Egypt Mk. 3

[Padraig]

What matters is the facts I present, and if my argument is based on facts or alternatively logical assesments or not. If you point out to the ethnic background of a writer instead of what he's writing (in this case backed by many non-Jewish researchers as well.. the nerve of them), then it's a low form of argument.

First of all. That article was low on facts. It was an opinion piece. In fact, it was very similar to the kind of posts that you were making before hand. Given it was an opinion piece, its always relevant to know the background of the author. Accusing me of making a low form of argument on that basis...is well...a low form of argument.

I never said the article was completely off-the wall, so you don't have to defend everything he said. Yes, Egypt will obviously be unstable for a while.

It can be a slow transition to democracy, or it can occur through Chaos.

Yes, if only we had given him a chance. He deserved at least 40 years, not 30. Even in Britian there was a lot of blood in the long transition to democracy (it just didn't happen in the 19th or 20th centuries). Dictators are very reluctant to give up the reigns of absolute power.

And yes, the military might be purged. Your worst scenario's maybe realised. Then again, if you want to hold out any sliver of hope, at least there are obstacles on that path.

[Guest Raids]

Raids, given your love of Rawls, I'm trying to see how you can possibly justify NOT believing the right to self-determination as a basic and fundamental right.

Oh I do think it's a basic and fundamental right (although when I say "right" I mean it prescriptively, and not the "natural law" sense). Just like I think Julian Assange has a basic and fundamental right to publish the information he has published.

Note I'm not saying that I don't care about the basic and fundamental rights of all individuals everywhere that I think we all should ideally support, but I also recognize the existence of possible competing interests of my country.

Here, to the extent that I can tell, incidentally, I do not think the U.S. has any interest that, for me as an American citizen, outweighs my commitment to the right of any Egyptian people to self-determine their own government. But there would be other situations where that would not be the case. For instance, in some cases, there might even be other human rights that we would feel override our ideological commitments to a democratically elected government, like the oppression of a minority, e.g. apartheid South Africa.

Incidentally, your hypothetical argument about the a government arising whose sole goal is the eradication of the US is inherently flawed. That is NOT self-determination, but rather the one people (hypothetical nation whose entire existence is apparently premised on destroying the US, which you have to admit is a ludicrous position) attempting to remove the fundamental liberties of another (the US). By construction, that isn't self-determination.

Like tolerance of intolerance isn't tolerance? Or what? It's not the right of all people to co-exist (which I also believe in, btw), it's the right of all people to choose their own government, which says nothing about going to war with another government by construction whatsoever.

I also don't understand why, in a world where the Roman Empire was wholly dismantled by a foreign power, it's so hard to imagine that at some point someone might want to take down our ridiculously ineffective, blundering, self-important, hypocritical government from the position we currently occupy on the global stage. Call it ridiculous if you want, but I personally do not believe in American Exceptionalism, and so I guarantee you it will happen someday. If you think someone caring about it that much is crazy, I don't think you fully appreciate what a pain in the ass we are.

I think I just fundamentally share Coco's shock and horror at some of the opinions being espoused here. Maybe this is what is meant by American exceptionalism these days.

Maybe I'm just an asshole, but I don't see what anyone has said that justifies terms like horror. I just don't think it's really all that terrible to admit that, in considering all the relevant factors, caring about the interests of your country is fine, particularly when preventing the region being actively at war and bringing a lasting peace to the region is the interest.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

Or Iran, where the military was simply purged.

Is it likely that a post-revolution government would have the inclination or the ability to purge the military? (I'm not trying to indirectly make a point by asking, I really don't know.)

[Commodore]

Seems like the best thing is for Mubarak to step down and have a "peacekeeping force" (or the Egyptian military) to maintain order until they can set up elections in a few months.

Otherwise the MB will swoop in, since they are the most ruthless and organized.

[Elrostar]

Oh I do think it's a basic and fundamental right (although when I say "right" I mean it prescriptively, and not the "natural law" sense). Just like I think Julian Assange has a basic and fundamental right to publish the information he has published.

Note I'm not saying that I don't care about the basic and fundamental rights of all individuals everywhere that I think we all should ideally support, but I also recognize the existence of possible competing interests of my country.

Here, to the extent that I can tell, incidentally, I do not think the U.S. has any interest that, for me as an American citizen, outweighs my commitment to the right of any Egyptian people to self-determine their own government. But there would be other situations where that would not be the case. For instance, in some cases, there might even be other human rights that we would feel override our ideological commitments to a democratically elected government, like the oppression of a minority, e.g. apartheid South Africa.

Oppression of a minority (or in the case of Apartheid, a majority) is also robbing people of their fundamental liberties, and I see no problem in disapproving of people who are doing that. You

Like tolerance of intolerance isn't tolerance? Or what? It's not the right of all people to co-exist (which I also believe in, btw), it's the right of all people to choose their own government, which says nothing about going to war with another government by construction whatsoever.

A war of aggression whose purpose is to destroy another people is by its very nature a case of robbing other people of their liberty. Thus if the purpose of the Egyptian state were to destroy the US (which I believe was your hypothetical construction), then it is not just. In any case, it's rather conceited to assume that someone might really exist solely for the purpose of destroying the US. That isn't al-Qaeda's goal, for instance. Hell, it's not even their primary goal.

I also don't understand why, in a world where the Roman Empire was wholly dismantled by a foreign power, it's so hard to imagine that at some point someone might want to take down our ridiculously ineffective, blundering, self-important, hypocritical government from the position we currently occupy on the global stage. Call it ridiculous if you want, but I personally do not believe in American Exceptionalism, and so I guarantee you it will happen someday. If you think someone caring about it that much is crazy, I don't think you fully appreciate what a pain in the ass we are.

My comment about exceptionalism was more aimed at the idea that apparently it's okay to assume that America's interests trump those of other people, even to the extent of robbing people of their fundamental liberties.

Maybe I'm just an asshole, but I don't see what anyone has said that justifies terms like horror. I just don't think it's really all that terrible to admit that, in considering all the relevant factors, caring about the interests of your country is fine, particularly when preventing the region being actively at war and bringing a lasting peace to the region is the interest.

Let's get down to some quibbling, shall we? This is a strictly utilitarian argument. That it is, in the end, better for everyone if X happens. That's all well and good, but we can't assume that it's okay to rob people of their fundamental liberties in order to achieve a greater total good. That's the first principle, isn't it?

If you're willing to ditch this and become more of a utilitarian, that's fine, but I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not angry... I'm just disappointed. :) Because, you know, your mother and I expected so much better from you ;)

And my horror is in response to Fez's statements, and the idea that in weighting the utilitarian equation, the interests of the US receive what I presume to be an extremely heavy weighting factor compared to that of other peoples around the world.

Re Fez:

I guess if you fundamentally think that people are not capable of governing themselves and that they need a firm authoritarian hand to guide them properly, then your thinking is entirely consistent. And I'm not in any way saying that democracy is the best political system around. I just share Churchill's view that it's the least terrible of anything we've tried.

[Elrostar]

Is it likely that a post-revolution government would have the inclination or the ability to purge the military? (I'm not trying to indirectly make a point by asking, I really don't know.)

That seems highly unlikely. The military is one of the most respected institutions in Egypt.

In Iran there was the revolutionary guard to fill that gap. And to a large extent it still fills the REAL role of much of the military. There is no such group in Egypt.

[Guest Raids]

Elro, I like Rawls, but it's not my position on most things - it only hold together for describing social justice within one social-contract based government. And I like the difference principle. But on a meta-ethics level I'm a rule-based utilitarian.

Not that anyone else cares about that.

And no, I did not mean to even imply that Egypt would hypothetically dedicate itself to the destruction of the United States.

[Shryke]

That seems highly unlikely. The military is one of the most respected institutions in Egypt.

In Iran there was the revolutionary guard to fill that gap. And to a large extent it still fills the REAL role of much of the military. There is no such group in Egypt.

Let's not forget the Egyptian military is a conscript force and not some sort of fanatical devotees of the state. That's what the police and the like are.

Which is why the army has been defending the protesters from the police and government agents.

Basically, the situation in Egypt and in Iran are not all that comparable in that respect.

Seems like the best thing is for Mubarak to step down and have a "peacekeeping force" (or the Egyptian military) to maintain order until they can set up elections in a few months.

Otherwise the MB will swoop in, since they are the most ruthless and organized.

"ruthless"?? Seriously?

[Fez]

Re Fez:

I guess if you fundamentally think that people are not capable of governing themselves and that they need a firm authoritarian hand to guide them properly, then your thinking is entirely consistent. And I'm not in any way saying that democracy is the best political system around. I just share Churchill's view that it's the least terrible of anything we've tried.

I do, I honestly do. I think the ideas behind democracy are fantastic, except that people have shown time and again that they are too stupid and lazy to take proper advantage of its benefits and so squander it. I'd love it if the average person was smart and rational and basically was the enlightenment ideal that so many of our "french tradition" (i just had to read Hayek again for grad school, ugh) thinkers thought that they were. But I'd say the evidence points against it, Hobbes was right, people are fundamentally bad and need to have their energies constrained and focused in order to ever make anything of value or beauty beyond individual artwork.

Thusly I don't care about political self-determination. I do care about economic and social rights, stability, growth, and prosperity of course and I think Mubarak has been terrible on all counts of that for Egypt. However as I said I place my value on American interests, not because they are any more special than anyone else's interests (they aren't), but because they are American and I am American and I work for America and so they are my interests. And I think its completely natural to single-mindely pursue our own interests, its what we do as individuals so why not as countries? True, America is significantly more powerful than other countries (for now at least) and so we are much more capable of throwing our weight around and its more obvious when we do. But just because we are stronger I don't see why we shouldn't still try to continue to get in and maintain the best position we can be in.

Sometimes, indeed often, said pursuit is best filled by cooperation and that's fantastic. And I wish was there was a strong single-world government to constrain states just as states constrain citizens, but for now there isn't and so I've picked my side.

Not the prettiest or most idealistic world view and it allows for a lot of ugliness, but when it comes down to it we're an ugly species. Anyway that's enough of a tangent, but I'm sick of people calling me horrendous; I just have a fundamentally different view of things than most people these days.

[shadowbinding shoe]

The rate at which things are collapsing for the Egyptian man on the street is frightening. Within a week people are starving! Personal safety is also a thing of the past of course. The closest thing to that I can think of here is garbage-men strike. Are the keepers of the granaries that hardhearted? And it's not like they're targeting the protesters with this. Everyone suffers in this attempt to recreate Hobbs famous words.

[Shryke]

In a far corner of the garden stood rows of cardboard boxes spilling over with freshly shredded paper, and next to them a smouldering fire.

More intriguingly, a group of ordinary looking young men sat on the lawn, next to the hole. More boxes surrounded them, and from these the men extracted, one by one, what looked like cassette tapes and compact discs. After carefully smashing each of these with hammers, they tossed them into the pit. Down at its bottom another man shovelled wet cement onto the broken bits of plastic. More boxes kept appearing, and their labours continued all afternoon.

The villa, surrounded by high walls, is always silent. Cars, mostly unobtrusive Fiats and Ladas, slip in and out of its automatic security gates at odd hours, and fluorescent light peeps through shuttered windows late in the night. This happens to be an unmarked branch office of one of the Mubarak regime's top security agencies. It seems that someone had given the order to destroy their records. Whatever secrets were on those tapes and in those papers are now gone forever.

Perhaps it is because Mr Mubarak has been in power for so long, and because his government has for so long defied the mounting loathing felt for it by so many of its citizens, that I had hesitated to conclude, until witnessing that little episode of house cleaning, that Mr Mubarak's reign was finished. But in fact there was already plenty of evidence that the end had come. The day before, dubbed by protest organisers the Friday of Fury, hundreds of thousands of ordinary Egyptians had pretty much stripped what remained of any aura of power or legitimacy from Mr Mubarak's government.

http://www4.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2011/01/unrest_egypt_0

[Yoadm]

First of all. That article was low on facts. It was an opinion piece.

That's what I said: Facts OR a logical assesment of the situation. His ethnic background is irrelevant, especially since that opinion is hardly limited to 'jews' alone.

Yes, if only we had given him a chance. He deserved at least 40 years, not 30. Even in Britian there was a lot of blood in the long transition to democracy (it just didn't happen in the 19th or 20th centuries). Dictators are very reluctant to give up the reigns of absolute power. And yes, the military might be purged. Your worst scenario's maybe realised. Then again, if you want to hold out any sliver of hope, at least there are obstacles on that path.

Well, there are ways to transition to democracy, that's my point, nor are we totally in disagreement here.. SImply put, imo, saying 'better now than later' is not always correct.

[Galactus]

Well, there are ways to transition to democracy, that's my point, nor are we totally in disagreement here.. SImply put, imo, saying 'better now than later' is not always correct.

OTOH, it's easy for us to tell people to wait: We're not the ones who're getting our loved ones tortured.

[Yoadm]

OTOH, it's easy for us to tell people to wait: We're not the ones who're getting our loved ones tortured.

I didn't say they should wait. If I was them, I would probably be in the streets myself. There is a chance (not a sure thing by half), that a revolution would do good to the average Egyptian, from personal freedom to freedom of expression. There's a chance it won't. Internationally, it will create a more (probably much more, imo) belligerant Egyptian government from an international sense, that sympathises (at the very least), with groups you and I abhor. Pad responded in a sense that 'if it was inevitable better now than never'. I responded that sometimes there's a gray area of 'better under different ciscumstances if it could be helped'.

[Galactus]

I didn't say they should wait. If I was them, I would probably be in the streets myself. There is a chance (not a sure thing by half), that a revolution would do good to the average Egyptian, from personal freedom to freedom of expression. There's a chance it won't. Internationally, it will create a more (probably much more, imo) belligerant Egyptian government from an international sense, that sympathises (at the very least), with groups you and I abhor. Pad responded in a sense that 'if it was inevitable better now than never'. I responded that sometimes there's a gray area of 'better under different ciscumstances if it could be helped'.

Yeah, I agree.

On the other hand, there are other points to make: The regime was weakened by economic crisis, etc. If it pulls out of this and things recover and prosperity returns another revolution might not be as easy to pull off, etc. etc.

[Yoadm]

Yeah, I agree.

On the other hand, there are other points to make: The regime was weakened by economic crisis, etc. If it pulls out of this and things recover and prosperity returns another revolution might not be as easy to pull off, etc. etc.

That and Im not sure the revolution could bring greater prosperity. The Iranian revolution didn't, and Iran was a huge gas/oil exporter, able to subsidize basic needs of the poeople like bread and...gas. Egypt has little natural resources, little reserves. It has grown at a healthy pace of 5% in the last 15 years, and is expected to continue to, as fertility rates fall, and the population stabilizes. All that, though, can be reversed..

[Lyanna Stark]

I didn't say they should wait. If I was them, I would probably be in the streets myself. There is a chance (not a sure thing by half), that a revolution would do good to the average Egyptian, from personal freedom to freedom of expression. There's a chance it won't. Internationally, it will create a more (probably much more, imo) belligerant Egyptian government from an international sense, that sympathises (at the very least), with groups you and I abhor. Pad responded in a sense that 'if it was inevitable better now than never'. I responded that sometimes there's a gray area of 'better under different ciscumstances if it could be helped'.

Why is this so certain?

Maybe my view of muslim extremist vary from yours, but on average they don't seem to be big fans of Facebook, Twitter and democracy.

It seems to me this has far more in common with the Eastern European countries in 1989 than anything else. Nobody then EVER EVER EVER thought the Soviet could fall. It was inconcievable. I remember it since I was in school at that time, and a teenager.

I don't think people who are too young to remember really understand what a totally crazy, awesome and wonderful thing the fall of the Berlin wall really was. And unthinkable. Totally and utterly unthinkable.

Sure, Eastern Europe didn't transform itself overnight to a politically correct democracy better than the US, the UK and France combined. The process to democracy and economic recovery is still happening now.

I'd hazard a statement that it's still far better than what existed before the fall of the Berlin wall, both for the people who live in Eastern Europe and for the world in general.

Egypt's situation is different, sure, but I can't see that it's set in stone that muslim fanatics will take over and Egypt will proceed to be Iran make 2 or worse. The Egyptians are quite well educated. They are not chanting "Down to USA" and burning flags. Their ire is aimed at something within their own country, at internal injustice. Quite a few similarites to Eastern European countries there too.

Unless this is really about muslim people being crazy and totally unlike other people? (Cos needless to say, I don't agree with that.)

[Yoadm]

Why is this so certain?

Maybe my view of muslim extremist vary from yours, but on average they don't seem to be big fans of Facebook, Twitter and democracy.

You would be surprised. But that's irrelevant. I didn't say the protestors were all or even mostly muslim extremists. I also said that even if a non-MB government takes over, it will be more belligerant to the west.

It seems to me this has far more in common with the Eastern European countries in 1989 than anything else. Nobody then EVER EVER EVER thought the Soviet could fall. It was inconcievable. I remember it since I was in school at that time, and a teenager.

Yes, thing is that the opposition parties there shared many of the values you do. That's not really the case in Egypt, to say the least.

Egypt's situation is different, sure, but I can't see that it's set in stone that muslim fanatics will take over and Egypt will proceed to be Iran make 2 or worse. The Egyptians are quite well educated. They are not chanting "Down to USA" and burning flags. Their ire is aimed at something within their own country, at internal injustice. Quite a few similarites to Eastern European countries there too.

They arn't better educated than Iranians during the revolution. And there's one kind of education and another. I've previously provided a mountainload of sources regarding this issue. I think it was the second thread. But it couldn't be more different, in my humble opinion, than Eastern Europe, where the opposition largely held to liberal democratic ideals that you share.

[Lyanna Stark]

You would be surprised. But that's irrelevant. I didn't say the protestors were all or even mostly muslim extremists. I also said that even if a non-MB government takes over, it will be more belligerant to the west.

Then that is what is going to happen. It's then up to the US and the EU et al to negotiate and stop just looking after their own interests, perhaps?

Yes, thing is that the opposition parties there shared many of the values you do. That's not really the case in Egypt, to say the least.

Gross over-simplification. Several factions worked together to overthrow communist rule. A lot of stuff that is political everyday stuff in parts of Estern Europe are things I really don't agree with, at all. Oppression serves nobody except the most powerful elites. Keeping it in place will definitely not serve anyone, long term.

They arn't better educated than Iranians during the revolution. And there's one kind of education and another. I've previously provided a mountainload of sources regarding this issue. I think it was the second thread. But it couldn't be more different, in my humble opinion, than Eastern Europe, where the opposition largely held to liberal democratic ideals that you share.

I think the Iranians had some very good reasons for their revolution. I also think the situation in Eqypt is different and the times are different.

Sure, you can argue that Egypt is more like Iran, or you can argue that it's more like Eastern Europe. I think it's more like Eastern Europe for several reasons:

* The Iranian revolution was a conservative backlash against too much westernisation. This doesn't seem to be the case among the Facebook generation in Egypt.

* Since people are very aware of how Khomeini grabbed the power, I don't think Islamic extremists are ever going to be overlooked as a serious contender to power again, which seems to have been the case during the Iranian revolution. Today, Muslim extremists have taken on the role of the big bad commie Soviets of the cold war period. Osama et al are the bogeymen of today's world.

* There were huge worries about what happened in Eastern Europe as well, with Margaraet Thatcher pleading Gorbachev to not tear down the wall. Worry and fretting are pretty normal things in times of instability.

[Guest Raids]

Oppression of a minority (or in the case of Apartheid, a majority) is also robbing people of their fundamental liberties, and I see no problem in disapproving of people who are doing that.

Good, I'm glad to see some acknowledgement that the pursuit of the promotion of individual liberties is not as simple as promoting a democracy. For instance, here, the current Egyptian constitution bans political parties with an overt religious agenda (although it is okay to ensure that any law does not directly conflict with Islamic law). Not sure that will survive a coup. 10% of the population of Egypt is not Muslim.

Personally, I don't think that is really any of my business unless the oppression starts occurring at levels that flagrantly violate human rights, but if you want to get into the business of interfering with foreign governments for the good of the citizens living within them, these are the conflicts you are stuck with.