Mubarak Steps Down

[Jenson71]

'Egypt is free! Egypt is free!'

Wild cheers erupted from tens of thousands of demonstrators in Cairo's Tahrir Square after word spread that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has resigned. Demonstrators chanted "Egypt is free!" upon hearing the news.

http://www.cnn.com/

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/wo...t.html?_r=1&hp

[Donger]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

The military has leaned toward the secular side, but anything is possible now. I just hope the Egyptians make the right choice.

Yep, and our militaries are pretty close. I just hope that someone doesn't get power hungry.

[The Mad Crapper]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

Has Obama taken credit yet? Time for a speech or something

Geez, let the guy at least finish his ice cream and golf.

[gblowfish]

Originally Posted by Aries Walker

I can totally agree with this. They're in a good position to fight off the radical elements, but those same radical elements would see control of Egypt as being a huge feather in their cap.

Radical!

[cdcox]

The out come rests with the military. So far they have been very benevolent to the wishes of the people and have not made an apparent grab for permanent power.

It also rests somewhat with economic conditions. I think the people will elect a reasonable leader. If that leader is successful and people are content, I think Egypt has a bright future as a democracy. If things go sour, the temptation to turn to more radical elements will become stronger.

The people of Egypt have my best wishes.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by cdcox

The out come rests with the military. So far they have been very benevolent to the wishes of the people and have not made an apparent grab for permanent power.

It also rests somewhat with economic conditions. I think the people will elect a reasonable leader. If that leader is successful and people are content, I think Egypt has a bright future as a democracy. If things go sour, the temptation to turn to more radical elements will become stronger.

The people of Egypt have my best wishes.

Regarding the military (from a commentary by Fred Kaplan):

Military rule doesn't necessarily bode ill for its prospects. In some countries, Turkey for instance, the military has played a progressive role, advancing the causes of secular society and representative rule.
An Egypt untethered from Mubarak could follow a similar path. Most of its military's officers are college-educated, many have been trained at U.S. military academies, and the upper echelon—through extensive arms purchases especially—have maintained frequent contact with U.S., British, and French officers. The army is widely respected by the Egyptian people—a sentiment that's been solidified, and perhaps reciprocated, in these past two weeks of protests in Tahrir Square.

But on the other hand:

Some factions of the military may have their own material interests in mind when forcing Mubarak out. As in many undemocratic countries, the military is more than just the military. Egypt's officer corps is said to own or operate vast networks of commercial enterprises, including water, construction, cement, olive oil, the hotel and gasoline industries—in all, about one-third of the country's economy—as well as vast chunks of seaside property.

The protests and the chaos they have unleashed have caused grave economic damage—an estimated $315 million each day. These losses, much of them due to reduced tourism, will continue as long as the protests continue—and the protests will continue, it seems, for as long as Mubarak stays in power.

The army's material interests don't mesh so well with the premises of a thriving middle-class society. And the absence of such a society—the combination of large numbers of well-educated young people and few jobs to suit their talents—has no doubt fueled these last two weeks of protest.

That same WikiLeaks cable from the U.S. embassy in Cairo reported that the military views efforts at privatization "as a threat to its economic position, and therefore generally opposes economic reforms." To the extent the military does retain power in Egypt, the people's "rising expectations" may be frustrated, regardless of the outcome of this current clash. Whatever happens in the coming days and weeks, Egypt, once the emblem of Arab stability, might be locked in the dynamics of revolution for a long time to come.

[dirk digler]

I am glad this has finally happened and I hope the Egyptian people finally get true freedom.

Whether they decide to be pro-Western or not it is their fate to decide not ours. As Americans we should fully support their right to decide whether we agree with their decision or not.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Jenson71

Obama to speak at 12:30 CST.

Jake Tapper reviews the records of the past two Presidents on Egyptian political reform:

An accounting of the full two years of President Obama’s policy towards Egypt – prior to January 25, 2011 – may be in order.

As ably covered by the Washington Post’s Fact Checker – and former State Department reporter – Glenn Kessler, the Obama administration was far more quiet on the need for Egypt to engage in serious political reform, at least publicly, than the Bush administration.

Perhaps more glaringly, while the Bush administration tried to directly fund civil society in Egypt – pro-democracy groups and the like – the Obama administration changed that policy and cut funding significantly, ending an effort to provide direct funding to democracy groups not “approved” by the Egyptian government, and reduced funding in the budget for programs to promote civil society groups.

more...

[blaise]

I wonder if he set his Outlook message to Out of Office.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

I am glad this has finally happened and I hope the Egyptian people finally get true freedom.

Whether they decide to be pro-Western or not it is their fate to decide not ours. As Americans we should fully support their right to decide whether we agree with their decision or not.

You don't want to let healthcare insurers decide for themselves how to run their own businesses, but you're first at the ramparts to defend foreigners' right to choose an anti-American path. Brilliant.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by patteeu

You don't want to let healthcare insurers decide for themselves how to run their own businesses, but you're first at the ramparts to defend foreigners' right to choose an anti-American path. Brilliant.

That is dumb analogy.

It is their country, their home, their lives and livelihood and it is their decision not yours.

As long as their elections are fair we shouldn't have a problem with it.

You would think any American would understand considering we had to run off a tyrannical government in order to gain freedom.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

As long as their elections are fair we shouldn't have a problem with it.

Hitler was fairly elected, dirk.

[dirk digler]

Was I wrong in believing that all true conservatives believed in spreading freedom and democracy? Or at least until they vote they don't want to be pro-Western then we should try to force dictators on them that are sympathetic to us.

[chiefsnorth]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

Was I wrong in believing that all true conservatives believed in spreading freedom and democracy? Or at least until they vote they don't want to be pro-Western then we should try to force dictators on them that are sympathetic to us.

You are likely confused because the world is a complex place and your political opinions all seem to be childlike in their simplicity.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

Was I wrong in believing that all true conservatives believed in spreading freedom and democracy? Or at least until they vote they don't want to be pro-Western then we should try to force dictators on them that are sympathetic to us.

Yes, you were. My primary concern is about that democracy and freedom being non-hostile to us.

See Hitler above.

[chiefsnorth]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

That is dumb analogy.

It is their country, their home, their lives and livelihood and it is their decision not yours.

As long as their elections are fair we shouldn't have a problem with it.

You would think any American would understand considering we had to run off a tyrannical government in order to gain freedom.

So if we sat on our hands while Iran influenced the coming process, installed another Taliban/ Ahmadinejad, became a state sponsor of terrorism, destabilized the middle east and placed a very large military force in the hands of a malevolent regime, you would regard this as good, because in some vague way it is "more freedom".

No, the world is not as simple as a+b. Good does not always triumph after a good first step. Evil, hate, malevolence are always prowling about waiting for an opportunity. Culpability falls equally on those who do evil and those who allow it.

I'm not sure if your "hay guyz moar freedom = gud" view is intentionally obtuse, impossibly simplistic, or just the result of a phenomenal level of naïveté.