to say it really isn't the worst thing ever that the army is removing kebab?)

Edited July 4, 2013 by Captain Harlock

[Patticus]

From the way this entire thing has been spelled out for me, it's that the president who was thrown out had been setting the stage for despotic rule. If that is the case, how can you blame the Efyptian people for discarding the democratic process? You don't vote out a dictator.

 

This is my present understanding of events:

 

Morsi gets voted in, thanks to a very clever campaign run by the Muslim Brotherhood, which was much better organized and fielded many more candidates than anyone else.

 

This was followed by:

• Morsi not having any control over the corrupt Mubarak-era security forces.
• The firebombing of the Brotherhood's political offices by the opposition; probably the same people who have been carrying out other acts of organized violence.
• The opposition refused to participate in the government, while criticizing it for not forming a coalition government.
• First democratic parliament in Egypt was disbanded on a technicality by bitter opposition, which was supported by El Baredei; an opposition leader, pretty much the darling of the west.
• A constitution was put together by a hundred members of parliament, of whom only around thirty were actually from the Muslim Brotherhood.
• El Baredei spread lies, e.g. saying that the new constitution made child labor legal.
• El Baredei claimed that Morsi didn't listen to anyone, while simultaneously rejecting invitations to talks.
• The first calls for revolution against Morsi came last August IIRC, which had a bad impact on tourism and investment in Egypt.
• Morsi was hamstrung at every single turn by opposition and/or the army, so he enacted temporary sweeping powers to try and actually have any power at all (something I can imagine Obama must have contemplated at times, in his mind); the simple-minded and those unaware of the situation's details (like myself) saw this as a move to set himself up as dictator for life.

The man was really sadly just screwed from the beginning.

Meanwhile, the Mubarak regime was supported by successive US administrations for decades, and now a democratically elected president has been left out to dry.

[Tani Coyote]

The collective citizens of longer-lived democracies are being spied upon and forced to suffer by their governments, but can't do anything because change has to be gradual and all that.

If there's one thing looking at the democratic systems across the world is, it's that each has its advantages and disadvantages. Slowing down the rate of change ultimately outweighs its costs, however; it prevents majoritarian insanity like what we're seeing here. Why should a leader bother at all to try any measure if it will cost him or her popularity and thus result in immediate removal? He can try his luck, and if the policy doesn't work, he'll pay for it at the polls.

Mob rule is not a valid way to administer a modern, large country. It prevents unpopular, but sound decision-making, ultimately will violate minority rights, and on top of that is incredibly inefficient in how much time it wastes and how little citizens know about day-to-day government. If citizens dislike their government, they wait until election time (or in parliamentary systems, apply serious pressure to call an election) rather than calling for the heads of those in power.

 

Let's blindly keep believing that come next elections it'll all be fine.

In countries that value democratic principles, that's actually generally the case. A leader ultimately can only consolidate power if his population remains passive about it. While things like the PATRIOT Act have gotten through in the US, for example, we've shot down quite a fair share of bills that were unpopular (and without an armed revolt, for that matter). A complacent population is the greatest enemy of democracy, I'd say, whereas a vigilant population is its greatest ally.

 

It's also not something to look at patronisingly and go "those silly egyptians, don't they know how DEMOCRACY FUCK YEAH works?"

I'd think countries with decades or centuries of democracy under their belts probably know better how to make a democracy work, though. Can you imagine if our military deposed Bush, or if the Canadian military deposed Harper, or anything of the sort? Based on what Patticus stated, Morsi was akin to Obama with how caustic the lies about his government were; can you imagine if America's army deposed President Obama because of some supposed conspiracy to destroy democracy here? We'd condemn it in a heartbeat.

The precedent being established in Egypt is that the military can depose an elected government for "democracy." However, this is inherently a ridiculous concept because any powerful organ inevitably pursues its own interests. Power is resting with the military, not the people; that's a stratocracy, not a democracy. Civilian control of the military is essential for a democracy to remain, as a government can only rule with the monopoly on the use of force.

Which is why I genuinely feel sorry for anyone in Egypt who seriously believes that the military will relinquish power. It's not impossible (I cite George Washington; he could have been dictator but went into retirement as soon as peace was made with Britain), but it's very unlikely.

I may come off as patronising, but ultimately I can give a pretty good objective analysis of what helps build a lasting democracy. Situations like this most certainly do not. This will benefit Egypt no more than Napoleon III or Adolf Hitler's popular mandates to assume absolute power over their own democracies.

 

This is my present understanding of events:

 

Morsi gets voted in, thanks to a very clever campaign run by the Muslim Brotherhood, which was much better organized and fielded many more candidates than anyone else.Meanwhile, the Mubarak regime was supported by successive US administrations for decades, and now a democratically elected president has been left out to dry.

Man. And I thought Obama was demonised badly by HIS opposition. This is just insane!

Clever. Guy tries to rein in the army's clout, opposition (I suspect with support the army) says he's trying to become a dictator (this doesn't sound familiar at all) and so the military rides the sentiment to throw out a possible threat.

It's diabolical, if nothing else.

Edited July 4, 2013 by Ogilvie Maurice

[Stacy]

Part of me doesn't seem to care what the Egyptian government is like (democratic, autocratic, military etc), so long as the country's antiquities are protected; this same part of me is still in shock at the ongoing cultural devastation of Syria. The other part of me is horrified that a people so desperate for free and fair democratic rule has again fallen under the thumb of its own military.

 

I'd really rather the west not get bogged down in another expensive middle eastern quagmire war that would only really serve to turn whole other nations of people against it, but at the same time, it's so sad to see this great country fall to military despotism again.

 

Seeing as Tourism is a big part of their Economy I doubt their people will want to deface museums protesting seems counter-Productive, however if a Civil War broke then I would start to worry.

 

I honestly don't know if this a good thing or a bad thing, if he was genuinely oppressive then it is good to he has been removed. However the biggest issue what is next? Egypt is back to square one again. The Military knows that controlling the government for long due to their past is a really bad idea but they could easily slip back into a Dictatorship.

 

I would like to hope the US Government and the CIA had nothing to do with this seeing as the Last Egyptian leader was Pro-US interests will Morsi was not. 

Edited July 4, 2013 by BW199148

[Tani Coyote]

Seeing as Tourism is a big part of their Economy I doubt their people will want to deface museums protesting seems counter-Productive, however if a Civil War broke then I would start to worry.

Didn't they deface some artifacts during the Mubarak protests?

Given that they represent pagan history I'm not surprised; some Islamic radicals would want to get rid of such, the same way Catholic priests liked to burn Mayan and Aztec texts.

 

The Military knows that controlling the government for long due to their past is a really bad idea but they could easily slip back into a Dictatorship.

They will do what they always do and supervise an election. If the leader doesn't play ball, he'll be framed for something or have an accident.

Power has never truly rested with Egypt's people. In a democracy power rests with an elected government because it controls security forces; it rests with the people by extension because these leaders renounce this control to whoever their successor is.

 

I would like to hope the US Government and the CIA had nothing to do with this seeing as the Last Egyptian leader was Pro-US interests will Morsi was not. 

You act like this government actually changed to begin with. The President of Egypt isn't a dictator, he's a figurehead who just does whatever the army tells him to. Mubarak was unpopular, so the military decided to score brownie points by ousting him. Morsi was unpopular (and it sounds like he was trying to rein in the armed forces), so they did the same.

Power has never rested, and probably won't for a while, with the Egyptian people. They are being led on a wild goose chase, not noticing who the real oppressors are. Heck, knowing how these things go I wouldn't be surprised if Morsi would have tried to establish himself as dictator if he did somehow put a leash on the army. It's like World War One in politics: there is no good side, just several factions all trying to increase their power at the expense of everyone else.

[Stacy]

Didn't they deface some artifacts during the Mubarak protests?

Given that they represent pagan history I'm not surprised; some Islamic radicals would want to get rid of such, the same way Catholic priests liked to burn Mayan and Aztec texts.

 

They will do what they always do and supervise an election. If the leader doesn't play ball, he'll be framed for something or have an accident.

Power has never truly rested with Egypt's people. In a democracy power rests with an elected government because it controls security forces; it rests with the people by extension because these leaders renounce this control to whoever their successor is.

 

You act like this government actually changed to begin with. The President of Egypt isn't a dictator, he's a figurehead who just does whatever the army tells him to. Mubarak was unpopular, so the military decided to score brownie points by ousting him. Morsi was unpopular (and it sounds like he was trying to rein in the armed forces), so they did the same.

Power has never rested, and probably won't for a while, with the Egyptian people. They are being led on a wild goose chase, not noticing who the real oppressors are. Heck, knowing how these things go I wouldn't be surprised if Morsi would have tried to establish himself as dictator if he did somehow put a leash on the army. It's like World War One in politics: there is no good side, just several factions all trying to increase their power at the expense of everyone else.

 

Well their biting the hand that feeds them if they did and as far I am aware that was small radical minority of Egyptian people, not all of them.

 

I didn't say that he was a Dictator don't put words in my mouth, I said that wasn't sure if Morsi was oppressive or not. I don't know all the facts, many people don't both foreign and Egyptian. Like you said its a free for fall and everybody wants in on it both foreign and domestic.  

[Tani Coyote]

Well their biting the hand that feeds them if they did and

As in the military? What are the people of Egypt going to do? Stage a protest? The army will either ignore it or bloodily disperse it. And the Egyptians won't be able to do a thing about it without weapons.

There's a reason radical libertarian literature calls for abolition of the military entirely, after all. It is the easiest tool that can be used to enact oppression, because it is so difficult to overthrow.

If the military of Egypt is cautious of anyone, it will be foreign governments. We all saw how fast Qadaffi's power evaporated after a few NATO airstrikes. That Egypt is important to the economies of countless European nations puts them in a unique situation.

 

as far I am aware that was small radical minority of Egyptian people, not all of them.

Small minorities are still dangerous in the right circumstances. Al-Qaeda, for example.

The chaos of massive unrest is the perfect cover for any criminal activities. While Egypt's in a theoretical uproar I can't imagine it'd be too hard to break into museums and steal or damage antiquities.

 

I didn't say that he was a Dictator don't put words in my mouth, I said that wasn't sure if Morsi was oppressive or not.

I didn't mean to insinuate that you said such; I was referring to how it's often treated like anything really changed in Egypt since Mubarak's ousting (and convenient sudden decline in health). I then said the President is not a dictator, but a puppet of the armed forces. As it stands the President may as well be as ceremonial as a counterpart in a Parliamentary nation, as he has little independent power.

 

Like you said its a free for fall and everybody wants in on it both foreign and domestic.

Given the intervention in Libya, I'm presuming this will be kept under wraps by the military. Because if they can't govern their country, I'm sure some NATO-sponsored force will be glad to take up the reins.

Edited July 5, 2013 by Ogilvie Maurice

[Stacy]

As in the military? What are the people of Egypt going to do? Stage a protest? The army will either ignore it or bloodily disperse it. And the Egyptians won't be able to do a thing about it without weapons.

There's a reason radical libertarian literature calls for abolition of the military entirely, after all. It is the easiest tool that can be used to enact oppression, because it is so difficult to overthrow.

If the military of Egypt is cautious of anyone, it will be foreign governments. We all saw how fast Qadaffi's power evaporated after a few NATO airstrikes. That Egypt is important to the economies of countless European nations puts them in a unique situation.

 

Small minorities are still dangerous in the right circumstances. Al-Qaeda, for example.

The chaos of massive unrest is the perfect cover for any criminal activities. While Egypt's in a theoretical uproar I can't imagine it'd be too hard to break into museums and steal or damage antiquities.

 

I didn't mean to insinuate that you said such; I was referring to how it's often treated like anything really changed in Egypt since Mubarak's ousting (and convenient sudden decline in health). I then said the President is not a dictator, but a puppet of the armed forces. As it stands the President may as well be as ceremonial as a counterpart in a Parliamentary nation, as he has little independent power.

 

Given the intervention in Libya, I'm presuming this will be kept under wraps by the military. Because if they can't govern their country, I'm sure some NATO-sponsored force will be glad to take up the reins.

 

I was referring to damaging artefacts with the biting the hand that feeds them. Seeing as tourism is one of big forms of revenue that is why I said it would be counter productive in my previous post, not many people are going to Egypt. All Religious fanatics have to gain from that is making themselves look more backwards than they are, fuelling their unpopularity among moderate Egyptians. My first sentence had nothing to do with the military that is I why it was first sentence of my reply. 

 

We shouldn't intervene, look at Iraqi it is currently being run into the ground by its current leadership who was put in power by the US, all we do is put our interests ahead of the peoples of these countries. Iran is perfect example and Iraqi isn't far behind. Last time I checked Libya wasn't doing so great.

 

People in West wonder why we are so disliked in the Arab World and why fanaticism spreads like a plaque.

Edited July 5, 2013 by BW199148

[Badnik Zero]

Can we get any Egyptians here to opinate? Because I don't see them very angry at this, only Westerners.

 

My one Egyptian friend is very happy about it, she's very romantic about the idea of revolution.

 

Her friend on Facebook says Egypt doesn't understand democracy and should have voted Morsi out. Quoting him, "We can't be in a state of revolution forever" and "Most Egyptians didn't participate in the revolution, most of them wanted the whole thing to end". He says it worked the first time because Mubarak was hated by most groups involved, but since Egypt is now divided the vote is the only way forward. He's also concerned about Ethiopia's dam.

 

Also this message from Tahrir Square about supporting the military coup that was in their favor.

 

Edited July 5, 2013 by American Ristar

[Stacy]

He's also concerned about Ethiopia's dam.

 

 

What is that, Ristar? 

 

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/egypt-troops-open-fire-pro-morsi-march-132101279.html

 

The events in Egypt are taking a turn for the worse.   

Edited July 5, 2013 by BW199148

[Badnik Zero]

What is that, Ristar? 

 

Ethiopia is building a large dam project along some of their portion of the Nile which will possibly effect flow downriver to Egypt. Which caused Egypt's government to say it had historical claim to the waters, then make unfriendly statements along the lines of "all options are being considered" when it comes to protecting the Nile. There were some talks between the countries about the Nile dam right before the military coup. I didn't really know what to think about it, but I guess it's a political hot topic over there right now, or maybe Morsi's government was making it an issue.

 

Also from the posts I quoted, it's easy to see that not all Egyptians share one opinion. Like all people, why would they? While hearing it from Egyptians is probably more relevant, don't be shocked to see all types of opinions there.

Edited July 5, 2013 by American Ristar

[Tani Coyote]

We shouldn't intervene, look at Iraqi it is currently being run into the ground by its current leadership who was put in power by the US, all we do is put our interests ahead of the peoples of these countries. Iran is perfect example and Iraqi isn't far behind. Last time I checked Libya wasn't doing so great.

We shouldn't, but we probably will. Most politicians still have Cold War-style thinking and don't see economic relationships as the proper way to get things done. Then again the poorer countries are also to blame for this; if not for their penchant for nationalising foreign assets maybe investment would be considered a more viable tool in policy (as the only way to get seized assets back is force of arms; force has to be overcome with greater force by definition). It's a never ending cycle of bitterness and "You treated us badly so we'll do the same."

 

People in West wonder why we are so disliked in the Arab World and why fanaticism spreads like a plaque.

 

As all militarism promotes is broken window economics, it's no wonder so many people are destitute in those parts. Impoverished people are more inclined to radicalism; this is why Rome had its bread and circuses, and why labor rights and social welfare were put into place in the modern day. Violence begets violence, both between nations and within them.

 

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/egypt-troops-open-fire-pro-morsi-march-132101279.html

 

The events in Egypt are taking a turn for the worse.

This is why the democratic process, as much as the democratic principle, needs to be respected. Now that it's established that governments can be made and broken freely without elections, Egypt's on the road to revolutionary hell.

With Mubarak, a revolt was rational; there was no way to change the government otherwise. Once you have elections, however, you give up your right to throw a violent fit when the government doesn't do as you wish.

Edited July 6, 2013 by Ogilvie Maurice