The crisis in Egypt

[Jack Weber]

Not one bit... I Wonder who wrote that script? They're following it to the T...

Even I was kinda shocked when the CBC reported that the Mubarak family had assets of around $40 BILLION and Mubarak himself over $17 BILLION... That kinda loot takes some time to get it all out of Dodge before riding away...

CLASSIC Fascism, even Mussolini could've taken lessons & learned from this...

Well the originators of the "script" were Alceste De Ambris and Filippo Tommaso Marinetti along with Benito Mussolini...

I think 'ol Adolph and Benito perfected it,however...

Would the time for Mubarak to get all the loot out take about 7 months perhaps???

Keep an eye on the complcit bankers who will assist this thief in his financial getaway....

Edited February 5, 2011 by Jack Weber

[eyeball]

Well the originators of the "script" were Alceste De Ambris and Filippo Tommaso Marinetti along with Benito Mussolini...

I think 'ol Adolph and Benito perected it,however...

Would the time for Mubarak to get all the loot out take about 7 months perhaps???

Keep an eye on the complcit bankers who will assist this thief in his financial getaway....

This sounds like a case for Julian Assange.

[Jack Weber]

This sounds like a case for Julian Assange.

As far as Fascist theives go,Mubarak is probably the tip of the iceberg...

There's a few SubSaharan African dictators that are as,or more,wealthy than Mr.Mubarak...

[eyeball]

As far as Fascist theives go,Mubarak is probably the tip of the iceberg...

There's a few SubSaharan African dictators that are as,or more,wealthy than Mr.Mubarak...

I'm far more interested in knowing about the details of who the complicit bankers are...the bulk of the iceberg.

[Jack Weber]

I'm far more interested in knowing about the details of who the complicit bankers are...the bulk of the iceberg.

It won't be too surprising...

It'll be the big Swiss global financing banks first and foremost...

[WIP]

This begs a question: why is it largely our conservatives who are (to their credit, uneasily) aligning themselves with the dictator and his supporters?

These are the same folks, are they not, who a few years back were asserting that those opposed to the Iraq war were "objectively pro-Saddam" and "supporters of tyranny over liberty."

Now, it's not as if any of us took that laughable nonsense seriously; but how do we explain the strange contradiction?

At a basic level, most conservatives do not value democratic principles as often claimed. Democracy was important in Iraq, but nowhere else in the MiddleEast apparently. They prefer the reliable despot, who can be bribed to carry out U.S. policy objectives too much to risk it all on a democratic society that might seek their own national interests instead.

[pinko]

The U.S. has an interest in the stability of that region. Withdrawing support and allowing Mubarak to be overthrown by - let's face facts here - someone VERY unlikely to have democracy and human rights in mind - is not going to be in either American interests or the interest of stability in the region.

They encouraged South Korea to transition, and that worked out quite well. Mubarak simply ignored them, and the US didn't feel it could force the issue given the nature of the local turmoil.

I see very little similarity between the events in Korea and the current circumstances Egypt finds itself in. In the case of Korea you have two superpowers influencing the events there whereas in the case of Egypt the USA has been the dominant force as well as the architect of the decades old military regime there.

Secondly whether the USA withdraws support or not the military in Egypt will determine the outcome as the events unfold. Even if Mubarak is dispatched with his ill-gotten fortune intact there is still a command structure in place (i.e. the senior officers in the armed forces) that will wish to continue to dominate this society as a whole.

Edited February 5, 2011 by pinko

[bloodyminded]

They do not seem to be doing a lot of fighting for his rights at the moment.

Not for Mubarak, no. The U.S., Canada, the UK, France, Germany--they all see the writing on the wall: namely, that Mubarak is out.

But from their point of view, they'd rather have an obedient leader in that region than a non-obedient one. If that means preferring a tyrant over a democrat, they will do so without qualms. I imagine they're invovled in intense discussions at the moment, weighing odds and so forth, and hoping (perhaps actively manipulating) to find a leader--to be elected or not--who will fulfill his proper role as servant.

Like Mubarak.

The US can be painfully naive at times, else they wouldn't have spent so much time and effort on running elections in Iraq or Afghanistan.

I don't consider them naive at all.

Or are you under any illusion the Chinese would have bothered?

This is the second time you've made a comparison to hypothetical Chinese hegemony. I'm not sure why. Are you suggesting that America makes a preferable global imperial power than would China? If so, I'm inclined to agree.

But so what? What has that to do with anything?

I never suggested any such thing. I merely said your characterization that they "hate" democratic values was way off base.

I should have clarified: they're ok, more or less, with democracy on the domestic front. But in the international sphere, they love democracy exactly to the level that it works in their favour. The major democracies all expose this behaviour from time to time.

That's not to say they won't and haven't supported autocrats over democratic movements they thought were hostile and dangerous to their interests.

That depends on what you mean by "hostile" and "interests." I fear you've got a pretty staggeringly indoctrinated view of Western beneficence.

For example, how was East Timor's nascent democratic movement "hostile to the interests" of the US, the UK, Australia, Canada, et al?

Because they didn't support that democratic movement; they supported the attempted genocide of the people by the Indonesian dictators.

I've brought this example up before, because it's a relatively clear-cut case, and because I'm always astonished that people will side with the mass murderers. It's truly incredible.

So what of it? What was the East Timorese threat that justified material and diplomatic support for one of the worst acts of state terrorism in the post-war era? I've never heard of any.

And why are we not then as bad as Iran, or Hamas? Speaking specifically of this case, mind, lest you feel the need to speculate vaguely about the "Cold War."

But if we accepted your characterization the US should have spent the last fifty years trying to elminate democratic governments throughout the world, including in Europe, in favor of autocrats, and there's no evidence of that.

Of course not. They support autocrats when its inconvenient not to. In fact, they'd prefer democratic governments--so long as they're pliable--because it's a far easier sell at home, and of course they have to keep an eye constantly on their domestic situation. Unfortunately for Western leaders, their people tend to dislike tyrants, mass murder, and state terrorism.

So, best case scenario is a Hamid Karzai (or rather, Karzai of a few years back), or a Uribe. these fellows are elected, but they do mostly what they're told.

.

You misunderstood me. I never said that there was a majority who wanted him to stay. I said that a lot of Egyptians did not, from what the article I cited suggested, want him to be pushed aside immediately. They felt it was fine for him to stay to the election. I think, too, that you are failing to understand what it is probably like to grow up and have him as the absolute authority in your country for your entire life. And remember, unless you were politically active you didn't worry overmuch about things like secret police and prisons. A lot of people are probably feeling quite threatened and uncertain at the prospect of the old order crumbling and a great unknown coming in to take over./quote]

I appreciate you spelling this out, and I understand.

Did you feel the same way about Saddam Hussein? About any of the killers we've gone to war with?

What's the fundamental distinction?

At any rate, if most the Egyptian people want him out now rather than later, we have no right to interfere.

I think moderate can mean different things. Moderate, insofar as a dictator is concerned, would clearly mean how repressive his government is. But there could be a sense of 'moderate' in terms of their international behaviour, I suppose. Ie, Egypt is far more moderate than Iran.

But Saddam was not moderate, not in any meaningful sense of the word, and yet he was long deemed a moderate...when he was at his worst.

So there's the word, and then there's the Orwellian government definition.

[bloodyminded]

Does what's going on in the streets look like it's about to produce a merely "irritating democrat"?

I don't know...nor do you.

My point is, and this is hard to grasp for the imperial-minded among us, that the West's opinion, and Israel's opinion, is less important on this matter than the Egyptian people's opinion.

Unless you believe that the US Presidency--given that it heads the most powerful and influential country on Earth--should be open to global voting from now on.

Edited February 5, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

Compared to what happened in Iran it IS stability.

That's not stability. Oppression and torture are not stability.

(Oh wait...I keep forgetitng torture is now back on the table for discussion, after a bried interregnum of civilization was quashed by chickenhawk aristocrats.)

[Guest American Woman]

I don't know...nor do you.

My point is, and this is hard to grasp for the imperial-minded among us, that the West's opinion, and Israel's opinion, is less important on this matter than the Egyptian people's opinion.

Unless you believe that the US Presidency--given that it heads the most powerful and influential country on Earth--should be open to global voting from now on.

Would be nice if people kept that principle in mind regarding Americans' opinions on such matters in the U.S. sometimes. The presidency isn't open to global voting, but it most definitely is open to global opinion; and I don't get the impression that the world's opinion is meant to be regarded lightly.

Edited February 5, 2011 by American Woman

[bjre]

Would be nice if people kept that principle in mind regarding Americans' opinions on such matters in the U.S. sometimes. The presidency isn't open to global voting, but it most definitely is open to global opinion; and I don't get the impression that the world's opinion is meant to be regarded lightly.

It is not "the world's opinion", it is only west media brain-washed part of world's opinion, not include the most people in the world.

Such kind of opinion want a president of another country go away immediately, otherwise blackmail by the protester's lifes. They use Google, Facebook, Twitter to spread their propaganda, lies, filtered information for their own interest and totally ignore the life of the country become harder and harder.

That is the evil nature of the western culture.

[bjre]

Would be nice if people kept that principle in mind regarding Americans' opinions on such matters in the U.S. sometimes. The presidency isn't open to global voting, but it most definitely is open to global opinion; and I don't get the impression that the world's opinion is meant to be regarded lightly.

World would be nice if there is no CIA and NED

Edited February 5, 2011 by bjre

[GWiz]

Would be nice if people kept that principle in mind regarding Americans' opinions on such matters in the U.S. sometimes. The presidency isn't open to global voting, but it most definitely is open to global opinion; and I don't get the impression that the world's opinion is meant to be regarded lightly.

This is true, now that Obama is the U.S. President... It was however not true of the U.S.'s previous administration... That's 8 yrs. vs 2 yrs. in the last 10 yrs. in the shaping of world opinion about the United States and it's global impact and influence... It may take a few more years to change opinions about the United States...

As it pertains to Egypt I believe the "support" Mubarak got from the United States primarily but along with other Gov. include some from Canada ("the west") is the reason the Egyptian Military has not put down this revolt...

I also note, that by all that's happening in Egypt, "the west's" influence on Mubarak and his actions is very, very, minimal at best, at least since this all started...

[Shwa]

It is not "the world's opinion", it is only west media brain-washed part of world's opinion, not include the most people in the world.

Such kind of opinion want a president of another country go away immediately, otherwise blackmail by the protester's lifes. They use Google, Facebook, Twitter to spread their propaganda, lies, filtered information for their own interest and totally ignore the life of the country become harder and harder.

That is the evil nature of the western culture.

And yet here you are, using evil Western Culture to get your message across in the very utilitarian and wholly western language of English.

By God man you better be Googling, Facebooking and Tweeting from inside China! Perhaps you would be better off Googling, Facebooking and Tweeting to your fellow countryman in China so they can get up the nads to do Tiananmen 2.0. It seems to have worked out for the Egyptians so far.

But if you are espousing your opinion about Western Culture using entirely Western Cultural means, no problemo, you are free to do so. Which is likely why it is problematic to Google, Facebook and Tweet from inside China...

[GWiz]

And yet here you are, using evil Western Culture to get your message across in the very utilitarian and wholly western language of English.

By God man you better be Googling, Facebooking and Tweeting from inside China! Perhaps you would be better off Googling, Facebooking and Tweeting to your fellow countryman in China so they can get up the nads to do Tiananmen 2.0. It seems to have worked out for the Egyptians so far.

But if you are espousing your opinion about Western Culture using entirely Western Cultural means, no problemo, you are free to do so. Which is likely why it is problematic to Google, Facebook and Tweet from inside China...

Could that be why NEW SOCIAL MEDIA was the first target for Mubarak?

[bjre]

And yet here you are, using evil Western Culture to get your message across in the very utilitarian and wholly western language of English.

Because western culture is self-contradiction to itself.

It sale freedom and democracy, it force other to accept the theory, if other don't agree, it use every means to destroy others. And don't give other the freedom to use another system.

So that you can see the freedom and democracy itself is a lie in nature. That is where the evilness stays.

On the other hand, in Chinese culture, everyone cares their own business, don't care any others. "Everyone clean snow in front of his own door" that is the Chinese culture, that is why Chinese don't know what is freedom because they always have it due to its culture. The west people have much less freedom, so they want freedom and try to invent many laws to keep freedom, but the more laws created, the less freedom they have, and they want to sell their concept by force and lies, to make the world less freedom, see where the evilness now?

And like CAS, who force others to agree their theory, if anyone don't accept their dictatorship, they use police force to destroy his family.

And like gay marriage, if one give his opposite comment with his own religion, they force him not to express, or send him to jail.

Edited February 5, 2011 by bjre

[bloodyminded]

Would be nice if people kept that principle in mind regarding Americans' opinions on such matters in the U.S. sometimes. The presidency isn't open to global voting, but it most definitely is open to global opinion; and I don't get the impression that the world's opinion is meant to be regarded lightly.

I get what you're saying. Since the criticism appears to have become louder and more strident over the past decade, I think it'd be good for critics to draw some important distinctions, and think things through.

First of all, there's the basic understanding--taught to four year olds, part of most religions on some level, underscored by science, and demonstrated through personal experience--that people are very similar wherever you go. Surprise, surprise. And the more that cultures are similar, the more obvious this becomes. So to understand that Americans are not some arrogant, violent entity, ignorant and stupid, does not take any stretch of the imagination. It's simply the case. I'd know that even if I didn't know many Americans. Which I do. There's no difference, not of a type or size that matters.

Second, that even if a person holds some of the darker views of US power projection in the world--as I do, for instance--it should be recognized that this a matter of institutions, not of character. Power tends to behave badly. (Not always, no.) It's incidental that it's the United States. It doesn't say anything about the character of the American people, nor does it cast the powerful, positive myths in a bad light. Americans have an inbred, doctrinal support for "freedom"? Well, I actually think that's true. I don't think the National Security State behaves that way, in general; but that's not because individuals (including even some individuals in power) don't believe in freedom. It's because of the institutionalized effects of power.

And, yes, the litle matter of a complex world; I get that, too.

My main point here is that Canada behaves badly too. (I leave the US, France, Russia and some others out, because their often ugly histories speak for themselves; but Canadians often have that quaint blind spot about Canada.) Because we behave similarly to the US, on a far smaller scale, it stands to reason that if we were the global hegemon, we would behave in more or less the same way, with minor distinctions thanks to differing histories, etc, but nothing worth discussing, in my view.

In short, I'm all for criticisms of the US. (Obviously.) But I think the critics should be cognizant of two important matters:

1. Like I said, there's not something awful about American culture or people at play here. It comes down to issues of terrific power and influence; and of complex institutional matters, in which strategic power, realpolitik, money and resources, get all tied up together. And that good and bad motives can and do co-exist, thanks to these convolutions.

2. On the domestic sphere, much of what happens is somewhat separate. I don't mean donestic politics don't influence foeign policy; every country's does. I mean that issues of American crime, health care, and other such things are not sheerly awful enough to warrant international condemnation. My view on American health care is that I wish the same things for you guys as I do for us: a constant attempt to improve the system in whatever way worls best for you. I;m not interested in condemning your system, and holding ours up as superior. Too often, this kind of talk is more about national pride than genuine well-wishing. My well-wishing demands that I wish you guys the best...period. End of story. We've got our own large-scale health-care issues to worry about; why worry about the American system?????

Or American crime? Please. The strangely high murder rate aside, Canadian crime stats are not dissimilar at all. I've heard that our sexual assault rate, for one thing, is worse.

Or the death penalty, per our recent discussions. I don't believe in the death penalty, so of course I don't think that the US states that practice it should practice it. But beyond a basic, and somewhat vague, human concern, it's none of my business. I'd be more concerned with countries that practice it on a wider scale, and without the legal and philosophical protections of accused individuals. The American justice system remains one of the best in the world, no question about that.

I could ramble on even further, but I think I've made my point.

[eyeball]

Would be nice if people kept that principle in mind regarding Americans' opinions on such matters in the U.S. sometimes. The presidency isn't open to global voting, but it most definitely is open to global opinion; and I don't get the impression that the world's opinion is meant to be regarded lightly.

Assuming they're even aware of it, how open to global opinion are American voters and how highly do they regard it?

The fact the POW camp at Guantanamo Bay is still open, rendition is still legal, and that money and other material aid is still flowing out to various dictators and thugs suggests America's response to the global condemnation to these things is still a big fat juicy raspberry.

Edited February 5, 2011 by eyeball

[bush_cheney2004]

Assuming they're even aware of it, how open to global opinion are American voters and how highly do they regard it?

Oh...just about as much as Canadian voters.

The fact the POW camp at Guantanamo Bay is still open, rendition is still legal, and that money and other material aid is still flowing out to various dictators and thugs suggests America's response to the global condemnation to these things is still a big fat juicy raspberry.

Ditto security certificates, Millhaven/Kingston, CIDA, mining contracts with dictators, etc....where is the response to "global condemnation"?

[pinko]

of ruling party, report says

Los Angeles Times | Feb. 5, 2011 | 9:00 a.m.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has resigned as leader of the country's ruling party today, according to state television.

The 82 year-old president and his son, Gamal Mubarak, were among the leaders of Egypt's ruling National Democratic Party who resigned, state television said.

It appeared the resignations were part of negotiations underway to transition the country to a new government, and did not signal that Mubarak would step down as president.

More soon at: www.latimes.com/babylon

[Scotty]

Well,yesterday I had a very bad feling about the potential nature of what might happen...

There was a real possibility that Mubarak might set his guns on his own people and simply massacre as many as he could.

You mean like the Chinese did in similar circumstances? The Chinese? Our close allies, friends, customers and clients?

[Scotty]

As far as Fascist theives go,Mubarak is probably the tip of the iceberg...

There's a few SubSaharan African dictators that are as,or more,wealthy than Mr.Mubarak...

Why pick on the little people? Vladimir Putin is alleged to be the wealthiest man on the planet with his tens of billions in ill-gotten gains. And his fortune grows every year.

[Scotty]

I see very little similarity between the events in Korea and the current circumstances Egypt finds itself in.

You need to go back a few decades to massive street protests in South Korea demanding democracy, and the corrupt regime in power then. Tanks did not roll over them, as they did in China, and there was a (not completely smooth), gradual transition to democracy there over a number of years. And South Korea was even more a US client state than Egypt, with tens of thousands of US troops there for decades.

[Jack Weber]

You mean like the Chinese did in similar circumstances? The Chinese? Our close allies, friends, customers and clients?

Precisely...

The Crypto-Fascist Chinese we've sold our economy and standard of living out to in the name of "Free Markets" and "Economic Progress"...