Arab Spring II in Egypt. The potential Civil War.

Geographer said:

I've never clicked "Like" on so many of plawolf's posts before this thread. He is making many excellent points.

Democracies use elections to remove unpopular governments, not coup d'tats. That is the virtue of a democracy, having a non-violent, systematic way to channel public opinion into new leadership. Change can sometimes come slow in a democracy but it does come, and when it comes, the method by which it comes saves lives over the other options.

The Egyptian coup was a chance for the United States to make a principled stand for democracy. It's easy to support democracy when pro-U.S. leaders win elections. Let's see the U.S. support democracy when a pro-U.S. military establishment topples a leader less friendly to America. That's the real test of where Obama stands on democracy and so far he has failed it.

I believe in the necessity and virtue of freedom of speech, freedom to practice one's religion, and freedom to vote for whatever political party you want. I will defend the right of the Ku Klux Klan to hold a rally on public property, for Alex Jones to rant about the New World Order and how the government is poisoning the water supply with fluoride, or for Mormon or Catholic or Islamic Fundamentalists to preach that atheists are going to Hell. A belief in personal liberty means defending the right of people to disagree with you, even the protests inconvenience you.

Ron Paul made a good point when he said the purpose of the First Amendment protecting the freedom of speech is not so we can talk about the weather, it's to protect sensitive and controversial speech that is likely to draw the scrutiny of whoever is in power.

President Obama and John Kerry and the ambassador and other top officials missed a perfect opportunity to make this argument. It is outrageous that $1.5 billion is taken from American taxpayers and given to the Egyptian military plutocrats to overthrow an elected government.

The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood hadn't done anything violent decades despite countless provocations from the Egyptian dictatorship. They patiently waited and waited and waited, building their reputation on charities and community organizing, all while having their members arrested and sodomized. They win Egypt's first fair elections and prove to be better charity workers than politicians. The same thing has happened in other countries and the proper response is to oust them in the next elections.

But the military was impatient. It wanted to go back to the old days of using the MB as the bogeyman to justify their autocracy and embezzlement. The military removed Mubarak because he had become a liability, not because the military was genuinely committed in democracy.

Now the United States is aiding and abetting the coup by funding the army and giving only tepid criticism. I cannot express how disappointed I am with President Obama and his staff for his unprincipled, weak response to the Egypt coup d'tat.

Click to expand...

Geographer said:

I've never clicked "Like" on so many of plawolf's posts before this thread. He is making many excellent points.

Democracies use elections to remove unpopular governments, not coup d'tats. That is the virtue of a democracy, having a non-violent, systematic way to channel public opinion into new leadership. Change can sometimes come slow in a democracy but it does come, and when it comes, the method by which it comes saves lives over the other options.

The Egyptian coup was a chance for the United States to make a principled stand for democracy. It's easy to support democracy when pro-U.S. leaders win elections. Let's see the U.S. support democracy when a pro-U.S. military establishment topples a leader less friendly to America. That's the real test of where Obama stands on democracy and so far he has failed it.

I believe in the necessity and virtue of freedom of speech, freedom to practice one's religion, and freedom to vote for whatever political party you want. I will defend the right of the Ku Klux Klan to hold a rally on public property, for Alex Jones to rant about the New World Order and how the government is poisoning the water supply with fluoride, or for Mormon or Catholic or Islamic Fundamentalists to preach that atheists are going to Hell. A belief in personal liberty means defending the right of people to disagree with you, even the protests inconvenience you.

Ron Paul made a good point when he said the purpose of the First Amendment protecting the freedom of speech is not so we can talk about the weather, it's to protect sensitive and controversial speech that is likely to draw the scrutiny of whoever is in power.

President Obama and John Kerry and the ambassador and other top officials missed a perfect opportunity to make this argument. It is outrageous that $1.5 billion is taken from American taxpayers and given to the Egyptian military plutocrats to overthrow an elected government.

The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood hadn't done anything violent decades despite countless provocations from the Egyptian dictatorship. They patiently waited and waited and waited, building their reputation on charities and community organizing, all while having their members arrested and sodomized. They win Egypt's first fair elections and prove to be better charity workers than politicians. The same thing has happened in other countries and the proper response is to oust them in the next elections.

But the military was impatient. It wanted to go back to the old days of using the MB as the bogeyman to justify their autocracy and embezzlement. The military removed Mubarak because he had become a liability, not because the military was genuinely committed in democracy.

Now the United States is aiding and abetting the coup by funding the army and giving only tepid criticism. I cannot express how disappointed I am with President Obama and his staff for his unprincipled, weak response to the Egypt coup d'tat.

Click to expand...

In Egypt's case, the pre-military government has clearly not satisfied the people's demands and were being pressured for change, albeit its democratic entrance. A democracy is a government's belief that its people should get what they want, not an excuse for it to enact any policy it desires on the pretext of being granted power via elections. The question here is not whether the MB has done anything wrong or not, but whether the people want them in power or not, and after seeing some 14 million people take to the streets, the answer is very clear. In Egypt's example, waiting for the next election may not be safe enough to ensure that the government in place will be responsible. A clear example of this would be Hitler, who subsequently outlawed all other parties. What the Egyptian military did was in the interests of the people. And THAT, whether you like it or not, is democracy. There will be clashes, but that is only because there will always be the other side. What the military did might have effectively prevented Egypt from going down the wrong pipe and into extremism, which will have a far more damaging effect on its people than the coup. Sure, the MB may have the right to free speech. But the far-more-numerous people have a right to safety as well.

Click to expand...

TerraN_EmpirE said:

So what is the US suppose to do? Invade? Support the Muslim Brothers? Cutting off aid burns the relationship with Egypt and sends it to chaos worse then now. The countries economy has been circling the drain for a while. So what does the US do? The Obama administration
Is trying to stay neutral but still the US is being accused on both sides. The core of the Muslim brothers say the coup was ordered in Washington DC. Those who support the coup say the whitehouse is responsible for supporting the now arrested leadership. The wholething stinks like hell and the US is stuck in a catch 22 of ironically being the one power every one wanted to step back and when it did so being the first to be blamed for doing just that.

Click to expand...

SampanViking said:

It is however the media spinning that cramps the stomach muscles the most. The spinning that has cast hardened Islamist terrorists in Syria as "Pro Democracy Activists" and is now trying to spin genuine Pro Democracy Activists in Egypt as Islamist Terrorists.

Click to expand...

SinoSoldier said:

True, but in this case the Egyptian people's protests and the subsequent military response goes hand in hand with the very fabric of democracy. I think all of us who live in the West agree that everybody has the right to free speech. I think we agree as well that governments should be ones who make decisions at the whim of the people they serve, not themselves.

In Egypt's case, the pre-military government has clearly not satisfied the people's demands and were being pressured for change, albeit its democratic entrance. A democracy is a government's belief that its people should get what they want, not an excuse for it to enact any policy it desires on the pretext of being granted power via elections. The question here is not whether the MB has done anything wrong or not, but whether the people want them in power or not, and after seeing some 14 million people take to the streets, the answer is very clear. In Egypt's example, waiting for the next election may not be safe enough to ensure that the government in place will be responsible. A clear example of this would be Hitler, who subsequently outlawed all other parties. What the Egyptian military did was in the interests of the people. And THAT, whether you like it or not, is democracy. There will be clashes, but that is only because there will always be the other side. What the military did might have effectively prevented Egypt from going down the wrong pipe and into extremism, which will have a far more damaging effect on its people than the coup. Sure, the MB may have the right to free speech. But the far-more-numerous people have a right to safety as well.

Click to expand...