WAY OT: Egypt Morsy is out coup already taken place

[jrohawg35]

Pretty crazy on how many people are out and about. Morsy won the election last year with 13 million votes but had over 17 million people wanting him out.

He did a terrible job he would arrest anyone speaking out against him and was acting like a dictator already. This could get better but has a chance to get a lot worse too. They are protesting still or celebrating but a lot have pics of Obama with an X through it. Which is crazy as he helped them get what they supposedly wanted and we are gonna send them 1.6 BILLION dollars to help out. Its like we cant win for anything over there. No matter how much good we try to do it bites us in the butt.


PLEASE dont turn this into a bash Obama thread just wanted to talk about Egypt's situation.

 

[titanhawg]

The Muslim Brotherhood was not the proper path for the people of Egypt. At least Mubarik allowed somewhat of a "free society", at least compared to Morsie.

This is possibly a good thing, though more instability in the Middle East is not good. Some fear we're really close to WWIII if these conflicts start spilling over into non-Muslim nations. If Turkey ever ends up in civil war, things could go south very quickly.

Also...look at Israel. They're like a little island in the middle of war all around. Scary.

 

[jrohawg35]

I agree completely Turkey isnt doing very well already too. It isnt looking very good for anyone in that part of the country.

 

[HogPocket9455]

I expect causalities from this, more so than have already occurred from the protests, but I think its the right move. Im somewhat impressed with Egyptian people. They didnt sit around and talk about how awful their leader was and then just stop. They outed him. A government is supposed to fear its people, and I applaud them. As for instability, that region of the world has never been stable. Same song, different artists at this point.

I wish we would remove ourselves from so many of these situations. We have enough issues at home to be entangled in foreign affairs. All the money and lives spent on Iraq equated to absolutely nothing. We should have spent that money and effort rebuilding our own infrastructure and taking care of our own people, but in hopes of this not getting booted to the grim bottom, Ill stop.

 

[titanhawg]

Razor...you're right about that area always being unstable...but it's way more unstable than it's been in a LONG time. Plus...there are countries in the region now who have nukes (Israel and Pakistan...and of course, Iran hoping to have them soon).

I agree it would be best if we remove ourselves...but there's still the problem with exported terrorism which originates over there. Seems like countries that support anti-terrorism may have to come up with new ways to fight that kind of war without the large troop influx. It's a hard problem to solve.

 

[ermackey]

I see a HUGE downside to this coup. The reason is because there was just a coup. The Arab Spring was about replacing dictators with democracy and a coup does not bode well for a new democratic government, whether we like the regime or not. Had Morosi resigned without a Coup, great. That is democracy in action. But when the military steps in and forces his hand, it does nothing to instil democratic values and builds resentment even stronger on those who lost the coup. This is not a good day for Egypt in the long-run.

 

[Hog Alumni]

Originally posted by ermackey:
I see a HUGE downside to this coup. The reason is because there was just a coup. The Arab Spring was about replacing dictators with democracy and a coup does not bode well for a new democratic government, whether we like the regime or not. Had Morosi resigned without a Coup, great. That is democracy in action. But when the military steps in and forces his hand, it does nothing to instil democratic values and builds resentment even stronger on those who lost the coup. This is not a good day for Egypt in the long-run.

The only problem with this is the Muslim brotherhood is not a democratic organization. It is their way or be beheaded. The military steped in to enforce the will of the people. This is the first time since this Arab spring started a muslim population has rejected a Islamist regime. This is a good thing IMO.

 

[mswooley]

Not totally up to date with everything but isn't the issue with Morosi used democracy to get into office then ruled with a dictatorship, not democratic at all, then people over there think of that when they think of a true democracy when it is not, and worse yet think badly of us for trying to push democracy on them, and it don't work since there was nothing democratic about it other than the election itself providing it was not fixed.

 

[HogPocket9455]

Originally posted by mswooley:
Not totally up to date with everything but isn't the issue with Morosi used democracy to get into office then ruled with a dictatorship, not democratic at all, then people over there think of that when they think of a true democracy when it is not, and worse yet think badly of us for trying to push democracy on them, and it don't work since there was nothing democratic about it other than the election itself providing it was not fixed.

Exactly. An elected dictator is still a dictator and it shouldn't be tolerated just because of an arbitrary term limit established on a position. Constitutions are meant to protect people, but sometimes a constitution has to be ignored to protect people. This was the case with Egypt, and Im quite astouned with how quickly they made it work.

Im in no way advocating or suggesting a similar movement in the US, but if it ever happened, I would like to think our military would do the same for all of us.

 

[ermackey]

Originally posted by mswooley:
Not totally up to date with everything but isn't the issue with Morosi used democracy to get into office then ruled with a dictatorship, not democratic at all, then people over there think of that when they think of a true democracy when it is not, and worse yet think badly of us for trying to push democracy on them, and it don't work since there was nothing democratic about it other than the election itself providing it was not fixed.

By definition, a dictator is not elected. And the election was not fixed. It was actually amazingly clean.

 

[ermackey]

Anytime the military steps in to remove a public official that is elected, qualified, and legal, you wait until the next election. Anytime you have the military coup, you move from democracy to an undemocratic state. Don't trust me though, ask Sadat. Oh wait! The Military killed him in a Coup. My bad.

 

[piperrod]

Good discussion so far. I have close friends who are Egyptian and they are elated at the ouster of Morsi. They were in Egypt during May and June and told me horror stories of what was occuring under the Muslim Brotherhood reign, and my friends are devout Muslims so their opinions were not religiously motivated. The economy of Egypt was going down the toilet and democracy was non existent as Morsi didn't allow participation of the opposition in the government. He also rushed through a new constitution in the first year of his reign which annoyed most Egyptians.

I understand our fear of "coups," but it just may be necessary when a government cease to represent the people and becomes destructive. Hitler was democratically elected also and the world would have been a much better place if the military would have ousted him in a coup before he began world war II. My friends are amazed at the seeming ignorance of the American media in not reporting the full story. They also can't believe the American government supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in this affair.

Democracy is sometimes messy and we in the west with a long history of elected governments may find it difficult to understand the political climate of democracies in their infancy. Just my two cents, and I certainly understand the dismay that many in the West feel over a "coup" of an elected government.

 

[ermackey]

Originally posted by piperrod:
Good discussion so far. I have close friends who are Egyptian and they are elated at the ouster of Morsi. They were in Egypt during May and June and told me horror stories of what was occuring under the Muslim Brotherhood reign, and my friends are devout Muslims so their opinions were not religiously motivated. The economy of Egypt was going down the toilet and democracy was non existent as Morsi didn't allow participation of the opposition in the government. He also rushed through a new constitution in the first year of his reign which annoyed most Egyptians.

I understand our fear of "coups," but it just may be necessary when a government cease to represent the people and becomes destructive. Hitler was democratically elected also and the world would have been a much better place if the military would have ousted him in a coup before he began world war II. My friends are amazed at the seeming ignorance of the American media in not reporting the full story. They also can't believe the American government supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in this affair.

Democracy is sometimes messy and we in the west with a long history of elected governments may find it difficult to understand the political climate of democracies in their infancy. Just my two cents, and I certainly understand the dismay that many in the West feel over a "coup" of an elected government.

The only thing uplifting about the Coup is that it is a popular uprising (or so it appears, anyway). However, the Military is now in control. There is no guarantee that democracy will be reinstated. I hope it will and there has been progress, but holding on to power if you are the military is very tempting and follows a historic tradition in the region back to Nassar.

 

[rdf4ta]

Ermackey, that is a terribly static definition of a dictatorship. That's like saying a man that beats the hell out of his wife isn't abusive bc she agreed to marry him when he wasn't so.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[ermackey]

Originally posted by rdf4ta:
Ermackey, that is a terribly static definition of a dictatorship. That's like saying a man that beats the hell out of his wife isn't abusive bc she agreed to marry him when he wasn't so.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

Poor comparison. The foundation of democracy is the notion of election to change regimes. Within this you have notions of different forms of democracy, including direct democracy and republican democracy. In contrast, abuse does not matter is you are married or not. Therefore, your distinction fails to satisfy the same logical progression.

 

[rdf4ta]

Ermackey, if you were reading between the lines, you'd realize that I was not comparing them as equivalents by any sense, so get your panties out of a wad. It was an extreme example to show that people aren't static in nature. Folks change. You tried to simplify a dictatorship by the way the election is conducted, which isn't by your words the "definition"of a dictator. There's an element in how an individual rules that can also suggest a dictatorship has formed. A dictatorship can form overnight if a guy has the right puppets in place. A method of election in a single election does not always equate to how the government ACTUALLY functions. The marriage example, while extreme, was to show that the person (the ruler) the chick (the people) marries does not always end up acting as the person she believes she is getting attached to. In your example, you can't say the guy isn't a dictator bc he won the election in a democratic way. Again, a form of government isn't static and can quickly change to a dictatorship by how the guy rules.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[ermackey]

Originally posted by rdf4ta:
Ermackey, if you were reading between the lines, you'd realize that I was not comparing them as equivalents by any sense, so get your panties out of a wad. It was an extreme example to show that people aren't static in nature. Folks change. You tried to simplify a dictatorship by the way the election is conducted, which isn't by your words the "definition"of a dictator. There's an element in how an individual rules that can also suggest a dictatorship has formed. A dictatorship can form overnight if a guy has the right puppets in place. A method of election in a single election does not always equate to how the government ACTUALLY functions. The marriage example, while extreme, was to show that the person (the ruler) the chick (the people) marries does not always end up acting as the person she believes she is getting attached to. In your example, you can't say the guy isn't a dictator bc he won the election in a democratic way. Again, a form of government isn't static and can quickly change to a dictatorship by how the guy rules.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

My panties are not in a wad, but it seems that yours are. The rest of your stuff is nonsense. If you do not understand the difference between a dictatorship and a democracy, you need to repeat basic political science.

 

[scottuamba]

The problem is that after the fall of these dictators from the Arab Spring the only organizations that were politically organized were the semi-radical ones aligned with Shariah law (sp?) such as the Muslim Brotherhood. Strangely enough they may have had elections too soon after the fall of the dictators in that it didn't allow the secular political parties time to form and get organized to oppose the more fundamental Islamic groups.

 

[rdf4ta]

Er, if you think a dictatorship is only established by a the way a ruler takes the helm and cannot be established in the WAY he rules, you should do some reading yourself. While it might be that corruption doesn't exist in your world, you should wake up man, for real.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[piperrod]

No one doubts that the military is in control but the military has put together a roadmap to get back to an elected president. Also, technically, they have put together a committee of civilians who will lead the country. A judge is stepping in to be the interim leader. I think the Military is trying hard not to come across as dictating policy or trying to take over the reigns of power for any lengthy period of time.

My friends are just two people that I talk with but they represent a progressive element in society that wishes to see a secular government with a separation of church and state like we have in our country. An earlier poster stated their opinion well in that when the revolution occurred to oust Mubarek, the only party with any great organization and numbers where the Muslim brotherhood. My friends do not believe that the Brotherhood would have won if there had been more time for other secular parties to organize. Egypt is the largest Arab country but it is more advanced and leans more to the West than most Arabic countries.

 

[ermackey]

Originally posted by rdf4ta:
Er, if you think a dictatorship is only established by a the way a ruler takes the helm and cannot be established in the WAY he rules, you should do some reading yourself. While it might be that corruption doesn't exist in your world, you should wake up man, for real.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

It appears you need to do the reading. I have done enough to know what I am talking about, but keep digging your hole.

 

[mikedamone]

er once argued that Hugo Chavez was a good guy and had done wonderful things for his country. It's hard to reason with someone that extreme.

 

[ermackey]

Originally posted by mikedamone:
er once argued that Hugo Chavez was a good guy and had done wonderful things for his country. It's hard to reason with someone that extreme.

He was better than Bush.

 

[East Memphis Hog]

bull