Mubarak has RESIGNED

dkg999

Worth $70 billion! We should offer to let him relocate here to the US and pay taxes on that money! It's the least he can do for us!

Demiurge

Cosmic_American wrote: »

I never denied that there are factions that could establish something other than democracy, I said democracy is what the people want. I do hope the people succeed but I never said it was inevitable. I'm worried that the military and Suleiman will rule just as Mubarak did.

Mubarak has kept Egypt relatively stable for 3 decades, 3 decades of an oppressive regime, the Egyptian people had enough and forced him out of power. If they aren't allowed free elections then yes I believe their fate could darker even further.

These things don't happen in a vacuum. What set off "the people?" They didn't just wake up one day and decide to protest. That was more a rhetorical question than anything, as there are numerous theories. When you have nut jobs like Ahmadinejad cheering this on though, you have to ask why and consider it closely.

I can sit here and say I hope it works out for the people too, but that's not going to stop me from being weary of the very real possibility of Egypt descending into darkness.

dkg999

cnh - how do you know I'm not a prophet :rolleyes:

Cosmic_American

Demiurge wrote: »

These things don't happen in a vacuum. What set off "the people?" They didn't just wake up one day and decide to protest. That was more a rhetorical question than anything, as there are numerous theories. When you have nut jobs like Ahmadinejad cheering this on though, you have to ask why and consider it closely.

I can sit here and say I hope it works out for the people too, but that's not going to stop me from being weary of the very real possibility of Egypt descending into darkness.

I thought it was very clear that what happened in Tunisia is what sparked the uprising in Egypt.

nooshinjohn

Cosmic_American wrote: »

I like how you removed the part that said 59% prefered democracy as the best form of government. That fact happened to support my views.

My bad... I deleted it by mistake, and yes, they DID say that. The idea of democracy in that region of the world however, is very different than ours. In the Muslim model of democracy, the majority(muslims) rules, and those in oposition to it have no voice at all. If you try and have a voice that in any way differs from that majority, you can count on having a very short life expectancy.

nooshinjohn

Cosmic_American wrote: »

I thought it was very clear that what happened in Tunisia is what sparked the uprising in Egypt.

What sparked Tunisia...


Better yet, WHO?

Now is not the time to be just listening to the talking heads on the 6 o'clock news, as they know less than nothing.

virtualdean

tonyb wrote: »

Well, you could possible count Iraq, but that one still has a way to go.
I also find it interesting that Mubarak is worth 70 billion....yes billion, along with his sons who are also billionaires. Someone had their hands in the public trough for along time while the people pretty much lived in the stone age outside major cities. No wonder the people want him gone. Who's to say the next leader up to bat won't do the same thing ? Regardless, some of that coin has to get back into the benefit of the people and not just the one leader.

70 billion? Sounds like total bs to me. Something his detractors would make up. Or Fox...who knows? Any reputable links? Not that I don't believe you believe it but 70 billion? :biggrin:

cnh

Good Point John. But pray tell what sources of news or of history can 'we' rely on that are not 'tainted'? I'm an academic who uses a lot of HISTORICAL sources in his work and my best friends are historians? The interpretation of History is a 'delicate' thing that even highly trained scholars can disagree about and do?

What are your sources--that escape these hermeneutical problems?

cnh

Cosmic_American

I definitely don't get my news from television. It was the guy who set himself on fire, Mohamed Bouazizi, who sparked the Tunisian people in the face of a similarly oppressive police state.

Danny Tse

tonyb wrote: »

Not to mention Egypt was Isreals only friend in the middle east. If I were there, this would catch my attention big time. Talk about being surrounded...yikes. Well, actualy we paid Mubarak to be nice to them...for over 30 years.

I think Israel can take care of itself, regardless Egypt is a friend or foe.

I think our biggest worry should be whether this "people's revolution" spread to other Arab states, which may send oil prices soaring. We're in a (very) slow climb out of a economic depression and soaring oil prices may derail our (very slow) progress.

nooshinjohn

cnh wrote: »

What are your sources--that escape these hermeneutical problems?

cnh

I wish I had some. Most of my insight to the Middle East comes from looking at events over the last couple centuries, and more importantly, knowing that this region has mostly been a powder keg for the better part of two millenia. My father-in-law has provided some valuable insight to the extremist way of thinking as well. He is a practicing Muslim from Iran, and is horribly distraught by the way his good faith has been hijacked by these nut-jobs.

steveinaz

Hey, here's an idea; why don't we all wait and see how this unfolds?

Timothy Smith

Not good.

Not good for America.

Not good for Israel.

Mubarak was thuggish, and crooked (relative terms in the Middle East), but he was an "ally" of the US.

Show me the other "Democratic" counties in the middle east other than Israel.

I think we are likely to see less freedom, less democracy, more poverty, more violence in Egypt. And more danger of an all-out war.

Watch the politicians and media try to spin this a victory for Obama, when he was caught flat footed and was clueless about what to do.

I hope I am wrong, but I do remember when people hailed the ouster of our similar ally the Shaw of Iran as a good thing for freedom and democracy in Iran. We we got was a country that is the sworn enemy of America and Israel (the two Satans), no democracy, no religous freedom, hostages, war, stoning of women, public hanging of homosexuals, pusuit of nuclear weapons.

I think I am right but hope I am wrong.

tonyb

But...the big O said it was the young people rising up for democracy, should we not believe that ? Of coarse I jest....
I do really wish people would read history, or read up on the parties involved. I believe many have the belief in order to conquer in a more peaceful manner, you first must populate the intended target. Look at Europe, Netherlands, even our own southwest. Once you populate a region, you are now into a position of power, your people get elected, and so forth. Laws get enacted to benefit your people,and before you know it, your history.

Jstas

cnh wrote: »

I'm with Danny. But I am also NOT naive. Democracy is a tough thing to implement. Some would argue that we don't even really have it in this country? lol

But let's hope for the BEST!

cnh

But we don't. We are technically not a true Democracy but rather a Federal Republic.

A republic is a state under a form of government in which the people, or some significant portion of them, retain supreme control over the government.

While we are Democratic, our elected representatives do not require a ballot for every decision and are given license to make decisions as representatives of the people on governmental matters in lieu of the general population voting directly. What makes it democratic is that through direct balloting, we retain control over the government by being able to vote out any member of the government that we feel is not acting in the majority interests of their constituents. Since we are still allowed to own guns legally, we have the ability to rebel against our government forcefully as well...if needed that is. Because of that voting (the democratic part), we, as a people, retain supreme control over the governing body (the republican part) and reserve the right to remove any head of state in any capacity, by direct referendum, consensus or by means of elected official (the other democratic part) through our electoral process and our system of checks and balances (the other republican part). If all of that fails, rebellion.

Democracy is a political form of government in which governing power is derived from the people, by consensus (consensus democracy), by direct referendum (direct democracy), or by means of elected representatives of the people (representative democracy).

However, we could also be defined as a Representative Democracy

Representative democracy is a form of government founded on the principle of elected individuals representing the people, as opposed to autocracy and direct democracy.

The representatives form an independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest, but not as their proxy representatives not necessarily always according to their wishes, but with enough authority to exercise swift and resolute initiative in the face of changing circumstances. It is often contrasted with direct democracy, where representatives are absent or are limited in power as proxy representatives.

At the same time we are also a Constitutional Republic.

In a federal republic, there is a division of powers between the national "federal" government, and the government of the individual subdivisions. While every nation manages this division of powers differently, national security and defense, monetary policy, and other issues of a "national" scope are handled at the "federal" level while more local issues such as road and infrastructure maintenance and education policy are handled at the local level. In other words, while the federal government has ultimate sovereignty, there is a limited sovereignty granted to the subdivisions, where the federal government does not have jurisdiction

What describes us best is the term Democratic Republic.

A democratic republic is a type of republic where the people elect their representatives and may engage in some forms of popular referendums. Examples include the United States of America.

It probably defines us best because the term was created to define the system of government in the United States. Even the Romans weren't a true democracy but rather a republic themselves as well and hold the honor of having an entire system of government named after them, the Roman Republic.

DMara

Arguing about politics and religions won't bring everybody to any agreement. As far as I know, one greedy guy got kicked out of his country, and another will replace him soon. Same **** :biggrin:

Jstas

steveinaz wrote: »

Hey, here's an idea; why don't we all wait and see how this unfolds?

Stop making sense and being reasonable. You know that's not tolerated here! Extreme, knee-jerk reactions and dismissal of facts is how we roll here! :rolleyes:

tonyb

virtualdean wrote: »

70 billion? Sounds like total bs to me. Something his detractors would make up. Or Fox...who knows? Any reputable links? Not that I don't believe you believe it but 70 billion? :biggrin:

http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article1155628.ece

Thats about as far from Fox news as you can get. Just google it, plenty of sources out there.

markmarc

Timothy Smith wrote: »

Not good.
I hope I am wrong, but I do remember when people hailed the ouster of our similar ally the Shaw of Iran as a good thing for freedom and democracy in Iran. We we got was a country that is the sworn enemy of America and Israel (the two Satans), no democracy, no religous freedom, hostages, war, stoning of women, public hanging of homosexuals, pusuit of nuclear weapons.

I think I am right but hope I am wrong.

I remember the Iranian Revolution quite well. The Shah was a thug equal to what they have now. But the big difference between Iran and Egypt was that everyone was well aware that Khomeni was going to become Iran's leader. He had telegraphed that Iran would become a theocracy.

The USA and the West needs to be ready for several possibilities. The one thing in our favor is that the Egyptian military receives a great deal of their funding from us, and is trusted by the population.

But still the Middle East is a puzzle that is never solved.

cnh

Jstas wrote: »

But we don't. We are technically not a true Democracy but rather a Federal Republic.



While we are Democratic, our elected representatives do not require a ballot for every decision and are given license to make decisions as representatives of the people on governmental matters in lieu of the general population voting directly. What makes it democratic is that through direct balloting, we retain control over the government by being able to vote out any member of the government that we feel is not acting in the majority interests of their constituents. Since we are still allowed to own guns legally, we have the ability to rebel against our government forcefully as well...if needed that is. Because of that voting (the democratic part), we, as a people, retain supreme control over the governing body (the republican part) and reserve the right to remove any head of state in any capacity, by direct referendum, consensus or by means of elected official (the other democratic part) through our electoral process and our system of checks and balances (the other republican part). If all of that fails, rebellion.



However, we could also be defined as a Representative Democracy



At the same time we are also a Constitutional Republic.



What describes us best is the term Democratic Republic.



It probably defines us best because the term was created to define the system of government in the United States. Even the Romans weren't a true democracy but rather a republic themselves as well and hold the honor of having an entire system of government named after them, the Roman Republic.

Agreed John.

In fact I was just discussing this in class when I reviewed Plato's Republic. For a anthropological take on Direct Democracy see Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology by David Graeber. He also rails about our mistaken notion of what constitutes 'democracy'.

cnh

Demiurge

markmarc wrote: »

I remember the Iranian Revolution quite well. The Shah was a thug equal to what they have now. But the big difference between Iran and Egypt was that everyone was well aware that Khomeni was going to become Iran's leader. He had telegraphed that Iran would become a theocracy.

The USA and the West needs to be ready for several possibilities. The one thing in our favor is that the Egyptian military receives a great deal of their funding from us, and is trusted by the population.

But still the Middle East is a puzzle that is never solved.

The Shah was a thug equal to what Iran has now or Egypt has now (had)? If its the former, that's just plain crazy talk.

markmarc

Demi:
The Shah had an absolutely vicious secret police, where people disappeared all the time. The difference with the current regime is that their belief is now exported in the form of Hamas, etc.

Timothy Smith

markmarc wrote: »

I remember the Iranian Revolution quite well. The Shah was a thug equal to what they have now. But the big difference between Iran and Egypt was that everyone was well aware that Khomeni was going to become Iran's leader. He had telegraphed that Iran would become a theocracy.

The USA and the West needs to be ready for several possibilities. The one thing in our favor is that the Egyptian military receives a great deal of their funding from us, and is trusted by the population.

But still the Middle East is a puzzle that is never solved.

Do you honestly think that the Iranian people are better off now under a Islamic theocracy, than they were under the Shah?

Do you think Iran is a better country now?

Do you think the world is better off with today's Iran than with the Shah's Iran?

Demiurge

markmarc wrote: »

Demi:
The Shah had an absolutely vicious secret police, where people disappeared all the time. The difference with the current regime is that their belief is now exported in the form of Hamas, etc.

Like with Mubarak, I didn't insinuate The Shah was a benevolent ruler, far from it. I just think its silly to suggest that what Iran has now which is openly hostile to the United States is equal to what they had then.

Jstas

cnh wrote: »

Agreed John.

In fact I was just discussing this in class when I reviewed Plato's Republic. For a anthropological take on Direct Democracy see Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology by David Graeber. He also rails about our mistaken notion of what constitutes 'democracy'.

cnh

You mean this one?

http://abahlali.org/files/Graeber.pdf

A political science and philosophy teacher from school that I kept in contact with after I graduated had told me about it and mailed me his copy to read back in 2005. It was on a naughty list and because of my job sensitivity, I couldn't buy the book without causing a problem for myself. So he mailed it to me and let me borrow it. It's interesting. There is another book I have that was required reading in the teacher's political science class but it's buried in boxes at home. I'll have to dig it out to remember what the title is.

But I learned about the distinction in, believe it or not, The Boy Scouts. One of the required badges for rank advancement is Citizenship in the Nation. The requirements are different now but when I had to take it one of the requirements was to be able to make the distinction between a democracy and a republic. Since my merit badge counselor was the political science head at Rutgers University, I kinda didn't get a pass on "coming close". So I learned the difference when I was 13.

markmarc

Timothy Smith wrote: »

Do you honestly think that the Iranian people are better off now under a Islamic theocracy, than they were under the Shah?

Do you think Iran is a better country now?

Do you think the world is better off with today's Iran than with the Shah's Iran?

You are trying to bait me, much like the political talking heads on both the left and right do all the time.

Did I ever say that Iran is better off now? NO.

Is the Iranian gov't a positive influence on the world? of course NOT.

I was just pointing out that the Shah was evil and his rulership over his own people was so despised that he was overthrown. Tragically, they fell under the spell of a religious zealot who craved power as much as the Shah, and was able over time to to lay a foundation to export vitriolic hatred under the disguise of religion.

BlueFox

DMara wrote: »

Arguing about politics and religions won't bring everybody to any agreement. As far as I know, one greedy guy got kicked out of his country, and another will replace him soon. Same **** :biggrin:

A 20th century philosopher once said; "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

tonyb

Dr. Evil has got nothin' on some of these dictators.
One thing is for sure, I'm lucky to live where I do and appreciate it. Can you imagine trying to work,raise a family, under these conditions in the middle east ? I'll throw my hat into the wait and see camp, just hope this turns out well for the people of Egypt. I hate to say it, but I pray 6 months from now we don't bring up this thread again and say "See, told ya so."
Given that around the world so few democracys exist, I wonder if we were to close or limit our intake of all foreigners, would not democracy rise up in some of these other countries ? The USA has always been the one place to come to for all who seek freedom, but if you put a closed sign on the door, would not others demand it in their own countries ? Just food for thought.

Timothy Smith

markmarc wrote: »

You are trying to bait me, much like the political talking heads on both the left and right do all the time.

Did I ever say that Iran is better off now? NO.

Is the Iranian gov't a positive influence on the world? of course NOT.

I was just pointing out that the Shah was evil and his rulership over his own people was so despised that he was overthrown. Tragically, they fell under the spell of a religious zealot who craved power as much as the Shah, and was able over time to to lay a foundation to export vitriolic hatred under the disguise of religion.

I am not trying to "bait" you.

I think that your honest answers to my three questions are: No, No, and No.
But you avoided answering them.

Choices are usually never between pure good and pure bad. Some times it's between bad (Shah) and much worse (Kohmeini).

I don't think the Iranian people "fell under the spell". Do you think they are ignorant or children? They supported, or vocal minorities supported, Kohmeini, then they got next guy, then the next guy, then Ahmedinajad. I also blame our weak and clueless President (Carter), radical islamists, other Middle Eastern countries who are enemies of the US, Leftist Americans and Europeans, and even the Soviet Union who was not above making trouble for the US to their advantage.

Please give me your possible hopeful (but reality based) scenario of how this situation in Egypt is going to play out ending up with more freedom for the Egyptian people, and less danger of violence and war in the middle east. I just don't see it. I think that if you try to write it down it will look naive, but give it a try.

tonyb

Timothy Smith wrote: »

Choices are usually never between pure good and pure bad. Some times it's between bad (Shah) and much worse (Kohmeini).

How right you are. Same with politics here. All you have to do is look around the globe at all the regimes or dictators we have held up over the years. The press would have you believe we are the bad guy, but really, whats the alternative ?