Scotty

Globe and Mail\ According to the Globe and Mail, interviews with the people involved seem to indicate they are legitimately outraged by the demand Mubarak leave immediately.

Shouldn't they have expressed their hatred for Saudi Arabia, then, which also supports Mubarak? I'm sure that in the general scheme of things the Saudis helped to prop up Mubarak more than the Israelis did.

That is simple speculation at this point.

I doubt anyone "adored" him. They helped prop him up because he was of value to them. When the riots came Carter and his government encouraged the Shah to leave and discouraged him from trying to use overwhelming force to stay on. The results were bad for the WEst, and bad for the Iranian people. If the current situation results in a democratic regime which respects human rights then good on them. But many doubt that such a government will come into play or, if it does, that it can survive. Just as the initial secular government which took over from the Shah was quickly overthrown by the Islamists, so too might this happen in Egypt. There are no opposition figures with any significant power behind them except the Muslim Brotherhood. There is no organized opposition except the Muslim Brotherhood. It would be naive to believe there is not a large chance of them taking power, and that they will be no more kind to political dissent than the current occupant of the President's office.

I note from various news reports that the cap used by the largest internet providers in the US is 250gb per month. In Canada it's 75gb per month.

Would you befriend a man who felt women were chattel and should be killed if they transgressed his moral code?

With respect, this is a country in which even Christians are persecuted. The fact Jews are virtually all gone from Egypt also bespeaks the level of discomfort they suffered while still in residence. Perhaps your hosts were happy at you being a Jew after you had already expressed their solidarity with their views. I have noticed that many groups, especially the most radical, in terms of their hatred of Israel, love to find Jews to agree with them. It's sort of like the Republican Party proud of their few Blacks. To suggest these people bear no animosity towards Jews in general given the cultural primitiveness expressed in their support for stoning and executions over religious and moral crimes possess a sense of enlightenment and religious tolerance strikes me as highly unlikely.

Would YOU get along with people who had such views?

Phillies fans are timid, gentle and polite compared to Flyers fans.

What is wrong with using the word 'Barbarians' to describe a section of the world which is culturally backward and extremely violent, brutal and intollerent?

I am far from an expert in the history of that part of the world. But insofar as I'm aware, the British colonialism was, if anything, a civilizing influence on India (which included Pakistan at that time).

You have clearly never been to Philadelphia.

And everything else...

The best possible outcome I see here is for Mubarak to hang on, but for his government to begin, like South Korea did after similar mass demonstrations, to institute true democratic reforms - which, nevertheless, banned Islamist parties. I think that if Egypt's existing power structure is overthrown the most likely result will be that the best organized, best armed opposition - the Muslim Brotherhood - will be in chrage within a year. At that point the US will essentially have a second Iran to deal with, albiet a more populous one without oil.

The distinction I wanted to make was that it wasn't a matter of propping up a nasty dictator to oppress the people. If the US or Western powers felt there was a legitimate democratic opposition who could take and hold power they would pressure the dictator to give over to them.

Yes, after a very long civil war there was an referendum on the Black Afican south separating form the Arab north, which succeded. That does not necessarily mean there won't be years of war in the future. But it was nothing like what happened in Tunisia or Poland. Nor do we yet know if whatever government takes over will be democratic for more than one election. Democracy has a very poor record in Africa. Just as it does among Arabs.

I don't honestly see why Canada benefits one way or the other from what happens in the middle east. WE don't need their oil, after all. The United States sticks its oar in there purely out of self-interest. It wants to maintain its own energy supplies, and it wants to ensure that those energy supplies flow to the west, as well, again, not because they're being nice, but because economic chaos in the West threatens American military and economic interests. The United States interferes so broadly simply because it was very broad economic interests at stake.

Generall speaking, it isn't a question of whether the United States or the West prefers to have a dictator in power as opposed to a democratic regime. It's a question of whether they'd rather have THIS dictator, or the dictator who would replace him if they failed to support him. In Egypt's case, the thinking all along has been that if Mubarek was overthrown, whomever replaced him would be just as much a dictator, but far less likely to be pro-western.

That's actually extremely rare. What normally happens is a band of revolutionaries arm and fight to overthrow the dictatorship, then they become the dictators. About the only time a "people's revolution" succeeds is when the government has absolutely no support, even from its own security forces.

Until the Musim Brotherhood takes over.

Does anyone actually expect the Palestinians, assuming they do kick the Israelis out, to have a free and democratic state?

Who is parroting whom? The response of the US and all other western nations was utterly predictable before any of them spoke. It's not like the U.S. came up with a particular response and everyone looked to them and then used it. All western democratic leaders had to say something without condemning what appears, on the surface, to be people's revolution decrying dictatorship, while at the same time encouraging caution. So suggesting that Mubarak listen to his people, and begin to institute democratic reforms was de rigeur for all of them. What else COULD they say? Condemn those people who want to overthrow a dictatorship? Demand Mubarek leave? Not bloody likely.

You mean like the riots against the Shah of Iran?

Kind of like the Kardashian sisters, right?

Clinton has better hair. He's also a smooth, charming man, and very attractive, or was. Hawking - not so much. Somebody married Pamela Anderson, too. I wouldn't elect her to high office, though.