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

[AnInconvenientScotsman]

People need to stop comparing Egypt to other countries receiving American aid, just off the cuff, without any mention of any other variables or even the context - just to point out.

[Ian]

War would have been better.

Quoted.

Can you fit something about Israel in there? Too out of context?

Doesn't really matter, does it? Not everyone sees Israel the way you see it. Rum is right:

Saying war would have been better is possible one of the most despicable things I have ever seen written.

Yep.

[pErvinalia]

What do people expect!? This is the way strategic politics works! America looks after its interests just as every country does. As an aside I suspect Egypt has done rather well out of the deal compared to how they would have fared if left to their own devices. And to assume that somehow it would be fairer, better, more democratic or just for its people if it had been left to its own devices is simply idealistic poop.

Why is it idealistic poop? Are they not protesting now for what on the surface at least looks like secular and democratic causes? Why do you assume that they couldn't have got secular democracy earlier in the picture if Mubarak hadn't been so heavily supported?

Anyway, on the subject of America, it has a LONG history of picking losers. If that's it strategy, it needs to seriously reassess it.

America does support Israel. So what? It has policies in place to do that. These policies arguably have prevented war at least for the last 30 years, now matter how much of a weeping sore that part of the world has become.

What are you talking about? Israel has invaded a number of states/autonomous regions in that time. Just because it was over in days/weeks, doesn't mean it wasn't war for the people who were invaded. The reason it was over so quick is because of the free-reign Israel has had in oppressing and blockading some of it's neighbours thereby limiting them to useless resistance.

[JimC]

People need to stop comparing Egypt to other countries receiving American aid, just off the cuff, without any mention of any other variables or even the context - just to point out.

Spot on!

People also need a somewhat less one-dimensional view than blaming all Egypt's problems on US support over the years.

In context, US support has helped Mubarak maintain his rule, but it would be very simplistic to see that as the only factor...

[sandinista]

People need to stop comparing Egypt to other countries receiving American aid, just off the cuff, without any mention of any other variables or even the context - just to point out.

Spot on!

People also need a somewhat less one-dimensional view than blaming all Egypt's problems on US support over the years.

In context, US support has helped Mubarak maintain his rule, but it would be very simplistic to see that as the only factor...

Of course there are never any political issues that have only one factor. To think that is simplistic. In the same breath, of course, some factors wiegh much heavier than others. The US involvement and aid for Mubarak is one of those very important factors. Not to be ignored or downplayed.

What do people expect!? This is the way strategic politics works! America looks after its interests just as every country does. As an aside I suspect Egypt has done rather well out of the deal compared to how they would have fared if left to their own devices. And to assume that somehow it would be fairer, better, more democratic or just for its people if it had been left to its own devices is simply idealistic poop.

Why is it idealistic poop? Are they not protesting now for what on the surface at least looks like secular and democratic causes? Why do you assume that they couldn't have got secular democracy earlier in the picture if Mubarak hadn't been so heavily supported?

Anyway, on the subject of America, it has a LONG history of picking losers. If that's it strategy, it needs to seriously reassess it.

America does support Israel. So what? It has policies in place to do that. These policies arguably have prevented war at least for the last 30 years, now matter how much of a weeping sore that part of the world has become.

What are you talking about? Israel has invaded a number of states/autonomous regions in that time. Just because it was over in days/weeks, doesn't mean it wasn't war for the people who were invaded. The reason it was over so quick is because of the free-reign Israel has had in oppressing and blockading some of it's neighbours thereby limiting them to useless resistance.

Nice to see you around rEvolutionist, this place needs more reasonable voices.

[Toontown]

What do people expect!? This is the way strategic politics works! America looks after its interests just as every country does. As an aside I suspect Egypt has done rather well out of the deal compared to how they would have fared if left to their own devices. And to assume that somehow it would be fairer, better, more democratic or just for its people if it had been left to its own devices is simply idealistic poop.

America does support Israel. So what? It has policies in place to do that. These policies arguably have prevented war at least for the last 30 years, now matter how much of a weeping sore that part of the world has become.

For just as long, the US has enabled the racist policies of Israel and the oppression of Arabs. War would have been better.

Saying war would have been better is possible one of the most despicable things I have ever seen written.

Close, but not quite. It was even more despicable when he said it's all Amerikka's fault for adhering to the terms of the peace agreement signed by the U.S., Egypt, and Israel. A treaty which has kept peace between Egypt and Israel for 30 years after decades of serial wars. A treaty which requires the U.S. to provide Egypt 1.3 billion annually in military aid. A treaty signed by Mubarak's predecessor, Anwar Sadat. A treaty fully honored by Mubarak, which required the U.S. to fulfill it's end of the bargain.

His lie was made even more dishonorable and despicable by the fact that he lied about what he was lying about - a contortion too complicated and disgusting to bother describing.

And Tweedle-dinista hasn't done much better, having also covered himself with the foul stench of dishonor.

[pErvinalia]

What do people expect!? This is the way strategic politics works! America looks after its interests just as every country does. As an aside I suspect Egypt has done rather well out of the deal compared to how they would have fared if left to their own devices. And to assume that somehow it would be fairer, better, more democratic or just for its people if it had been left to its own devices is simply idealistic poop.

Why is it idealistic poop? Are they not protesting now for what on the surface at least looks like secular and democratic causes? Why do you assume that they couldn't have got secular democracy earlier in the picture if Mubarak hadn't been so heavily supported?

Anyway, on the subject of America, it has a LONG history of picking losers. If that's it strategy, it needs to seriously reassess it.

America does support Israel. So what? It has policies in place to do that. These policies arguably have prevented war at least for the last 30 years, now matter how much of a weeping sore that part of the world has become.

What are you talking about? Israel has invaded a number of states/autonomous regions in that time. Just because it was over in days/weeks, doesn't mean it wasn't war for the people who were invaded. The reason it was over so quick is because of the free-reign Israel has had in oppressing and blockading some of it's neighbours thereby limiting them to useless resistance.

Nice to see you around rEvolutionist, this place needs more reasonable voices.

I don't know how long I will be around. I came to wail on Seth, but stuck around for the after party. I'm going to pop in here more if I can, but limited time makes it hard.

[Gawd]

What do people expect!? This is the way strategic politics works! America looks after its interests just as every country does. As an aside I suspect Egypt has done rather well out of the deal compared to how they would have fared if left to their own devices. And to assume that somehow it would be fairer, better, more democratic or just for its people if it had been left to its own devices is simply idealistic poop.

America does support Israel. So what? It has policies in place to do that. These policies arguably have prevented war at least for the last 30 years, now matter how much of a weeping sore that part of the world has become.

For just as long, the US has enabled the racist policies of Israel and the oppression of Arabs. War would have been better.

Saying war would have been better is possible one of the most despicable things I have ever seen written.

Close, but not quite. It was even more despicable when he said it's all Amerikka's fault for adhering to the terms of the peace agreement signed by the U.S., Egypt, and Israel. A treaty which has kept peace between Egypt and Israel for 30 years after decades of serial wars. A treaty which requires the U.S. to provide Egypt 1.3 billion annually in military aid. A treaty signed by Mubarak's predecessor, Anwar Sadat. A treaty fully honored by Mubarak, which required the U.S. to fulfill it's end of the bargain.

His lie was made even more dishonorable and despicable by the fact that he lied about what he was lying about - a contortion too complicated and disgusting to bother describing.

And Tweedle-dinista hasn't done much better, having also covered himself with the foul stench of dishonor.

Oh come on, war with Hitler was pretty much the best choice, wasn't it? You guys are just tooting because I'm the one saying it. Sometimes war is the best solution instead of allowing dictators fueled by American dollars to run free. And its not like the USA has a problem with "assassinations" or anything.

[Toontown]

Oh come on, war with Hitler was pretty much the best choice, wasn't it? You guys are just tooting because I'm the one saying it. Sometimes war is the best solution instead of allowing dictators fueled by American dollars to run free. And its not like the USA has a problem with "assassinations" or anything.

Of course. If the Israelis had your impeccable killer instinct, they would launch a blitzkreig on Egypt right now, while Egypt's army is distracted and bunched up in the cities. The IDF could be in Cairo in 2 days.

Lucky for Egypt the Israelis don't have your killer instinct. Or your impeccable sense of honor.

[Warren Dew]

Cute. A protest against Mubarak is all well and good, but when thousands of Mubarak supporters show up, El Baradei calls it a "crime against Egypt".

http://www.hindu.com/2011/02/03/stories ... 840100.htm

[sandinista]

Why fear the Arab revolutionary spirit?
The western liberal reaction to the uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia frequently shows hypocrisy and cynicism

What cannot but strike the eye in the revolts in Tunisia and Egypt is the conspicuous absence of Muslim fundamentalism. In the best secular democratic tradition, people simply revolted against an oppressive regime, its corruption and poverty, and demanded freedom and economic hope. The cynical wisdom of western liberals, according to which, in Arab countries, genuine democratic sense is limited to narrow liberal elites while the vast majority can only be mobilised through religious fundamentalism or nationalism, has been proven wrong. The big question is what will happen next? Who will emerge as the political winner?

When a new provisional government was nominated in Tunis, it excluded Islamists and the more radical left. The reaction of smug liberals was: good, they are the basically same; two totalitarian extremes – but are things as simple as that? Is the true long-term antagonism not precisely between Islamists and the left? Even if they are momentarily united against the regime, once they approach victory, their unity splits, they engage in a deadly fight, often more cruel than against the shared enemy.

Did we not witness precisely such a fight after the last elections in Iran? What the hundreds of thousands of Mousavi supporters stood for was the popular dream that sustained the Khomeini revolution: freedom and justice. Even if this dream utopian, it did lead to a breathtaking explosion of political and social creativity, organisational experiments and debates among students and ordinary people. This genuine opening that unleashed unheard-of forces for social transformation, a moment in which everything seemed possible, was then gradually stifled through the takeover of political control by the Islamist establishment.

Even in the case of clearly fundamentalist movements, one should be careful not to miss the social component. The Taliban is regularly presented as a fundamentalist Islamist group enforcing its rule with terror. However, when, in the spring of 2009, they took over the Swat valley in Pakistan, The New York Times reported that they engineered "a class revolt that exploits profound fissures between a small group of wealthy landlords and their landless tenants". If, by "taking advantage" of the farmers' plight, the Taliban are creating, in the words of the New York Times "alarm about the risks to Pakistan, which remains largely feudal," what prevented liberal democrats in Pakistan and the US similarly "taking advantage" of this plight and trying to help the landless farmers? Is it that the feudal forces in Pakistan are the natural ally of liberal democracy?

The inevitable conclusion to be drawn is that the rise of radical Islamism was always the other side of the disappearance of the secular left in Muslim countries. When Afghanistan is portrayed as the utmost Islamic fundamentalist country, who still remembers that, 40 years ago, it was a country with a strong secular tradition, including a powerful communist party that took power there independently of the Soviet Union? Where did this secular tradition go?

And it is crucial to read the ongoing events in Tunisia and Egypt (and Yemen and … maybe, hopefully, even Saudi Arabia) against this background. If the situation is eventually stabilised so that the old regime survives but with some liberal cosmetic surgery, this will generate an insurmountable fundamentalist backlash. In order for the key liberal legacy to survive, liberals need the fraternal help of the radical left. Back to Egypt, the most shameful and dangerously opportunistic reaction was that of Tony Blair as reported on CNN: change is necessary, but it should be a stable change. Stable change in Egypt today can mean only a compromise with the Mubarak forces by way of slightly enlarging the ruling circle. This is why to talk about peaceful transition now is an obscenity: by squashing the opposition, Mubarak himself made this impossible. After Mubarak sent the army against the protesters, the choice became clear: either a cosmetic change in which something changes so that everything stays the same, or a true break.

Here, then, is the moment of truth: one cannot claim, as in the case of Algeria a decade ago, that allowing truly free elections equals delivering power to Muslim fundamentalists. Another liberal worry is that there is no organised political power to take over if Mubarak goes. Of course there is not; Mubarak took care of that by reducing all opposition to marginal ornaments, so that the result is like the title of the famous Agatha Christie novel, And Then There Were None. The argument for Mubarak – it's either him or chaos – is an argument against him.

The hypocrisy of western liberals is breathtaking: they publicly supported democracy, and now, when the people revolt against the tyrants on behalf of secular freedom and justice, not on behalf of religion, they are all deeply concerned. Why concern, why not joy that freedom is given a chance? Today, more than ever, Mao Zedong's old motto is pertinent: "There is great chaos under heaven – the situation is excellent."

Where, then, should Mubarak go? Here, the answer is also clear: to the Hague. If there is a leader who deserves to sit there, it is him.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... sia-revolt

[Coito ergo sum]

Is it too late to root for Mubarak?

Egypt's Fundamentalist Summer
Could an ultraconservative religious ideology be the biggest beneficiary of the Egyptian revolution?

http://www.slate.com/id/2299139/

Gotta love how this Arab Spring bullshit was sold to us through the media, and in the US by the government, as some sort of triumph for liberty and freedom.

[JimC]

Is it too late to root for Mubarak?

Egypt's Fundamentalist Summer
Could an ultraconservative religious ideology be the biggest beneficiary of the Egyptian revolution?

http://www.slate.com/id/2299139/

Gotta love how this Arab Spring bullshit was sold to us through the media, and in the US by the government, as some sort of triumph for liberty and freedom.

Well, I think it was indeed very real at the time for many liberal secular arabs sick of corruption, but now they have another battle, against islamic fundamentalism...

[Coito ergo sum]

Is it too late to root for Mubarak?

Egypt's Fundamentalist Summer
Could an ultraconservative religious ideology be the biggest beneficiary of the Egyptian revolution?

http://www.slate.com/id/2299139/

Gotta love how this Arab Spring bullshit was sold to us through the media, and in the US by the government, as some sort of triumph for liberty and freedom.

Well, I think it was indeed very real at the time for many liberal secular arabs sick of corruption, but now they have another battle, against islamic fundamentalism...

Yes, the liberal, secular Arab Muslims. All 5 of them.

And, anytime one needs to refer to something as real "to" someone - like "it's real to him..." or, "it's real to me..." - then that's just a euphemism for "not real." It's either real or it's not. Things aren't "real to him" but not "real to me." They're real, or not. The Arab Spring...well...wasn't.

[mistermack]

anytime one needs to refer to something as real "to" someone - like "it's real to him..." or, "it's real to me..." - then that's just a euphemism for "not real." It's either real or it's not. Things aren't "real to him" but not "real to me." They're real, or not. The Arab Spring...well...wasn't.

There is no more impressive sight, than a man so fully gifted with hindsight.

The word "spring" in this context just means a time of change. Nobody is claiming to know what the future holds.

NOBODY can guarantee exactly what a spring leads to. You might get a brilliant summer, a miserable summer, or rarely no summer at all. But you can be pretty sure that winter will be back at some point.

The Arab Spring was perfectly real. But you can't be sure what's next. That's not what Arab spring means.