|
Is Egypt going to go to war with Israel or even cut off all relations? I'm skeptical Maybe it guarantees their Gaza/Sinai policy, but again, is that really in the US's best interests?
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 15:31 |
|
|
Deteriorata posted:The peace treaty with Israel is worth a lot though, so keeping Egypt on friendly terms is important. The important thing is keeping the Suez Canal in operation. Xandu posted:Is Egypt going to go to war with Israel or even cut off all relations? I'm skeptical Can you imagine ElBaradei sitting down with Netanyahu and discussing a joint nuclear power program? Things are just chilly/on edge - and neither side is run by people interested in compromise. Mc Do Well fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Jul 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:The $3 billion a year is to keep Egypt friendly to the West and playing ball with Israel. Yeah, it's a lot of money, but it's a relatively small price to pay for peace in the area and having a friendly government in control of a major trade thoroughfare. Yup it's the old support the military approach that the US really likes using, I believe the Gulf states prop up Egypt by helping to underwrite things such as the really expensive fuel subsidy program.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 21:16
|
|
|
That's equally important to Egypt. Edit the suez
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 21:16
|
|
|
It's not like redirecting our Egypt Military Aid payment this year to Egypt Civil Aid wouldn't still be going to the military after all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
I support cutting military aid to Egypt, but only so that we can also cut the aid to Israel. Totally loving absurd that we're bankrolling a military that can field nuclear weapons.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 21:47
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:I support cutting military aid to Egypt, but only so that we can also cut the aid to Israel. Totally loving absurd that we're bankrolling a military that can field nuclear weapons. Agreed. We do both, or neither. Cutting off Egypt and still funding Israel is just guaranteed to stick in the Arab craw even more.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 21:54
|
|
|
The moral of the story is the military can get away with the coup as long as it supports US interests.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
etalian posted:The moral of the story is the military can get away with the coup as long as it supports US interests. This is unfortunately nothing new and fits perfectly with our historical record.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 22:19
|
|
|
etalian posted:The moral of the story is the military can get away with the coup as long as it supports US interests. And, you know. Holds elections under the new constitution within the next year.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
It takes more than some type of election to be a democracy (it helps if you don't arrest or shoot your opposition).
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 22:29
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:It takes more than some type of election to be a democracy (it helps if you don't arrest or shoot your opposition). That has nothing to do with the original point. Sure, the military isn't very good at running the show. But if the military sits on their hands and mucks up this whole transition period, they'll lose the support of the anti-Morsi crowd as well, and then they are in pretty big trouble from a diplomatic standpoint. In which case, they probably wouldn't "get away with" the coup, because people would be protesting and rioting against them in huge numbers. Strictly from a self-preservation standpoint, it's in their best interest to get the accountability for the state of Egypt off their hands and onto a government that is elected through a process that the majority of people feel is legitimate. Bonus points if they can run the country without drawing out the biggest protests in human history against them. I can't imagine they enjoy being under the microscope, especially when they're dealing with very complicated security issues.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 22:38
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:That has nothing to do with the original point. Sure, the military isn't very good at running the show. But if the military sits on their hands and mucks up this whole transition period, they'll lose the support of the anti-Morsi crowd as well, and then they are in pretty big trouble from a diplomatic standpoint. In which case, they probably wouldn't "get away with" the coup, because people would be protesting and rioting against them in huge numbers. Strictly from a self-preservation standpoint, it's in their best interest to get the accountability for the state of Egypt off their hands and onto a government that is elected through a process that the majority of people feel is legitimate. Bonus points if they can run the country without drawing out the biggest protests in human history against them. I can't imagine they enjoy being under the microscope, especially when they're dealing with very complicated security issues. Oh, I am not arguing it makes sense for them to at least give the appearance they want an election, but lets be honest here, they are going to make sure things go their way and at this point there is very little reason to think a big portion of the populace will accept the legitimacy of the elections. There seems to be an expectation that either no one really supports the MB any more or if they still do, they aren't going to remember recent events (such as their leadership behind bars).
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 22:54
|
|
|
Tardigrade posted:Meanwhile, there's been a car bomb in Dahieh? Trying to stir up sectarian strife in Lebanon, but I think the government has already addressed that people need to see through this attempt to stir up emotions. I wouldn't put it past Israel to do something like this, they'd never fess up to it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 23:26
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:That has nothing to do with the original point. Sure, the military isn't very good at running the show. But if the military sits on their hands and mucks up this whole transition period, they'll lose the support of the anti-Morsi crowd as well, and then they are in pretty big trouble from a diplomatic standpoint. In which case, they probably wouldn't "get away with" the coup, because people would be protesting and rioting against them in huge numbers. Strictly from a self-preservation standpoint, it's in their best interest to get the accountability for the state of Egypt off their hands and onto a government that is elected through a process that the majority of people feel is legitimate. Bonus points if they can run the country without drawing out the biggest protests in human history against them. I can't imagine they enjoy being under the microscope, especially when they're dealing with very complicated security issues.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 23:28
|
|
|
quote:Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri announced the collapse of the March 8 coalition Tuesday, putting an end to the Amal Movement’s frail alliance with the Free Patriotic Movement of MP Michel Aoun.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 02:19
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:The $3 billion a year is to keep Egypt friendly to the West and playing ball with Israel. Yeah, it's a lot of money, but it's a relatively small price to pay for peace in the area and having a friendly government in control of a major trade thoroughfare. Let's also keep in mind that while $3b is a lot of actual money, it's pocket change to the U.S. government and a hell of a lot less than what it would cost to sort out an Israeli-Egyptian shootout.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 04:19
|
|
|
Fist of Foucault posted:Who cares? The "anti-Morsi crowd" depended on the military to get anything done in the first place, the army has already started ignoring the grassroots movements. It's over as far as they're concerned. Most people I've spoken to (admittedly academics rather than people on the ground) think elections are reasonably likely to either be rigged or postponed when it comes round to it. It's not really true that the anti-morsi crowd was just hopelessly reliant on the military. They were out in force, and it was them who pushed things this far. Were they supposed to demand the army reinstate Morsi so they could protest him into resigning?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 07:40
|
|
|
redscare posted:Let's also keep in mind that while $3b is a lot of actual money, it's pocket change to the U.S. government and a hell of a lot less than what it would cost to sort out an Israeli-Egyptian shootout. 3 billion is way less then what it would cost in oil prices if the Suez closed down even for a short time. Secondly that 3 billion is almost all spend on US goods and then exported to the Egyptian military.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 08:43
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Oh, I am not arguing it makes sense for them to at least give the appearance they want an election, but lets be honest here, they are going to make sure things go their way and at this point there is very little reason to think a big portion of the populace will accept the legitimacy of the elections. Sure there is, by virtue of that being exactly what happened last time in a very similar scenario. Some of the biggest protests in world history leading to a coup, that lead into elections. It boils down to how substantial a percentage of people are fanatic supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood. In that regard, Morsi's base that got him elected has certainly shrunk substantially since the election. Tahrir celebrated for days after Morsi was elected. He wasn't just the candidate of the Muslim Brotherhood. He spoke in favor of a lot of things that the opposition ended up protesting against him about later. Aside from that, it's more than plausible that a not insignificant amount of pro-Morsi voters became disenfranchised with him later for various reasons. Egypt's democracy was so boned to begin with, that I don't think it's safe to assume that a vast majority of Egyptians didn't question either Morsi, the flawed design of the government, or both. The military hadn't even clarified the role of the President when Morsi was elected. They had negotiations with the Muslim Brotherhood the next few days while they sorted out what powers the President would have. Morsi took that shambled system and abused it every way he could, and that couldn't have gone unnoticed among those who voted for him. There could be a lot more people in favor of a reboot than some are portraying. I think it's fair to say that we can't be 100% certain of anything when we don't know in depth what the demographics of the country are, or what the military is aiming to accomplish here. Anything else is speculation on a developing story. Fist of Foucault posted:Who cares? The "anti-Morsi crowd" depended on the military to get anything done in the first place, the army has already started ignoring the grassroots movements. It's over as far as they're concerned. Most people I've spoken to (admittedly academics rather than people on the ground) think elections are reasonably likely to either be rigged or postponed when it comes round to it. Well I would hope everyone in this thread cares. I'm also not convinced that the people of Egypt have no grassroots power at the moment for obvious reasons. And yes, that'd be a very sound educated guess. But it's still just a guess, and I'd assume most people realize that. Even if it's a 99% chance that the military was to refuse to go through with elections and instead formed a junta, what good reason is there to claim that the military is going to form a junta before it's become clear that's the case? At best, you get to what, brag about being right before anyone else for a little bit, simply for stabbing in the dark and getting lucky? At worst, you've slandered a group who could have been legitimately trying to aid people. I don't get where the militant pessimism comes from. Volkerball fucked around with this message at 09:15 on Jul 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 09:10
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:Its a fair smear. Plus we should cut off all military aid. If they want to kill eachother they might as well not do it on our dime. They're not being paid to not kill Egyptians, they're being paid to not kill Israelis. In fact given the average attitude of Egyptian civilians, their military probably is BEING paid to kill Egyptians.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 10:59
|
|
|
A pretty exhaustive account of Monday's shootings at the Republican Guard headquarters. Still no definitive proof over who fired first.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 15:31
|
|
|
suboptimal posted:A pretty exhaustive account of Monday's shootings at the Republican Guard headquarters. Still no definitive proof over who fired first. Peaceful protesters don't turn up with guns and Molotov...regardless of who fired first, the MB were after a fight and got one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 15:50
|
|
|
Jut posted:Peaceful protesters don't turn up with guns and Molotov...regardless of who fired first, the MB were after a fight and got one. I'm worried they're preparing for a bigger one. Am I wrong in thinking Egypt is breaking down very quickly despite the appointments? They've been refused by the MB.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 16:46
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:I'm worried they're preparing for a bigger one. Am I wrong in thinking Egypt is breaking down very quickly despite the appointments? They've been refused by the MB. I think the MB are dead and buried, their calls for an uprising were basically met with "Ok you first!". If the military stick to their timetable for transition then all is good. I kind of see the military acting like a parent in the whole thing so far. They have always sided with the will of the majority and seemed to have no interest in holding onto power long term.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 17:02
|
|
|
Jut posted:I kind of see the military acting like a parent in the whole thing so far. They have always sided with the will of the majority and seemed to have no interest in holding onto power long term. They've not been horrifically bad, but they're definitely a force the people as a whole need to check and (eventually) overcome if there's to be real democracy and economic progress. It might even be a good thing to force the elections earlier, even if by a few weeks, just in a show of power. The people of Egypt are capable of acting and thinking on their own behalf, they don't need a "parent."
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 17:05
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Well I would hope everyone in this thread cares. I'm also not convinced that the people of Egypt have no grassroots power at the moment for obvious reasons. And yes, that'd be a very sound educated guess. But it's still just a guess, and I'd assume most people realize that. Even if it's a 99% chance that the military was to refuse to go through with elections and instead formed a junta, what good reason is there to claim that the military is going to form a junta before it's become clear that's the case? At best, you get to what, brag about being right before anyone else for a little bit, simply for stabbing in the dark and getting lucky? At worst, you've slandered a group who could have been legitimately trying to aid people. I don't get where the militant pessimism comes from. No, you get to take the morally right position. It comes from the fact that it's ridiculous to see so many people in the West lauding a military coup because they take Western liberalism, and in many cases neoliberalism specifically, to be a universal truth that needs to be shoved down people's throats if they don't want it by overwhelming force if necessary, and it also comes from the fact that this kind of thing has happened before in history, over and over again, and people have still not got the message. Even Morsi's opponents, both in parliament and in the extra-parliamentary opposition, have come out against the operating methods of Mansour and the military: quote:The main liberal coalition, the National Salvation Front (NSF), expressed reservations about the decree, saying it was not consulted and that it "lacks significant clauses while others need change or removal". (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23256937) Mansour's latest "One Nation" reconciliation decree was also drafted behind closed doors without any input from outside. Fist of Foucault fucked around with this message at 17:50 on Jul 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 17:46
|
|
|
Fist of Foucault posted:Mansour's latest "One Nation" reconciliation decree was also drafted behind closed doors without any input from outside. Wasn't that what the opposition was bitching about Morsi doing in the first place? Meet the new boss.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 18:23
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
Fist of Foucault posted:No, you get to take the morally right position. It comes from the fact that it's ridiculous to see so many people in the West lauding a military coup because they take Western liberalism, and in many cases neoliberalism specifically, to be a universal truth that needs to be shoved down people's throats if they don't want it by overwhelming force if necessary, and it also comes from the fact that this kind of thing has happened before in history, over and over again, and people have still not got the message. Even Morsi's opponents, both in parliament and in the extra-parliamentary opposition, have come out against the operating methods of Mansour and the military: I really don't think anyone in here is lauding this because ~*-*~neoliberalism~*-*~ No one seems particularly happy with the military calling the shots, but they at least waited until it was clear that Morsi had lost the ability to govern, simply because everyone hated him. Not only that, they refused to fire on the Tahrir Square protesters on Mubarak's behalf as well. Morsi was as much installed by the military as he was removed by it, so in that sense, most of us don't see things changing that much. Either they rigged the last election and are now caving and moving on to their second choice, or we've seen them allow a reasonably free election just a year ago from more or less the same position. It seems like the military, while powerful, is at least waiting for the veneer of popular support, which is a step up, all things considered.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
Jut posted:Do you think Morsi was going to leave of his own accord unless the military said "right, you hosed up, there are millions on the street, gently caress off or we will drag you out"? Not as easily or with as little bloodshed, but yes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Not as easily or with as little bloodshed, but yes. And what if he didn't? Everyone thought Assad would just bow out of power at some point, or that the rebels would overthrow him, and look at where we are now. With the way the protests were going, Morsi was eventually going to have to call on the military to reassert power, and then the choice would have been theirs again anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
Jut posted:I think the MB are dead and buried, their calls for an uprising were basically met with "Ok you first!". If the military stick to their timetable for transition then all is good. The existence of civilian authority doesn't mean the military has relinquished power. What we have here is a Praetorian system, in which the military doesn't need to monopolize political power to protect its interests.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 19:05
|
|
|
Jut posted:I kind of see the military acting like a parent in the whole thing so far. Would you say that they're protecting the parentland with a firm but just hand? Why would anyone ever want them to stop. Daddy knows best, after all. Look how poorly democracy has gone so far.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 19:11
|
|
|
Squalid posted:The existence of civilian authority doesn't mean the military has relinquished power. What we have here is a Praetorian system, in which the military doesn't need to monopolize political power to protect its interests. It's also similar to the Praetorian guard in the older-sense not in the more modern meaning. The Egyptian military has a similar ideal of getting rid of bad rulers because they undermine the stability of the system. Of course said goal of preserving stability also lines up well with how the Egyptian military has lots of economic interests and special privileges. etalian fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Jul 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
Fist of Foucault posted:No, you get to take the morally right position. It comes from the fact that it's ridiculous to see so many people in the West lauding a military coup because they take Western liberalism, and in many cases neoliberalism specifically, to be a universal truth that needs to be shoved down people's throats if they don't want it by overwhelming force if necessary, and it also comes from the fact that this kind of thing has happened before in history, over and over again, and people have still not got the message. Even Morsi's opponents, both in parliament and in the extra-parliamentary opposition, have come out against the operating methods of Mansour and the military: Bet you didn't know that one of the biggest issues with the declaration among the secular protesters was that they allowed too much input from the outside. http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/07/egyptian-constitutional-declaration-post-morsi-transition.html#ixzz2YfvKBLG2 quote:The constitutional declaration shows the strong leverage the Salafist Al-Nour party has on the transitional process, already blocking two prime minister nominations. One of the main objections to the 2012 Constitution by the liberal opposition was to the Salafist-written Article 219, which elaborated on the “principles of Islamic Sharia” stated in the famous Article 2 rather than keeping the text open-ended and more flexible. The controversial Article 219 actually remains. In fact, the previous articles 1 (which mainly spoke of democracy, identity and citizenship), 2 and 219 have been merged into a unique, new, Article 1. The new article reads: There's nothing morally right about what you're saying. This situation is not analogous to colonialism. If you're upset that Morsi was overthrown after the biggest protests in human history, then there is literally no alternative that you would have accepted as positive. He repeatedly said on record that he would die before he resigned. Meanwhile, he was using his substantial power to cement the Muslim Brotherhoods control on the democratic process. The military sitting back and letting the protesters do the overthrowing? Civil war! Syria! Everyone is gonna die!  You would have poo poo on any course of action Egypt took moving forward. So with that in mind, you're not morally right, or even contributing. You're just making cleverly disguised shitposts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 21:27
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:There's nothing morally right about what you're saying. This situation is not analogous to colonialism. If you're upset that Morsi was overthrown after the biggest protests in human history, t They were actually the biggest in history? More people than against Iraq worldwide, etc?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 21:37
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:They were actually the biggest in history? More people than against Iraq worldwide, etc? If I recall correctly, it was the single biggest congregation of persons for the purpose of protest. Perhaps if you added up the total population of global, co-ordinated protests, such as the Iraqi War protests, that number may be greater. But I don't see what that proves.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 23:36
|
|
|
Grayly Squirrel posted:If I recall correctly, it was the single biggest congregation of persons for the purpose of protest. Doesn't prove anything, it's just an amazing statistic if true. How much organization was done online, or did people just kind of see the news reports and show up? On another subject, US Arms are showing up amongst pro-Assad groups. Oops! OwlBot 2000 fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Jul 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 23:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 15:31 |
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:How much organization was done online, or did people just kind of see the news reports and show up?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 23:49
|
|
