Egypt (1 Viewer)

[BoneYardDog]

Will you people shut up? You want to go talk about gay rights, or how you don't think they should have rights, and bark at each other, go do it somewhere else. Leave this for the situation in Egypt. They're not barking there; some are laying their lives on the line.

What "they" are you talking about, your post added nothing to the conservation...If 'they" turn out to be the Muslim Brotherhood then all bets are off and you will wish that "they" had been defeated...If "they" turn out to be a young population that is tired of living life like they have been and are interested in a true democracy then the middle east will be better off for it...So what "they" are you specifically betting and hoping on???

Obviously someone as wise and perspicacious as you.

So you got nothing... I will try to help...

Egyptians are extremely radical even in comparison to Jordan or Lebanon. When asked whether they preferred “Islamists” or “modernizers,” the score was 59% to 27% in favor of the Islamists. In addition, 20 percent said they liked al-Qaeda; 30 percent, Hezbollah; 49 percent, Hamas. And this was at a time that their government daily propagandized against these groups.82 percent want adulterers punished with stoning; 77 percent want robbers to be whipped and have their hands amputated; 84 percent favor the death penalty for any Muslim who changes his religion.There are reasons not to expect Egypt to turn into a moderate, stable, and democratic state: There are few forces favoring this outcome; the rebellion has no organization; Egypt doesn’t have the resources to raise living standards and distribute wealth; extremist ideologies are deeply held and widely spread.There are basically three possibilities for the outcome:First, the establishment and army stick together, get rid of Mubarak, but preserve the regime. The changes put in charge a former Air Force commander (the same job Mubarak once held) and the intelligence chief. The elite stays united, toughs it out, does a skillful combination of coopting and repressing the demonstrations, and offering some populist reforms. The old regime continues. In that case, it is only a minor adjustment.Second, the elite loses its nerve and fragments, in part demoralized by a lack of Western — especially U.S. — support. The Muslim Brotherhood throws its full weight behind the rebellion. Soldiers refuse to fire at or join the opposition. Eventually, a radical regime emerges, with the Muslim Brotherhood as either ruler or power behind the throne. Remember that the “moderate democratic” leaders have been largely radical and willing to work with the Brotherhood. In that case, it is a fundamental transformation. The new regime turns against the West, tears up the peace treaty with Israel (in practice if not formally), and joins hands with Hamas. Iranian influence isn’t important with this regime, but that will be small comfort as it launches its own subversive efforts and even goes to war against Israel at some point in the future. This will be the biggest disaster for the region and the West since the Iranian revolution 30 years ago. And in some ways it will be worse.Third and least likely, neither side backs down bringing bloody civil war.

So again I ask what outcome do you see happening and why do you believe it is the best???Which "they" are you backing???TIA

 

[cr8f]

How the army moves will probably decide how this ends.

Live From the Egyptian Revolution

by Sharif Abdel Kouddous

Cairo, Egypt—I grew up in Egypt. I spent half my life here. But Saturday, when my plane from JFK airport touched down in Cairo, I arrived in a different country than the one I had known all my life. This is not Hosni Mubarak’s Egypt anymore and, regardless of what happens, it will never be again.

In Tahrir Square, thousands of Egyptians–men and women, young and old, rich and poor–gathered today to celebrate their victory over the regime’s hated police and state security forces and to call on Mubarak to step down and leave once and for all. They talked about the massive protest on Friday, the culmination of three days of demonstrations that began on January 25th to mark National Police Day. It was an act of popular revolt the likes of which many Egyptians never thought they would see during Mubarak’s reign. "The regime has been convincing us very well that we cannot do it, but Tunisians gave us an idea and it took us only three days and we did it," said Ahmad El Esseily, a 35 year-old author and TV/radio talk show host who took park in the demonstrations. "We are a lot of people and we are strong."

In Cairo, tens of thousands of people--from all walks of life--faced off against riot police armed with shields, batons, and seemingly endless supplies of tear gas. People talked about Friday’s protest like a war; a war they’d won. "Despite the tear gas and the beatings, we just kept coming, wave after wave of us," one protester said. "When some of us would tire, others would head in. We gave each other courage." After several hours, the police were forced into a full retreat. Then, as the army was sent in, they disappeared.

The military was greeted warmly on the streets of Cairo. Crowds roared with approval as one soldier was carried through Tahrir square today holding a flower in his hand. Dozens of people clambered onto tanks as they rode around the square. Throughout the day people chanted: "The people, the army: one hand."

While the police and state security forces are notorious in Egypt for torture, corruption and brutality, the army has not interacted with the civilian population for more than 30 years and is only proudly remembered for having delivered a victory in the 1973 war with Israel. A 4pm curfew set for today was casually ignored with people convinced the army would not harm them. The police were a different story. Their brutality the past few days--decades in fact--has been well documented.

Saturday, some of the police forces were holed up inside their headquarters in the Interior Ministry building near the end of a street connected to Tahrir Square. When protesters neared the building, the police began firing live ammunition at the crowd, forcing them to flee back to the square. Three bloodied people were carried out. "The police are killing us," one man yelled desperately while on the phone with al Jazeera from outside the building. When the firing stopped, defiant protesters began approaching the building again. In the background, the smoking, blackened shell of Hosni Mubarak’s National Democratic Party headquarters served as an ominous reminder of their intentions.

At this point it seems clear the people are not leaving the streets. They own them now and they are refusing to go until Mubarak does. They chanted, "Mubarak, the plane is waiting for you at the airport," and "Wake up Mubarak, today is your last day."

At one point, a rumor spread through Tahrir Square that Mubarak had fled the country. A massive cheer rippled through the crowd. People began jumping up and down in joy. One man wept uncontrollably. When it turned out not to be true, the cheers quickly ended but it provided a brief glimpse of the sheer raw desire for Mubarak’s ouster. Reports now indicate that Mubarak’s two sons and his wife, Suzanne, have fled Egypt, as have some of his closest business cronies. Many people believe that is a sign that Hosni will not be far behind.

There is a great sense of pride that this is a leaderless movement organized by the people. A genuine popular revolt. It was not organized by opposition movements, though they have now joined the protesters in Tahrir. The Muslim Brotherhood was out in full force today. At one point they began chanting "Allah Akbar" only to be drowned out by much louder chants of "Muslim, Christian, we are all Egyptian."

As the sun set over Cairo, silence fell upon Tahrir square as thousands stopped to pray in the street while others stood atop tanks. After the sunset prayer, they held a 'ganaza'–a prayer for those killed in the demonstrations. Darkness fell and the protesters, thousands of them, have vowed to stay in the square, sleeping out in the open, until Mubarak is ousted.

Meanwhile, across Cairo there is not a policeman in sight and there are reports of looting and violence. People worry that Mubarak is intentionally trying to create chaos to somehow convince people that he is needed. The strategy is failing. Residents have taken matters into their own hands, helping to direct traffic and forming armed neighborhood watches, complete with checkpoints and shift changes, in districts across the city.

This is the Egypt I arrived in today. Fearless and determined. It cannot go back to what it was. It will never be the same.

_Sharif Abdel Kouddous is a senior producer for the radio/TV show Democracy Now.

Follow him on Twitter at @sharifkouddous.

 

[Gopher State]

1. Expect a big dump on the stock market monday

2. Watch gas prices jump on monday

3. Have a nice monday

 

[Boom Switch]

1. Expect a big dump on the stock market monday

2. Watch gas prices jump on monday

3. Have a nice monday

I just scratched my butt, the price will rise due to that too.

 

[HellToupee]

Biden: Mubarak not a dictator, protests not like Eastern EuropeBy Bridget Johnson - 01/28/11 11:49 AM ETVice President Joe Biden said Thursday that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is not a dictator and shouldn't step aside in the face of mounting protests against his nearly 30-year rule.Interviewed for PBS's "Newshour," Biden said that the democracy demonstrations that have sprung up in Egypt and Yemen since protests in Tunisia ousted President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, who had taken office in a bloodless coup and held the post since 1987, weren't comparable to the popular uprisings in Eastern Europe that brought down the Iron Curtain.When asked if Mubarak was a dictator, Biden responded, "Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things and he's been very responsible on, relative to geopolitical interests in the region, Middle East peace efforts, the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing the relationship with Israel ... I would not refer to him as a dictator.""I think the time has come for President Mubarak to begin to move in the direction that — to be more responsive to some of the needs of the people out there," Biden said after stressing that he shouldn't resign."Violence isn't appropriate and people have a right to protest," he said. "And so — and we think that — I hope Mubarak, President Mubarak, will — is going to respond to some of the legitimate concerns that are being raised."Mubarak has faced growing challenges in recent years as pro-democracy youth have employed blogs, sometimes at the risk of being thrown in jail, and other social media to advance their cause. One young blogger, Kareem Amer, was released from prison recently after serving four years behind bars for insulting Mubarak.But the street protests that began four days ago have included the ruling party headquarters in Cairo being set ablaze. The Associated Press reported that demonstrators chased riot police and that some of the police even stripped off their gear and joined the protesters.Elections in Egypt have come under heavy criticism for excluding opposition candidates, banning some parties and vote-rigging. It's widely believed that the 82-year-old Mubarak is grooming his son, Gamal, a powerful figure in the ruling National Democratic Party, to take the reins.Biden acknowledged that he knows Mubarak "fairly well," but that he hadn't talked to him about the recent protests.RELATED ARTICLESKerry to Egyptians: Protest like Gandhi"I haven't talked to him in about a month. But I speak to him fairly regularly," he said. "And I think that, you know, there's a lot going on across that part of the continent, from Tunisia into — all the way to Pakistan, actually. And there's — a lot of these countries are beginning to sort of take stock of where they are and what they have to do."But when asked if countries will be caught up in a "domino effect" from Tunisia like that which swept across the former Soviet states, Biden said no."I wouldn't compare the two," he said. "A lot of these nations are very dissimilar. They're similar in the sense that they're Arab nations, dissimilar in the circumstance.""...We're encouraging the protesters to, as they assemble, do it peacefully," he added. "And we're encouraging the government to act responsibly and to try to engage in a discussion as to what the legitimate claims being made are, if they are, and try to work them out."

 

[Fennis]

Tim, you keep saying Fox is watched by people around the world. Do people from other countries really tune into this channel for insight, or are you just referring to Americans that might be abroad or something llike that? I would be very disappointed if foreigners were watching any of our major cable news networks.

I had a friend travel to Rome recently, a family member travel to Columbia, another to China, another to Turkey, and I myself was just in Costa Rica. All of them matched my own experience- Fox News is everywhere. CNN is in most places, but not everywhere- Fox News is everywhere.

I lived overseas for 15 years and never saw Fox once unless it was on AFN.CNN International on the other hand is on every hotel TV in Europe, Africa and the Middle East. I guess everything changed in the past two years as we now only see Fox and CNN is hard to find.

i came back from Thailand, Fox news, Al-Jazeera, and BBC was in almost every hotel. No CNN. Its embarrassing how much worse Fox News is than Al-Jazeera and of course BBC.

 

[Pope Benedict XVI Fan]

Hey Dr Detroit is the expert here, I am sure the west, women, the gay and labor unions will all be loved in the new Egypt...He can even move there and love his woman and daughters even more...According to the Sharia, despite declarations of the equality of the sexes before God, women are considered inferior to men, and have fewer rights and responsibilities. A woman counts as half a man in giving evidence in a court of law, or in matters of inheritance. Her position is less advantageous than a man’s with regard to marriage and divorce. A husband has the moral and religious right and duty to beat his wives for disobedience or for perceived misconduct. A woman does not have the right to choose her husband, or her place of residence, to travel freely or have freedom in her choice of clothing. Women have little or no autonomy and are deemed to need the protection of their fathers, husbands or other male relatives throughout their lives. Any conduct that undermines the idea of male supremacy will fall foul of the Sharia...Praise Allah...

Women, unions and homosexuals aren't exactly on easy street in Egypt under Mubarak either.

 

[Gopher State]

1. Expect a big dump on the stock market monday

2. Watch gas prices jump on monday

3. Have a nice monday

I just scratched my butt, the price will rise due to that too.

thanks, I smell another 5 cent increase thanks to you

 

[BoneYardDog]

Tim, you keep saying Fox is watched by people around the world. Do people from other countries really tune into this channel for insight, or are you just referring to Americans that might be abroad or something llike that? I would be very disappointed if foreigners were watching any of our major cable news networks.

I had a friend travel to Rome recently, a family member travel to Columbia, another to China, another to Turkey, and I myself was just in Costa Rica. All of them matched my own experience- Fox News is everywhere. CNN is in most places, but not everywhere- Fox News is everywhere.

I lived overseas for 15 years and never saw Fox once unless it was on AFN.CNN International on the other hand is on every hotel TV in Europe, Africa and the Middle East. I guess everything changed in the past two years as we now only see Fox and CNN is hard to find.

i came back from Thailand, Fox news, Al-Jazeera, and BBC was in almost every hotel. No CNN. Its embarrassing how much worse Fox News is than Al-Jazeera and of course BBC.

Al-Jazerra and the BBC are one in the same... CNN is irrelevant... FOX is the only real alternative... You should be embarrassed, just not for the reason you think...

 

[ILuvU2Joe]

it would be nice to get rid of all the dictators of the middle east and replace them with free, democratic republics but unfortunately i think whats more likely to happen is they'll be replaced by islamic republics and suppression of people will remain firmly in place.

I don't think so, In Iran and Egypt most of the population is young and not fundamentalist. Most like the west. It doesn't matter though because these are their countries.

Sharia Law is popular even among the moderate. The best we could hope for is a repressive anti-gay anti-women anti-religious freedom anti-free speech government who is OK with the US.

Sharia is a catch all term that isn't particularly useful outside of context - as ever with concepts derived from religious texts, it depends on who is doing the translating and how they interpret it. Egypt already incorporates Sharia into its legal system, as do Morocco, Turkey, Malaysia etc. all to varying degrees and in different ways. It's incorrect to read or hear a Mulsim out of context referencing Sharia and immediately assume they mean a legal system akin to Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan.

This is EXTREMELY important and unfortunately certain hardline conservatives in this country don't get it no matter how many times its repeated.

I am a big proponent of self determination. Now imagine another country with money, say China for example, gives billions of dollars to the GOP so they win every election for decades, I'm sure the Democrats will turn more extreme over time. It really doesn't matter which political party or regime is getting the financial backing. Power corrupts and absolute power absolutely corrupts.

 

[beer 30]

Made my heart ache when I read that about the Egyptian Museum. It also made me happy to see that ordinary people off the street had formed a human chain around it to protect it from those #######s. What a disgrace to loot your nations treasure.

 

[Fennis]

Tim, you keep saying Fox is watched by people around the world. Do people from other countries really tune into this channel for insight, or are you just referring to Americans that might be abroad or something llike that? I would be very disappointed if foreigners were watching any of our major cable news networks.

I had a friend travel to Rome recently, a family member travel to Columbia, another to China, another to Turkey, and I myself was just in Costa Rica. All of them matched my own experience- Fox News is everywhere. CNN is in most places, but not everywhere- Fox News is everywhere.

I lived overseas for 15 years and never saw Fox once unless it was on AFN.CNN International on the other hand is on every hotel TV in Europe, Africa and the Middle East. I guess everything changed in the past two years as we now only see Fox and CNN is hard to find.

i came back from Thailand, Fox news, Al-Jazeera, and BBC was in almost every hotel. No CNN. Its embarrassing how much worse Fox News is than Al-Jazeera and of course BBC.

Al-Jazerra and the BBC are one in the same... CNN is irrelevant... FOX is the only real alternative... You should be embarrassed, just not for the reason you think...

OK.... thanks.... I.... will... ponder... that...

 

[Pope Benedict XVI Fan]

Tim, you keep saying Fox is watched by people around the world. Do people from other countries really tune into this channel for insight, or are you just referring to Americans that might be abroad or something llike that? I would be very disappointed if foreigners were watching any of our major cable news networks.

I had a friend travel to Rome recently, a family member travel to Columbia, another to China, another to Turkey, and I myself was just in Costa Rica. All of them matched my own experience- Fox News is everywhere. CNN is in most places, but not everywhere- Fox News is everywhere.

I lived overseas for 15 years and never saw Fox once unless it was on AFN.CNN International on the other hand is on every hotel TV in Europe, Africa and the Middle East. I guess everything changed in the past two years as we now only see Fox and CNN is hard to find.

i came back from Thailand, Fox news, Al-Jazeera, and BBC was in almost every hotel. No CNN. Its embarrassing how much worse Fox News is than Al-Jazeera and of course BBC.

Al-Jazeera gets a bum rap in the US, perhaps because it was editorially opposed to the invasion of Iraq unlike just about every other English language broadcaster. In fact, Al-Jazeera has probably played quite an important role in the protests now taking place in Egypt and on a small scale in Yemen due to the virtually non-stop and indepth coverage it afforded to the situation in Tunisia a couple of weeks ago. Previously governments in that part of the world could close off such incidents without much notice or alarm from the vast majority of the population, but now that cable/satellite television and internet access has very significantly penetrated the developed Middle East (Al-Jazeera is also the most popular news website in the Arabic speaking world) blocking that out is nigh on impossible.FWIW, the general line from Al Jazeera the last couple of days has been that it is now more a question of when, not if, Muburak goes and the discussion has moved on to who will replace him as President, if anyone at all.

 

[cr8f]

CNN said the median age in Egypt is 24. Iran is very young as well. People that young and educated want to live in the future not in a repressive 800AD religious society. They want to be more like us and we should support democracy there.

 

[Mark Davis]

CNN said the median age in Egypt is 24. Iran is very young as well. People that young and educated want to live in the future not in a repressive 800AD religious society. They want to be more like us and we should support democracy there.

I would love to believe this is true but I seriously doubt that's what we end up with.

 

[BoneYardDog]

CNN said the median age in Egypt is 24. Iran is very young as well. People that young and educated want to live in the future not in a repressive 800AD religious society. They want to be more like us and we should support democracy there.

This is seriously wishful thinking and absolutely not true...

 

[jon_mx]

CNN said the median age in Egypt is 24. Iran is very young as well. People that young and educated want to live in the future not in a repressive 800AD religious society. They want to be more like us and we should support democracy there.

They might get a democracy, but being more like us will not be on the agenda.

 

[ILuvU2Joe]

CNN said the median age in Egypt is 24. Iran is very young as well. People that young and educated want to live in the future not in a repressive 800AD religious society. They want to be more like us and we should support democracy there.

They might get a democracy, but being more like us will not be on the agenda.

No Egyptian Sarah Palin?

 

[griff321]

From what I am reading, this appears more and more like an internal move to oust Mubarak, rather than a true revolution brought about by popular revolt. It has been Mubarak's intention to have his son be his successor, and that undoubtedly has upset a number of people within his administration. If this is true, it is likely that Mubarak will agree to leave, and that a caretaker government will be appointed so that some form of "directed" elections will take place. Kinda like replacing the CEO when results have been bad, and appointing someone who is already on the board.

That is how it started. And it may be how it ends. But when masses gather in the streets and attack police and authorities, the results are unpredictable.

I feel that because of the level of nepotism that permeates all levels of government this is only the start. I am growing increasingly confident that we will see a government favorable to the United States because of the actions of the Egyptian people. It's awesome to see the people step right into the security vacuum and drown out chants from the Muslim Brotherhood with their own chants of religious unity.

 

[ILuvU2Joe]

How the army moves will probably decide how this ends.

Hmm... It looks like the Egyptian military only has some tanks, old F-16s, a bunch of helicopters, and small patrol boats. Bush got egg on his face when the WMD money the US gave Saddam was misappropriated. Egypt most likely has done the same with the billions of dollars of crony bribes "military aid" they received.

 

[jon_mx]

CNN said the median age in Egypt is 24. Iran is very young as well. People that young and educated want to live in the future not in a repressive 800AD religious society. They want to be more like us and we should support democracy there.

They might get a democracy, but being more like us will not be on the agenda.

No Egyptian Sarah Palin?

If only, there would be hope for the Republic.

 

[cr8f]

If they do have elections how long before George Bush takes credit for it?

Most of the arab countries are family run (mafia type) governments.

I'd like to see Saudi Arabia become democratic along with Iran, but most Iranians are not Arabs.

 

[jon_mx]

If they do have elections how long before George Bush takes credit for it? Most of the arab countries are family run (mafia type) governments.I'd like to see Saudi Arabia become democratic along with Iran, but most Iranians are not Arabs.

I think you have your presidents confused. Say what you want to about Bush, but he is a pretty humble guy. The current President is far more likely to point fingers and take credit. That will just be blown off as a partisan comment, but it is absolutely true.The reality is this has little to do with either.

 

[squistion]

If they do have elections how long before George Bush takes credit for it?

Most of the arab countries are family run (mafia type) governments.

I'd like to see Saudi Arabia become democratic along with Iran, but most Iranians are not Arabs.

I think you have your presidents confused. Say what you want to about Bush, but he is a pretty humble guy. The current President is far more likely to point fingers and take credit. That will just be blown off as a partisan comment, but it is absolutely true.The reality is this has little to do with either.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED - oh yes, and how we can we ever forget that extremely humble moment of his presidency?

 

[timschochet]

The more I think about this situation, the more I wonder if Dr. Detroit's original analysis (see page 1) may be more on the mark than I thought. As someone pointed out on TV, we fall sway to looking at paradigms which are out of date when it comes to the 21st century. Specifically I was looking, even more than the Iran example, at the Kerensky-Lenin example, when I wondered if a democratic movement in Egypt would likely result in the Muslim Brotherhood taking over. I pointed out that a heavy level of illiteracy usually means that democracy inevitably leads to dictatorship.

But the internet in general, and Facebook and Twitter in particular, have changed the game in so many ways that we have to throw out all of the old rules. Specifically with regard to this situation it will be much more difficult for a minority group like the Muslim Brotherhood to take control over a government. And in the future, it may become impossible for authoritarian regimes to maintain control of the public will, period. What we are witnessing here in Tunisia and Egypt may actually be the forerunner of a new age of democracy and freedom (two words that I would have insisted were not complimentary to each other, until now.)

I don't want to seem overly optimistic here, but its possible that because of the new technology, within 50 years from now there may be no dictators left...

 

[jon_mx]

If they do have elections how long before George Bush takes credit for it?

Most of the arab countries are family run (mafia type) governments.

I'd like to see Saudi Arabia become democratic along with Iran, but most Iranians are not Arabs.

I think you have your presidents confused. Say what you want to about Bush, but he is a pretty humble guy. The current President is far more likely to point fingers and take credit. That will just be blown off as a partisan comment, but it is absolutely true.The reality is this has little to do with either.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED - oh yes, and how we can we ever forget that extremely humble moment of his presidency?

Liberals have spun that story up so much. It is not worth the bandwidth to respond, it will get nowhere.

 

[jon_mx]

The more I think about this situation, the more I wonder if Dr. Detroit's original analysis (see page 1) may be more on the mark than I thought. As someone pointed out on TV, we fall sway to looking at paradigms which are out of date when it comes to the 21st century. Specifically I was looking, even more than the Iran example, at the Kerensky-Lenin example, when I wondered if a democratic movement in Egypt would likely result in the Muslim Brotherhood taking over. I pointed out that a heavy level of illiteracy usually means that democracy inevitably leads to dictatorship.

But the internet in general, and Facebook and Twitter in particular, have changed the game in so many ways that we have to throw out all of the old rules. Specifically with regard to this situation it will be much more difficult for a minority group like the Muslim Brotherhood to take control over a government. And in the future, it may become impossible for authoritarian regimes to maintain control of the public will, period. What we are witnessing here in Tunisia and Egypt may actually be the forerunner of a new age of democracy and freedom (two words that I would have insisted were not complimentary to each other, until now.)

I don't want to seem overly optimistic here, but its possible that because of the new technology, within 50 years from now there may be no dictators left...

“And with iPods and iPads; and Xboxes and PlayStations -- none of which I know how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation.”

 

[squistion]

If they do have elections how long before George Bush takes credit for it?

Most of the arab countries are family run (mafia type) governments.

I'd like to see Saudi Arabia become democratic along with Iran, but most Iranians are not Arabs.

I think you have your presidents confused. Say what you want to about Bush, but he is a pretty humble guy. The current President is far more likely to point fingers and take credit. That will just be blown off as a partisan comment, but it is absolutely true.The reality is this has little to do with either.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED - oh yes, and how we can we ever forget that extremely humble moment of his presidency?

Liberals have spun that story up so much. It is not worth the bandwidth to respond, it will get nowhere.

I wouldn't try to respond either if I were you after stating categorically how humble Bush was.

 

[jon_mx]

If they do have elections how long before George Bush takes credit for it?

Most of the arab countries are family run (mafia type) governments.

I'd like to see Saudi Arabia become democratic along with Iran, but most Iranians are not Arabs.

I think you have your presidents confused. Say what you want to about Bush, but he is a pretty humble guy. The current President is far more likely to point fingers and take credit. That will just be blown off as a partisan comment, but it is absolutely true.The reality is this has little to do with either.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED - oh yes, and how we can we ever forget that extremely humble moment of his presidency?

Liberals have spun that story up so much. It is not worth the bandwidth to respond, it will get nowhere.

I wouldn't try to respond either if I were you after stating categorically how humble Bush was.

Just stop the hijacking. This is one of the most significant events in years. If someone moronically claims credit, then it might be relevant. Right now it is just partisan speculating and spin.

 

[ILuvU2Joe]

The more I think about this situation, the more I wonder if Dr. Detroit's original analysis (see page 1) may be more on the mark than I thought. As someone pointed out on TV, we fall sway to looking at paradigms which are out of date when it comes to the 21st century. Specifically I was looking, even more than the Iran example, at the Kerensky-Lenin example, when I wondered if a democratic movement in Egypt would likely result in the Muslim Brotherhood taking over. I pointed out that a heavy level of illiteracy usually means that democracy inevitably leads to dictatorship. But the internet in general, and Facebook and Twitter in particular, have changed the game in so many ways that we have to throw out all of the old rules. Specifically with regard to this situation it will be much more difficult for a minority group like the Muslim Brotherhood to take control over a government. And in the future, it may become impossible for authoritarian regimes to maintain control of the public will, period. What we are witnessing here in Tunisia and Egypt may actually be the forerunner of a new age of democracy and freedom (two words that I would have insisted were not complimentary to each other, until now.) I don't want to seem overly optimistic here, but its possible that because of the new technology, within 50 years from now there may be no dictators left...

When there is a political vacuum, the group that is the most organized tend to have an advantage. The Egyptian people have to make sure that any replacement government must be better than the one they have toppled. It will be very sad if what happened in Afghanistan repeats here.

 

[squistion]

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED - oh yes, and how we can we ever forget that extremely humble moment of his presidency?

Liberals have spun that story up so much. It is not worth the bandwidth to respond, it will get nowhere.

I wouldn't try to respond either if I were you after stating categorically how humble Bush was.

Just stop the hijacking. This is one of the most significant events in years. If someone moronically claims credit, then it might be relevant. Right now it is just partisan speculating and spin.

You have bragged recently about your hijacking of threads (and patted yourself on the back for doing it) so don't go there or you will be a bigger hypocrite than you are now.

 

[timschochet]

The more I think about this situation, the more I wonder if Dr. Detroit's original analysis (see page 1) may be more on the mark than I thought. As someone pointed out on TV, we fall sway to looking at paradigms which are out of date when it comes to the 21st century. Specifically I was looking, even more than the Iran example, at the Kerensky-Lenin example, when I wondered if a democratic movement in Egypt would likely result in the Muslim Brotherhood taking over. I pointed out that a heavy level of illiteracy usually means that democracy inevitably leads to dictatorship. But the internet in general, and Facebook and Twitter in particular, have changed the game in so many ways that we have to throw out all of the old rules. Specifically with regard to this situation it will be much more difficult for a minority group like the Muslim Brotherhood to take control over a government. And in the future, it may become impossible for authoritarian regimes to maintain control of the public will, period. What we are witnessing here in Tunisia and Egypt may actually be the forerunner of a new age of democracy and freedom (two words that I would have insisted were not complimentary to each other, until now.) I don't want to seem overly optimistic here, but its possible that because of the new technology, within 50 years from now there may be no dictators left...

When there is a political vacuum, the group that is the most organized tend to have an advantage. The Egyptian people have to make sure that any replacement government must be better than the one they have toppled. It will be very sad if what happened in Afghanistan repeats here.

I've always believed this true. But is it true in the age of Facebook? Again, perhaps we're using old rules. Let's hope so.

 

[ILuvU2Joe]

The more I think about this situation, the more I wonder if Dr. Detroit's original analysis (see page 1) may be more on the mark than I thought. As someone pointed out on TV, we fall sway to looking at paradigms which are out of date when it comes to the 21st century. Specifically I was looking, even more than the Iran example, at the Kerensky-Lenin example, when I wondered if a democratic movement in Egypt would likely result in the Muslim Brotherhood taking over. I pointed out that a heavy level of illiteracy usually means that democracy inevitably leads to dictatorship. But the internet in general, and Facebook and Twitter in particular, have changed the game in so many ways that we have to throw out all of the old rules. Specifically with regard to this situation it will be much more difficult for a minority group like the Muslim Brotherhood to take control over a government. And in the future, it may become impossible for authoritarian regimes to maintain control of the public will, period. What we are witnessing here in Tunisia and Egypt may actually be the forerunner of a new age of democracy and freedom (two words that I would have insisted were not complimentary to each other, until now.) I don't want to seem overly optimistic here, but its possible that because of the new technology, within 50 years from now there may be no dictators left...

When there is a political vacuum, the group that is the most organized tend to have an advantage. The Egyptian people have to make sure that any replacement government must be better than the one they have toppled. It will be very sad if what happened in Afghanistan repeats here.

I've always believed this true. But is it true in the age of Facebook? Again, perhaps we're using old rules. Let's hope so.

What are you saying? A country does not need organized leadership? That all policies can be decided by popular votes on Facebook? We have elections here, but as far as I can tell, we can only vote for people who have their names on the ballot. Or can we just write in whoever we like?

 

[HellToupee]

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED - oh yes, and how we can we ever forget that extremely humble moment of his presidency?

Liberals have spun that story up so much. It is not worth the bandwidth to respond, it will get nowhere.

I wouldn't try to respond either if I were you after stating categorically how humble Bush was.

Just stop the hijacking. This is one of the most significant events in years. If someone moronically claims credit, then it might be relevant. Right now it is just partisan speculating and spin.

You have bragged recently about your hijacking of threads (and patted yourself on the back for doing it) so don't go there or you will be a bigger hypocrite than you are now.

so you have the anti-Bush & gay agenda down , what else do you have?

 

[Jewell]

The more I think about this situation, the more I wonder if Dr. Detroit's original analysis (see page 1) may be more on the mark than I thought. As someone pointed out on TV, we fall sway to looking at paradigms which are out of date when it comes to the 21st century. Specifically I was looking, even more than the Iran example, at the Kerensky-Lenin example, when I wondered if a democratic movement in Egypt would likely result in the Muslim Brotherhood taking over. I pointed out that a heavy level of illiteracy usually means that democracy inevitably leads to dictatorship. But the internet in general, and Facebook and Twitter in particular, have changed the game in so many ways that we have to throw out all of the old rules. Specifically with regard to this situation it will be much more difficult for a minority group like the Muslim Brotherhood to take control over a government. And in the future, it may become impossible for authoritarian regimes to maintain control of the public will, period. What we are witnessing here in Tunisia and Egypt may actually be the forerunner of a new age of democracy and freedom (two words that I would have insisted were not complimentary to each other, until now.) I don't want to seem overly optimistic here, but its possible that because of the new technology, within 50 years from now there may be no dictators left...

When there is a political vacuum, the group that is the most organized tend to have an advantage. The Egyptian people have to make sure that any replacement government must be better than the one they have toppled. It will be very sad if what happened in Afghanistan repeats here.

I've always believed this true. But is it true in the age of Facebook? Again, perhaps we're using old rules. Let's hope so.

What are you saying? A country does not need organized leadership? That all policies can be decided by popular votes on Facebook? We have elections here, but as far as I can tell, we can only vote for people who have their names on the ballot. Or can we just write in whoever we like?

I'm guessing that Tim isn't saying that decisions can be made via social network sites. I think he's suggesting that social netwrok sites give the Egyptian people a vehicle by which to connect -- to coordiante goals, plan events, etc. That's true and that's likely why the government interrupted internet access.Even if social networks allow people to connect, are those connections enough to thwart an Islamist attempt to rise to power? The Brotherhood probably has a centralized plan to assume power, and the Brotherhood's followers are dedicated to carrying out those plans. Plans created by the populace on social network sites are likely to be disjointed, and followers are unlikely to be as dedicated to carrying out those disjointed plans as the Brotherhood is to carrying out their cohesive plan. Hopefully, the share numbers of those wanting a more secular society, even if they are disjointed, are enough to override more more well organized Islamist plans.

 

[jon_mx]

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED - oh yes, and how we can we ever forget that extremely humble moment of his presidency?

Liberals have spun that story up so much. It is not worth the bandwidth to respond, it will get nowhere.

I wouldn't try to respond either if I were you after stating categorically how humble Bush was.

Just stop the hijacking. This is one of the most significant events in years. If someone moronically claims credit, then it might be relevant. Right now it is just partisan speculating and spin.

You have bragged recently about your hijacking of threads (and patted yourself on the back for doing it) so don't go there or you will be a bigger hypocrite than you are now.

Yes, what was that, one of the daily Palin bashing threads. Oh the horrors.

 

[ILuvU2Joe]

The more I think about this situation, the more I wonder if Dr. Detroit's original analysis (see page 1) may be more on the mark than I thought. As someone pointed out on TV, we fall sway to looking at paradigms which are out of date when it comes to the 21st century. Specifically I was looking, even more than the Iran example, at the Kerensky-Lenin example, when I wondered if a democratic movement in Egypt would likely result in the Muslim Brotherhood taking over. I pointed out that a heavy level of illiteracy usually means that democracy inevitably leads to dictatorship. But the internet in general, and Facebook and Twitter in particular, have changed the game in so many ways that we have to throw out all of the old rules. Specifically with regard to this situation it will be much more difficult for a minority group like the Muslim Brotherhood to take control over a government. And in the future, it may become impossible for authoritarian regimes to maintain control of the public will, period. What we are witnessing here in Tunisia and Egypt may actually be the forerunner of a new age of democracy and freedom (two words that I would have insisted were not complimentary to each other, until now.) I don't want to seem overly optimistic here, but its possible that because of the new technology, within 50 years from now there may be no dictators left...

When there is a political vacuum, the group that is the most organized tend to have an advantage. The Egyptian people have to make sure that any replacement government must be better than the one they have toppled. It will be very sad if what happened in Afghanistan repeats here.

I've always believed this true. But is it true in the age of Facebook? Again, perhaps we're using old rules. Let's hope so.

What are you saying? A country does not need organized leadership? That all policies can be decided by popular votes on Facebook? We have elections here, but as far as I can tell, we can only vote for people who have their names on the ballot. Or can we just write in whoever we like?

I'm guessing that Tim isn't saying that decisions can be made via social network sites. I think he's suggesting that social netwrok sites give the Egyptian people a vehicle by which to connect -- to coordiante goals, plan events, etc. That's true and that's likely why the government interrupted internet access.Even if social networks allow people to connect, are those connections enough to thwart an Islamist attempt to rise to power? The Brotherhood probably has a centralized plan to assume power, and the Brotherhood's followers are dedicated to carrying out those plans. Plans created by the populace on social network sites are likely to be disjointed, and followers are unlikely to be as dedicated to carrying out those disjointed plans as the Brotherhood is to carrying out their cohesive plan. Hopefully, the share numbers of those wanting a more secular society, even if they are disjointed, are enough to override more more well organized Islamist plans.

I didn't realize Timmy has a press secretary.

 

[DiStefano]

What Tim was referring to, to cite the most obvious examples, is that Hitler's rise to power in Germany and Lenin's rise to power in Russia were a tightly organized minority grabbing the reins of power because the majority was disorganized and had no way of getting themselves organized. In today's connected world, a power grab by a minority could be instantly known to millions, and could (not necessarily that it would) be countered by a call to action by the majority.

 

[timschochet]

What are you saying? A country does not need organized leadership? That all policies can be decided by popular votes on Facebook? We have elections here, but as far as I can tell, we can only vote for people who have their names on the ballot. Or can we just write in whoever we like?

What I'm suggesting is that Facebook may have changed the rules in this way: in the past a small group, well organized, could seize dictatorial control out of chaos- the Bolsheviks in Russia being the most famous example in history. But Facebook and the Internet means that while the most organized groups could still have influence, it will be much more difficult for them to create a dictatorship. In the past once the the small group took over, they were able to take full control by eliminating their enemies in some secrecy while the public didn't pay attention. I don't think that's very possible anymore.In short, there will be just as many bad guys around as before, looking to take power in chaotic situations like this one- but it's not going to be nearly as easy, nor inevitable, as it was in the past. Anyway, that's what I'm hoping.

 

[ILuvU2Joe]

What Tim was referring to, to cite the most obvious examples, is that Hitler's rise to power in Germany and Lenin's rise to power in Russia were a tightly organized minority grabbing the reins of power because the majority was disorganized and had no way of getting themselves organized. In today's connected world, a power grab by a minority could be instantly known to millions, and could (not necessarily that it would) be countered by a call to action by the majority.

Wow. Two press secretaries.

 

[Jewell]

I didn't realize Timmy has a press secretary.

I also double as his personal masseuse.

 

[ILuvU2Joe]

What are you saying? A country does not need organized leadership? That all policies can be decided by popular votes on Facebook? We have elections here, but as far as I can tell, we can only vote for people who have their names on the ballot. Or can we just write in whoever we like?

What I'm suggesting is that Facebook may have changed the rules in this way: in the past a small group, well organized, could seize dictatorial control out of chaos- the Bolsheviks in Russia being the most famous example in history. But Facebook and the Internet means that while the most organized groups could still have influence, it will be much more difficult for them to create a dictatorship. In the past once the the small group took over, they were able to take full control by eliminating their enemies in some secrecy while the public didn't pay attention. I don't think that's very possible anymore.In short, there will be just as many bad guys around as before, looking to take power in chaotic situations like this one- but it's not going to be nearly as easy, nor inevitable, as it was in the past. Anyway, that's what I'm hoping.

I agree that actions taken by any government is more easily exposed to their own people and people around the world.

 

[timschochet]

Yes, what was that, one of the daily Palin bashing threads. Oh the horrors.

Hey guys, what say we put this off for another thread, huh? This really is an issue that should be discussed beyond the typical liberal vs. conservative bashing.

 

[timschochet]

What are you saying? A country does not need organized leadership? That all policies can be decided by popular votes on Facebook? We have elections here, but as far as I can tell, we can only vote for people who have their names on the ballot. Or can we just write in whoever we like?

What I'm suggesting is that Facebook may have changed the rules in this way: in the past a small group, well organized, could seize dictatorial control out of chaos- the Bolsheviks in Russia being the most famous example in history. But Facebook and the Internet means that while the most organized groups could still have influence, it will be much more difficult for them to create a dictatorship. In the past once the the small group took over, they were able to take full control by eliminating their enemies in some secrecy while the public didn't pay attention. I don't think that's very possible anymore.In short, there will be just as many bad guys around as before, looking to take power in chaotic situations like this one- but it's not going to be nearly as easy, nor inevitable, as it was in the past. Anyway, that's what I'm hoping.

I agree that actions taken by any government is more easily exposed to their own people and people around the world.

Just think about what happens when the public in China see this and think, "You know, we've got a dictatorship too!" The consequences for us, and the world, are incredible. Enormous.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Leaving partisan stuff aside, I'm kinda surprised this thread is only 3 pages.

Well there shouldn't be anything partisan in here, this has nothing to do with us. Nothing. It might impact us to some degree as far as regional politics, our relationships in the region and the like but that stuff is down the road. What is happening in Egypt is particular to that country and the Muslim world and the influences are internal. I'm glad this thread is only three pages, we've had a few Boneyarddog posts (autoterrible) and a few other partisan shots, but mostly it has been centered on the issue at hand.

Didn't mean my post to seem like hey let's get all the partisan stuff in here. Just figured the importance of this situation alone would've enough to drive more pages. I think the amount of has been pretty low for one of these threads all-in-all. -QG

 

[BoneYardDog]

What are you saying? A country does not need organized leadership? That all policies can be decided by popular votes on Facebook? We have elections here, but as far as I can tell, we can only vote for people who have their names on the ballot. Or can we just write in whoever we like?

What I'm suggesting is that Facebook may have changed the rules in this way: in the past a small group, well organized, could seize dictatorial control out of chaos- the Bolsheviks in Russia being the most famous example in history. But Facebook and the Internet means that while the most organized groups could still have influence, it will be much more difficult for them to create a dictatorship. In the past once the the small group took over, they were able to take full control by eliminating their enemies in some secrecy while the public didn't pay attention. I don't think that's very possible anymore.In short, there will be just as many bad guys around as before, looking to take power in chaotic situations like this one- but it's not going to be nearly as easy, nor inevitable, as it was in the past. Anyway, that's what I'm hoping.

Egyptians are extremely radical even in comparison to Jordan or Lebanon. When asked whether they preferred “Islamists” or “modernizers,” the score was 59% to 27% in favor of the Islamists. In addition, 20 percent said they liked al-Qaeda; 30 percent, Hezbollah; 49 percent, Hamas. And this was at a time that their government daily propagandized against these groups.82 percent want adulterers punished with stoning; 77 percent want robbers to be whipped and have their hands amputated; 84 percent favor the death penalty for any Muslim who changes his religion.There are reasons not to expect Egypt to turn into a moderate, stable, and democratic state: There are few forces favoring this outcome; the rebellion has no organization; Egypt doesn’t have the resources to raise living standards and distribute wealth; extremist ideologies are deeply held and widely spread.There are basically three possibilities for the outcome:First, the establishment and army stick together, get rid of Mubarak, but preserve the regime. The changes put in charge a former Air Force commander (the same job Mubarak once held) and the intelligence chief. The elite stays united, toughs it out, does a skillful combination of coopting and repressing the demonstrations, and offering some populist reforms. The old regime continues. In that case, it is only a minor adjustment.Second, the elite loses its nerve and fragments, in part demoralized by a lack of Western — especially U.S. — support. The Muslim Brotherhood throws its full weight behind the rebellion. Soldiers refuse to fire at or join the opposition. Eventually, a radical regime emerges, with the Muslim Brotherhood as either ruler or power behind the throne. Remember that the “moderate democratic” leaders have been largely radical and willing to work with the Brotherhood. In that case, it is a fundamental transformation. The new regime turns against the West, tears up the peace treaty with Israel (in practice if not formally), and joins hands with Hamas. Iranian influence isn’t important with this regime, but that will be small comfort as it launches its own subversive efforts and even goes to war against Israel at some point in the future. This will be the biggest disaster for the region and the West since the Iranian revolution 30 years ago. And in some ways it will be worse.Third and least likely, neither side backs down bringing bloody civil war.I hope for once you are correct, but neither the numbers nor the odds are in your favor...

 

[timschochet]

What are you saying? A country does not need organized leadership? That all policies can be decided by popular votes on Facebook? We have elections here, but as far as I can tell, we can only vote for people who have their names on the ballot. Or can we just write in whoever we like?

What I'm suggesting is that Facebook may have changed the rules in this way: in the past a small group, well organized, could seize dictatorial control out of chaos- the Bolsheviks in Russia being the most famous example in history. But Facebook and the Internet means that while the most organized groups could still have influence, it will be much more difficult for them to create a dictatorship. In the past once the the small group took over, they were able to take full control by eliminating their enemies in some secrecy while the public didn't pay attention. I don't think that's very possible anymore.In short, there will be just as many bad guys around as before, looking to take power in chaotic situations like this one- but it's not going to be nearly as easy, nor inevitable, as it was in the past. Anyway, that's what I'm hoping.

Egyptians are extremely radical even in comparison to Jordan or Lebanon. When asked whether they preferred “Islamists” or “modernizers,” the score was 59% to 27% in favor of the Islamists. In addition, 20 percent said they liked al-Qaeda; 30 percent, Hezbollah; 49 percent, Hamas. And this was at a time that their government daily propagandized against these groups.82 percent want adulterers punished with stoning; 77 percent want robbers to be whipped and have their hands amputated; 84 percent favor the death penalty for any Muslim who changes his religion.There are reasons not to expect Egypt to turn into a moderate, stable, and democratic state: There are few forces favoring this outcome; the rebellion has no organization; Egypt doesn’t have the resources to raise living standards and distribute wealth; extremist ideologies are deeply held and widely spread.There are basically three possibilities for the outcome:First, the establishment and army stick together, get rid of Mubarak, but preserve the regime. The changes put in charge a former Air Force commander (the same job Mubarak once held) and the intelligence chief. The elite stays united, toughs it out, does a skillful combination of coopting and repressing the demonstrations, and offering some populist reforms. The old regime continues. In that case, it is only a minor adjustment.Second, the elite loses its nerve and fragments, in part demoralized by a lack of Western — especially U.S. — support. The Muslim Brotherhood throws its full weight behind the rebellion. Soldiers refuse to fire at or join the opposition. Eventually, a radical regime emerges, with the Muslim Brotherhood as either ruler or power behind the throne. Remember that the “moderate democratic” leaders have been largely radical and willing to work with the Brotherhood. In that case, it is a fundamental transformation. The new regime turns against the West, tears up the peace treaty with Israel (in practice if not formally), and joins hands with Hamas. Iranian influence isn’t important with this regime, but that will be small comfort as it launches its own subversive efforts and even goes to war against Israel at some point in the future. This will be the biggest disaster for the region and the West since the Iranian revolution 30 years ago. And in some ways it will be worse.Third and least likely, neither side backs down bringing bloody civil war.I hope for once you are correct, but neither the numbers nor the odds are in your favor...

You may be right; again, it's impossible for anyone to predict at this point. I'm curious about where you get your figures regarding the Egyptian population. CNN has had "experts" asserting that the vast majority of Egyptians do not want an Islamist society. This seems to be at odds with what you're asserting. I'm not suggesting you're wrong and they're right (though I'm sure we both certainly hope so) but I'd like to know the truth of the matter.

 

[dickey moe]

What are you saying? A country does not need organized leadership? That all policies can be decided by popular votes on Facebook? We have elections here, but as far as I can tell, we can only vote for people who have their names on the ballot. Or can we just write in whoever we like?

What I'm suggesting is that Facebook may have changed the rules in this way: in the past a small group, well organized, could seize dictatorial control out of chaos- the Bolsheviks in Russia being the most famous example in history. But Facebook and the Internet means that while the most organized groups could still have influence, it will be much more difficult for them to create a dictatorship. In the past once the the small group took over, they were able to take full control by eliminating their enemies in some secrecy while the public didn't pay attention. I don't think that's very possible anymore.In short, there will be just as many bad guys around as before, looking to take power in chaotic situations like this one- but it's not going to be nearly as easy, nor inevitable, as it was in the past. Anyway, that's what I'm hoping.

Egyptians are extremely radical even in comparison to Jordan or Lebanon. When asked whether they preferred “Islamists” or “modernizers,” the score was 59% to 27% in favor of the Islamists. In addition, 20 percent said they liked al-Qaeda; 30 percent, Hezbollah; 49 percent, Hamas. And this was at a time that their government daily propagandized against these groups.82 percent want adulterers punished with stoning; 77 percent want robbers to be whipped and have their hands amputated; 84 percent favor the death penalty for any Muslim who changes his religion.There are reasons not to expect Egypt to turn into a moderate, stable, and democratic state: There are few forces favoring this outcome; the rebellion has no organization; Egypt doesn’t have the resources to raise living standards and distribute wealth; extremist ideologies are deeply held and widely spread.There are basically three possibilities for the outcome:First, the establishment and army stick together, get rid of Mubarak, but preserve the regime. The changes put in charge a former Air Force commander (the same job Mubarak once held) and the intelligence chief. The elite stays united, toughs it out, does a skillful combination of coopting and repressing the demonstrations, and offering some populist reforms. The old regime continues. In that case, it is only a minor adjustment.Second, the elite loses its nerve and fragments, in part demoralized by a lack of Western — especially U.S. — support. The Muslim Brotherhood throws its full weight behind the rebellion. Soldiers refuse to fire at or join the opposition. Eventually, a radical regime emerges, with the Muslim Brotherhood as either ruler or power behind the throne. Remember that the “moderate democratic” leaders have been largely radical and willing to work with the Brotherhood. In that case, it is a fundamental transformation. The new regime turns against the West, tears up the peace treaty with Israel (in practice if not formally), and joins hands with Hamas. Iranian influence isn’t important with this regime, but that will be small comfort as it launches its own subversive efforts and even goes to war against Israel at some point in the future. This will be the biggest disaster for the region and the West since the Iranian revolution 30 years ago. And in some ways it will be worse.Third and least likely, neither side backs down bringing bloody civil war.I hope for once you are correct, but neither the numbers nor the odds are in your favor...

I think we got this the first time.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Egyptians are extremely radical even in comparison to Jordan or Lebanon. When asked whether they preferred “Islamists” or “modernizers,” the score was 59% to 27% in favor of the Islamists. In addition, 20 percent said they liked al-Qaeda; 30 percent, Hezbollah; 49 percent, Hamas. And this was at a time that their government daily propagandized against these groups.

82 percent want adulterers punished with stoning; 77 percent want robbers to be whipped and have their hands amputated; 84 percent favor the death penalty for any Muslim who changes his religion.

There are reasons not to expect Egypt to turn into a moderate, stable, and democratic state: There are few forces favoring this outcome; the rebellion has no organization; Egypt doesn’t have the resources to raise living standards and distribute wealth; extremist ideologies are deeply held and widely spread.

There are basically three possibilities for the outcome:

First, the establishment and army stick together, get rid of Mubarak, but preserve the regime. The changes put in charge a former Air Force commander (the same job Mubarak once held) and the intelligence chief. The elite stays united, toughs it out, does a skillful combination of coopting and repressing the demonstrations, and offering some populist reforms. The old regime continues. In that case, it is only a minor adjustment.

Second, the elite loses its nerve and fragments, in part demoralized by a lack of Western — especially U.S. — support. The Muslim Brotherhood throws its full weight behind the rebellion. Soldiers refuse to fire at or join the opposition. Eventually, a radical regime emerges, with the Muslim Brotherhood as either ruler or power behind the throne. Remember that the “moderate democratic” leaders have been largely radical and willing to work with the Brotherhood. In that case, it is a fundamental transformation. The new regime turns against the West, tears up the peace treaty with Israel (in practice if not formally), and joins hands with Hamas. Iranian influence isn’t important with this regime, but that will be small comfort as it launches its own subversive efforts and even goes to war against Israel at some point in the future. This will be the biggest disaster for the region and the West since the Iranian revolution 30 years ago. And in some ways it will be worse.

Third and least likely, neither side backs down bringing bloody civil war.

I hope for once you are correct, but neither the numbers nor the odds are in your favor...

You should have just linked the article where you got all this info and saved us the trouble of reading your post.There are more than three possible outcomes, obviously the 4th is Mubarak stepping aside peacefully and the Egyptians forming a new government.

Also you forgot to include some key details in that PEW poll you listed without attributing it:

The most recent PEW survey of Muslims showed that majorities view democracy as the most preferable form of government (59 percent in Egypt, 65 percent in Indonesia, 69 percent in Jordan and 81 percent in Lebanon)

CNN said the median age in Egypt is 24. Iran is very young as well. People that young and educated want to live in the future not in a repressive 800AD religious society. They want to be more like us and we should support democracy there.

This is seriously wishful thinking and absolutely not true...

ool

 

[Jewell]

What are you saying? A country does not need organized leadership? That all policies can be decided by popular votes on Facebook? We have elections here, but as far as I can tell, we can only vote for people who have their names on the ballot. Or can we just write in whoever we like?

What I'm suggesting is that Facebook may have changed the rules in this way: in the past a small group, well organized, could seize dictatorial control out of chaos- the Bolsheviks in Russia being the most famous example in history. But Facebook and the Internet means that while the most organized groups could still have influence, it will be much more difficult for them to create a dictatorship. In the past once the the small group took over, they were able to take full control by eliminating their enemies in some secrecy while the public didn't pay attention. I don't think that's very possible anymore.In short, there will be just as many bad guys around as before, looking to take power in chaotic situations like this one- but it's not going to be nearly as easy, nor inevitable, as it was in the past. Anyway, that's what I'm hoping.

I agree that actions taken by any government is more easily exposed to their own people and people around the world.

Just think about what happens when the public in China see this and think, "You know, we've got a dictatorship too!" The consequences for us, and the world, are incredible. Enormous.

Think about the African turmoil we've seen only one month into this year. The Egyptian people are rising up against their government, the Tunisian people rose up against their government, and the Southern Sudanese just voted overwhelmingly to secede creating two Sudans. There is definitely a wave of dissent going through this area, it'll be interesting to see how much or how far it spreads.In a related note, one of the English newspapers had a picture of an austerity protestor with a sign that read, "Riot Like An Egyptian!" Somebody should have back-handed her.