Mubarak or the Muslim Brotherhood: who are you rooting for?

[JimC]

Gawd wrote:

Being an atheist does not mean that I'm an anti-religiousite at all costs. In fact, I haven't nailed a Christian to a cross in a long time. Does that finally put to rest that you think I'm a Muslim?

Certainly being an atheist does not mean despising religious people, or not being able to cooperate with them in many ways, but it generally tends to imply that one would prefer serious political organisations running a modern state be completely secular; religion should be a totally private matter; it's time to want to rule the world is long gone...

[mistermack]

What these countries really need is a sound constitution, that explicitly requires a free and fair election, every four or five years, for both president and parliament.
Religious parties should be banned, and any attempt to postbone or interfere with the freedom of elections should result in an immediate arrest of those involved, and new elections.
The role of the army is key, and the constitution should clearly state that their overriding responsibility is to the maintenance of the regular free elections, above all else, and to enforce the constitutional provisions, if any attempt is made to alter this.

This should in theory put a block on people or parties trying to use an election win to become effective dictators.

[Warren Dew]

Also, as far as I am aware, the Brotherhood are in with that coalition that is looking to Baradi to head up.

The Brotherhood doesn't mind him trying to negotiate a solution with Mubarak. That's a far cry from giving him any sort of control. A negotiated solution allows the protesters to call off the protests if they don't seem to be working, while setting up Baradei as the fall guy if, for example, Mubarak offers to resign a few months early and his hand picked successor turns out to be even worse.

In the unlikely event the government makes a real concession, it's likely to be something like allowing international observers for the next election, which benefits the Brotherhood without tying their hands.

Certainly being an atheist does not mean despising religious people, or not being able to cooperate with them in many ways, but it generally tends to imply that one would prefer serious political organisations running a modern state be completely secular; religion should be a totally private matter; it's time to want to rule the world is long gone...

I'd prefer serious political organizations to be completely secular, but that isn't yet realistic even in most parts of the west, including the U.S., let alone in the mideast. Are there any countries where churches are taxed the same as other private organizations?

[Robert_S]

Being an atheist does not mean that I'm an anti-religiousite at all costs. In fact, I haven't nailed a Christian or a Jew to a cross in a long time. Does that finally put to rest that you think I'm a Muslim? Considering what we have here, the Muslim Brotherhood is the least evil compared to the USA and Mubarak. You only have a negative emotional perception of the Muslim Brotherhood because you've been brainwashed by Western, aka: American, propaganda.

I figured it out... You're Roman!!!

[sandinista]

Phyllis Bennis: US supported states and regional domination shaken by people's uprisings.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHammktE ... r_embedded#[/youtube]

[Seth]

What these countries really need is a sound constitution, that explicitly requires a free and fair election, every four or five years, for both president and parliament.
Religious parties should be banned, and any attempt to postbone or interfere with the freedom of elections should result in an immediate arrest of those involved, and new elections.
The role of the army is key, and the constitution should clearly state that their overriding responsibility is to the maintenance of the regular free elections, above all else, and to enforce the constitutional provisions, if any attempt is made to alter this.

This should in theory put a block on people or parties trying to use an election win to become effective dictators.

Gee, that sounds kinda like the Constitution of the United States.

Problem is, you can never impose liberty. People have to want it badly enough to die for it first. Then they have to want peace for their kids badly enough to be willing to tolerate people they don't like.

[Ian]

Phyllis Bennis: US supported states and regional domination shaken by people's uprisings.

You really are a one-trick pony, huh? Everything comes back to the US, no matter what. "US-supported states" my arse. What pablum. Is France a US-supported state? We have a long and close working relationship with them. How about Japan? Their economy is about as dependent upon the US as Egypt's is, maybe more so. Norway gets billions of our oil dollars. They're states the US deals with, like just about every other country out there. You always speak as if there's a great invisible hand of Uncle Sam pulling the strings on everything, everywhere. Speaking as someone who analyzes the rest of the world for a living, I fucking wish that were the case many times. You probably have no idea what bullshit it really is. No doubt you could more easily criticize Russia more being a sham democracy, or Saudi Arabia for human rights abuses, but you're always drawn to the US because, ultimately, we're relevant. And because of that, those that are the most paranoid about the US always give American influence more credit than it's really worth.

Is anyone here contending that Egypt would've had a secular, modern democracy decades ago if only the big bad US hadn't insisted on keeping Mubarak in there all this time? I hope nobody here is naive enough to actually think that, but who knows. Seth was right: you cannot impose liberty. The Obama Administration's handling of this can be summed up in two words: very carefully. They've been calling on Mubarak to listen to the protests and to not respond with violence, to open communications back up, and to liberalize his government. A reformed, democratic (and in all likelihood, more prosperous) Egypt would be just fine with Washington - not unlike Turkey has been for generations, by the way. If Mubarak steps down in this process, then fine, Uncle Sam will "support" (i.e. deal with) his successor. The reason why Obama's not overtly calling for him to resign is pretty simple: 1) unfortunately, he could very well still be there after all this settles down, and Washington doesn't want to ruin whatever relations they still have to have with him, and 2) because the devil you know beats the devil you don't. Even this thread's title says it: Mubarak or the Muslim Brotherhood? Maybe the latter would be preferrable, I don't know. It could be, but I also don't know if there's going to be an Option C. And neither does Obama. Neither does he know what Option B will mean for the stability of the region. Maybe it'll mean an improvement, or maybe the whole region will be dragged back to the pre-Camp David Accord days. Gawd might like what that'll mean for Israel, but he's got blinders on as far as what it could mean far beyond Israel's borders. I'd like to see Obama come out and actually suggest that Mubarak step down (this all shades of 1979 if he doesn't), but showing support for the protesters is reasnoable and good enough for now.

[Gawd]

Ian, I'm inclined to believe that you have a dossier on me and report my activities to your superiors.

As for why we are criticizing the US here, it's because it is valid criticism. The US is a BIG, HONKING part of the problem. Where do you think all those billions of dollars of US "aid" to Egypt have went? Here's a hint: Mubarak is a fucking rich man!!!!

[sandinista]

As for why we are criticizing the US here, it's because it is valid criticism. The US is a BIG, HONKING part of the problem. Where do you think all those billions of dollars of US "aid" to Egypt have went? Here's a hint: Mubarak is a fucking rich man!!!!

[Ian]

Ian, I'm inclined to believe that you have a dossier on me and report my activities to your superiors.

I'm sure you are inclined to believe that!

As for why we are criticizing the US here, it's because it is valid criticism. The US is a BIG, HONKING part of the problem. Where do you think all those billions of dollars of US "aid" to Egypt have went? Here's a hint: Mubarak is a fucking rich man!!!!

And why, oh why, have we ever given Egypt aid? 'Cause we really love dictatorships and prefer to deal with them?
Or has it been because Egypt has actually been something of a stabilizing force in the region. Note that I mentioned the Camp David Accords earlier. Compared to others in the neighborhood, Egypt has (for thirty three years now) proved itself to be an example of how to get along with Israel. You have plenty of reservations about that, I know, and I share many of them. But the situation on that border has long been preferrable to the alternative. Go talk to the minority of muslim radicals who've been working towards turning Turkey into a theocratic country. They, too,will tell you that the is US is a BIG HONKING problem, helping to keep Turkey's current government in place for decades.

[sandinista]

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/1/31/m ... a_tear_gas

Made in the U.S.A.: Tear Gas, Tanks, Helicopters, Rifles and Fighter Planes in Egypt Funded and Built Largely by U.S. Defense Department and American Corporations

The United States has given billion dollars of military aid to Egypt over the last decades. Lockheed Martin, Boeing and General Electric have provided tanks, missiles, engines and more to the Hosni Mubarak regime. Following the massive popular uprising, U.S. foreign aid continues to flow to Egypt, although the Obama administration has placed the program under review.

[Gawd]

As for why we are criticizing the US here, it's because it is valid criticism. The US is a BIG, HONKING part of the problem. Where do you think all those billions of dollars of US "aid" to Egypt have went? Here's a hint: Mubarak is a fucking rich man!!!!

And why, oh why, have we ever given Egypt aid? 'Cause we really love dictatorships and prefer to deal with them?
Or has it been because Egypt has actually been something of a stabilizing force in the region. Note that I mentioned the Camp David Accords earlier. Compared to others in the neighborhood, Egypt has (for thirty three years now) proved itself to be an example of how to get along with Israel. You have plenty of reservations about that, I know, and I share many of them. But the situation on that border has long been preferrable to the alternative. Go talk to the minority of muslim radicals who've been working towards turning Turkey into a theocratic country. They, too,will tell you that the is US is a BIG HONKING problem, helping to keep Turkey's current government in place for decades.

So you are just eye-rolling while I pointed out where all your "aid" money is going. Good grief. Hey, what's that over there? -----------------------> JEWS!!!

[sandinista]

As for why we are criticizing the US here, it's because it is valid criticism. The US is a BIG, HONKING part of the problem. Where do you think all those billions of dollars of US "aid" to Egypt have went? Here's a hint: Mubarak is a fucking rich man!!!!

And why, oh why, have we ever given Egypt aid? 'Cause we really love dictatorships and prefer to deal with them?
Or has it been because Egypt has actually been something of a stabilizing force in the region. Note that I mentioned the Camp David Accords earlier. Compared to others in the neighborhood, Egypt has (for thirty three years now) proved itself to be an example of how to get along with Israel. You have plenty of reservations about that, I know, and I share many of them. But the situation on that border has long been preferrable to the alternative. Go talk to the minority of muslim radicals who've been working towards turning Turkey into a theocratic country. They, too,will tell you that the is US is a BIG HONKING problem, helping to keep Turkey's current government in place for decades.

So you are just eye-rolling while I pointed out where all your "aid" money is going. Good grief.

He's a one trick pony. America #1

[Ian]

Sandinista - I don't suppose you'd care to review how much of Egypt's military is actually of Russian origin...

And when do I ever say "America #1"? That's subjective horseshit if ever I read it. Am I saying so in this thread? No. I just take issue with the fact that you two always, always, ALWAYS say "it's America's fault!"

[Gawd]

Sandinista - I don't suppose you'd care to review how much of Egypt's military is actually of Russian origin...

And when do I ever say "America #1"? That's subjective horseshit if ever I read it. Am I saying so in this thread? No. I just take issue with the fact that you two always, always, ALWAYS say "it's America's fault!"

Because in this situation, IT IS AMERICA'S FAULT!!!