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

[Jenson71]

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.

There is a long standing idea in political science that healthy democracies have 1) internal security 2) do not have conflicting or warring interests with other healthy democracies.

If true, it would mean that, if Egypt became a healthy democracy, 1) Egypt would be better able to temper radical Islamic elements and 2) remain at peace with Israel and the US.

Overall, I think democratic movements are causes of optimistic celebration, and that applies in this Egyptian case.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Donger

I wouldn't call a country which is under the control of the military "free."

Even if they're backing the people the way they are here?

I wouldn't call a country labeled a democracy free because it doesn't necessarily follow.
In fact it's not even true that democracies don't war with each other—healthy or not. ( whatever that subjective term, healthy, means here )
Democracy just means majority rule so if the majority is bat-shit crazy you have a bat-shit crazy democracy who will even deem themselves "healthy."
We need to start question some of these political science myths that abound.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Even if they're backing the people the way they are here?

Yes.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by Donger

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

See Hitler above.

I understand that Donger and I don't want them for example to vote the Muslim Brotherhood in power.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Donger

Yes.

Disagree. I think it ultimately depends on their policies and who is being ousted as well as who is the replacement. I mean you can have a monarch that is benign and generous in allowing freedom. The problem is these policies can't be gauranteed by the successor.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Disagree. I think it ultimately depends on their policies and who is being ousted as well as who is the replacement. I mean you can have a monarch that is benign and generous in allowing freedom. The problem is these policies can't be gauranteed by the successor.

Are they "free" to vote out a monarch or military leader(s)? Did they elect them in the first place?

No. So shut your pie hole, woman.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

I understand that Donger and I don't want them for example to vote the Muslim Brotherhood in power.

Well, the MB will share some power. I think there's been changes in that group with different strands of it—not all strands are radical per recent info I've read.

[Jenson71]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Even if they're backing the people the way they are here?

I wouldn't call a country labeled a democracy free because it doesn't necessarily follow.
In fact it's not even true that democracies don't war with each other—healthy or not. ( whatever that subjective term, healthy, means here )
Democracy just means majority rule so if the majority is bat-shit crazy you have a bat-shit crazy democracy who will even deem themselves "healthy."
We need to start question some of these political science myths that abound.

I must be off-ignore today

I wouldn't call a bat-shit crazy democracy a healthy democracy. Our good political science foundations stem not from logic or ideals, but from experience. The 20th century did not see democracy fighting democracy, but democracy fighting dictatorship.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by chiefsnorth

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.

Of course not. I could be wrong but from what I have read from your posts you seem to think they are a better off with Mubarak or someone like him instead of deciding for themselves.

[Jenson71]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

I understand that Donger and I don't want them for example to vote the Muslim Brotherhood in power.

A senior member of the MB wrote just a couple of days ago that they would not be nominating a candidate for Egyptian presidency in September, so we will see if that promise is stuck with.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Donger

Are they "free" to vote out a monarch or military leader(s)? Did they elect them in the first place?

No. So shut your pie hole, woman.

Voting doesn't not necessarily guarantee freedom either. We vote here and we continue to lose freedom.

However, let's take your scenario:
If the people are free and going about their business unimpeded, would they even care that they were not able to vote out that monarch? Unlikely. There have been some good monarchs. The main problem with monarchy is that there is no guarantee of the same good policies with succession as it's hereditary. The next best thing is a republic. There's different kinds of republics though. Even the Soviet Union was a "republic". It has to be the right kind of republic. See United States Constitution 1787 and circa early 1800s. Post Lincoln it starts to slowly deteriorate.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by Jenson71

There is a long standing idea in political science that healthy democracies have 1) internal security 2) do not have conflicting or warring interests with other healthy democracies.

If true, it would mean that, if Egypt became a healthy democracy, 1) Egypt would be better able to temper radical Islamic elements and 2) remain at peace with Israel and the US.

Overall, I think democratic movements are causes of optimistic celebration, and that applies in this Egyptian case.

I agree Jenson

[Jenson71]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Voting doesn't not necessarily guarantee freedom either. We vote here and we continue to lose freedom.

However, let's take your scenario:
If the people are free and going about their business unimpeded, would they even care that they were not able to vote out that monarch? Unlikely. There have been some good monarchs. The main problem with monarchy is that there is no guarantee of the same good policies with succession as it's hereditary.

Cool thing about a democracy is that you can keep voting in the guy who is doing a good job, making it a de-facto monarchy without the concern of "what if this guy becomes crazy!?"

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

Of course not. I could be wrong but from what I have read from your posts you seem to think they are a better off with Mubarak or someone like him instead of deciding for themselves.

Fox News, the NeoCons and Israel favor Omar Suleiman for the same reasons.

In this particular case, I think Israel has a right to be worried.They had a peace treaty and they have a right to be scared if it isn't honored. It's their backyard. I see this as more of a legit concern than Iran which is trumped up nonsense by ideologues with another agenda as was Iraq. Israel has acted better than the US though by keeping their mouths shut pretty much.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by Donger

Are they "free" to vote out a monarch or military leader(s)? Did they elect them in the first place?

No. So shut your pie hole, woman.

You are being silly. There is a simple logistical problem that cant be ignored, it is going to take at least half a year for them to organize elections, give parties time to select candidates to campaign for various offices, give the people time to judge and vote, etc.

In the meantime, someone has to run the country. It seems obvious that everyone in power wanted Mubarak to continue as a caretaker but the people essentially told the military "hell effing no, he goes right now, you run things for a few months."

It is not often at all that the people rise up and ask for a military coup, but here we are.

Egypt's High Military Council on Friday affirmed that it will be running the nation on a temporary basis.

The official said the military council would "issue more statements to outline the measures and decisions to be taken," while stressing that it was not a permanent replacement for a government.