Crisis in Egypt

[EagleKeeper]

By him providing justification; it means that the complete situation was then under his control.

 

[Craig234]

By him providing justification; it means that the complete situation was then under his control.

Wrong.

In 1961, President Kennedy felt that if there was a second Bay of Pigs situation, there was a good chance he'd be removed in a military coup.

Let's say that happened. A military who wanted to remove this young guy who was so resistant to what they wanted found that he did something making him unpopular.

They seize on that chance to remove him. He 'gave them the grounds' - just as they might say launching the Bay of Pigs that turned into an embarrassing tragedy was 'grounds'.

Yes, a President might do things that are mistakes, might do things that 'give them grounds', but there's a pretty important barrier to protect democracy against a military takeover. The military's predispotion to respect that barrier, to remove a president they don't like for their own selfish reasons, is a factor.

Similarly there was a conspiracy involving businessmen and the US military to remove President Franklin Roosevelt in a coup. A general who was approached to take part exposed the coup and it fell apart. The'd have said Roosevelt 'gave them grounds' for it, as well. They could point to his policies overturned by the Supreme Court.

They were predispoed to it because of their own selfish reasons.

You are claiming that the entire issue was Morsi, and the military's opposition to him and their own selfish agenda was irrelevent. Wrong.

The military's apparent decision to wage war on the Muslim Brotherhood here - choosing to massacre protesters to get a response they can call 'terrorism', most recently arresting the spiritual leader of them and other leaders and hundreds of members, propagandizing against them on state media as all terrorists, moving to ban them, and not responses that are simply reactions needed to Morsi's policies. That's be kind of like Democrats massacring Tea Party leaders as terrorists, or vice versa - political rivals choosing violence.

The military loses legitimacy for its actions when it's not just 'defending democracy' but becoming a tyrant itself - just as Morsi lost legitimacy for his actions against democracy.

Except Morsi didn't choose to massacre hundreds in a day for his agenda.

So I repeat: both are correct, Morsi did things that were against democracy and so has the military.

In some US states, Republicans have acted against democracy. Take Ohio, where they passed a measure the voters repealed - and they immediately re-passed it with a change so it's not subject to repeal. They have votes to suppress people's right to vote for their own selfish interests. That's hurting their legitimacy, it's giving citizens motive to want them removed from office. But if the citizens removed them and then organized the murder of hundreds of Republican protesters in a day to trigger them to do something so they could claim the Republicans were 'terrorists' and arrest all the Republican leadership and proclaim a military emergency and deny them their rights, a curfew, searching their homes, it becomes true both that Republicans 'gave them grounds' and they acted badly as well.

You couldn't simply say in that case it was all the fault of the Republicans - even though they have acted badly.

The political motivations of the other side, who did the coup, who chose to try to destroy and kill, are also an issue.

You're distorting things to try to claim it's simple and one-sided. It's not.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Not wrong at all.

1. Morsi started to ignore the constitution.
2. The military advised him that such was not acceptable.
3. Morsi kept doing what he was doing - calling the military bluff
4. Military kicked him out.

Steps 1 and 3 were completely under Morsi control.
Step 2 was a informal/advise to Mori - it was a shot across the bow to stop.

Step 4 was driven by Morsi actions and the military no longer going to allow Morsi to bypass the constitution.

While the military may not have been supposed to act; it was Morsi that primer and ignited the mess.
the military was then force to sweep it up or allow Morsi to run ragged over the constitution and country.

Had Morsi backed down in steps #1 or #3; the military would not have had a justification to act.
Then they would be at fault.

If one starts the fight and continues to attack even after being advised not to; they are not justified in then complaining that they got their buts kicked at the end.

 

[Craig234]

Not wrong at all.

1. Morsi started to ignore the constitution.
2. The military advised him that such was not acceptable.
3. Morsi kept doing what he was doing - calling the military bluff
4. Military kicked him out.

Steps 1 and 3 were completely under Morsi control.
Step 2 was a informal/advise to Mori - it was a shot across the bow to stop.

Step 4 was driven by Morsi actions and the military no longer going to allow Morsi to bypass the constitution.

While the military may not have been supposed to act; it was Morsi that primer and ignited the mess.
the military was then force to sweep it up or allow Morsi to run ragged over the constitution and country.

Funny, your story stops at 'Morsi removed'. Not one word about what's happened after that. Not one word about the miitary's viewing the large part of the nation as its enemy for selfish reasons unrelated to the bad things Morsi did, and strongly wanting to remove him for reasons unrelated to his behavior - but using his bad behavior to do what they wanted.

If the story had stopped with your version, I was much more sympathetic if it had led to a quick move toward democracy, rather than grabbing power and slaughtering for politics.

Even in your version, there's a bit of nonsense. That '48 hours' for Morsi seems kind of a joke to me, nothing specific demanded, it's not at all clear what he could have done to placate the military. It was a bit like Bush's ultimatum to Saddam to turn over WMD in 72 hours or whatever it was - a political move that would hardly have avoided war. Morsi couldn't end the protests - the protests the military had encouraged, as justified as they were - in 48 hours in any reasonable fashion. They were going to be used for a coup.

You don't seem to be understanding the issue of the agenda of the military to protect their power when they see the Muslim Brotherhood as a threat to it.

You don't show any concern at all - not even including it in your story - about their actions once in power.

You are posting in a very one-sided and partisan manner - if one protester is violent, then 'the protestors were all violent' seems to be how you approach this.

It seems you'd play right into their hands - they massacre to trigger a violent response they can point at to say 'this group are terrorists!' You would ignore the massacre and say as they want you to only that 'see, the Muslim Brother responded so they're terrorists and the massacre was justifed!'

You list only one motivation for the military - defending the consitution. The facts suggest that's not the only motivation.

You're being one-sided and simplistic.

 

[Agent11]

The interim president is their chief judge of the supreme court. The military has been pretty fair and open in the transition.

 

[smackababy]

if one protester is violent, then 'the protestors were all violent' seems to be how you approach this.

Have you seen how a mob works? Once the first stone is throne, more people who are just as angry get the courage to throw their stone as well. Protests turn violent because of one person acting violently.



You also seem to be very much against the military, but ignoring the events that led to them ousting Morsi. It wasn't just a "oh they didn't like him" situation. He repeatedly broke promises, along with the Muslim Brotherhood, to make the transition as free of their influence as possible. They ran candidates they promised they wouldn't, in slots that were supposed to be for independent candidates. The military warned Morsi the path he was on would not end well. he chose to continue making the new Egyptian government favor the people less and less.

 

[Craig234]

Have you seen how a mob works? Once the first stone is throne, more people who are just as angry get the courage to throw their stone as well. Protests turn violent because of one person acting violently.

That's not the case here. It's not about 'one throwing a stone then everyone'.

Some people are off burning a building while other people in another group are peaceful.

You also seem to be very much against the military, but ignoring the events that led to them ousting Morsi.

Sorry, but that's aburd.

First of all, you have zero basis that I have anything against their military not base on the actions of that military.

You are aren't against Hitler for what he did - it's just something you have against him that makes you criticize him. Absurd.

Ignoring the events? Has anyoen here posted more criticizing the actions by Morsi and reluctantly supporting his removal than I have? Are you blind, have you not read anything?

In the very last post and every post I've made on the issue I have said that Morsi did bad things against democracy that led to good reason to want to remove him.

It's entirely dishonest of you to pretend otherwise.

This isn't about the case to remove Morsi. It's about the agenda and actions of the military reflecting their desire to destroy the Muslim Brotherhood, including slaughtering people.

 

[Craig234]

The interim president is their chief judge of the supreme court. The military has been pretty fair and open in the transition.

There are indications that this interim president - who only became chief justice a few days before the military made him president - is acting as a puppet for the military.

 

[Agent11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adly_Mansour

'Mansour was appointed to the Supreme Constitutional Court in 1992.[11] He later served as the deputy chief justice of Egypt's Supreme Constitutional Court until 1 July 2013, when he became president of the SCC following his appointment to the position by President Morsi on 19 May.[3][12]
Mansour did not have the chance to swear the oath as chief justice of the SCC until 4 July 2013, right before sworn the Presidential oath.[13][14]'

What exactly is your problem with him?

 

[Craig234]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adly_Mansour

'Mansour was appointed to the Supreme Constitutional Court in 1992.[11] He later served as the deputy chief justice of Egypt's Supreme Constitutional Court until 1 July 2013, when he became president of the SCC following his appointment to the position by President Morsi on 19 May.[3][12]
Mansour did not have the chance to swear the oath as chief justice of the SCC until 4 July 2013, right before sworn the Presidential oath.[13][14]'

What exactly is your problem with him?

What's your problem?

That entry contradicts other sources I've seen, for example USA Today:

Mansour became head of the court June 30 after the former chief judge retired.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/04/egypt-adly-mansour-profile/2489303/

Your version has him as chief justice a whole 5 weeks longer.

Pointing out the fact is not a 'problem with him'. Acting as a puppet is.

You were portraying his being chief justice as evidence of the military not grabbing power?

I'm pointing out his short tenure as chief and he's pretty unknown as a leader.

 

[Agent11]

Irregardless he has been a member of the court since 1992. He is hardly an outside plant.

His education and service seems to make him an excellent candidate for interim president in my opinion.

The prime minister as well seems a very well qualified impartial appointment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazem_Al_Beblawi
Hazem Al Beblawi

'Career
Beblawi began his career as a lecturer at the University of Alexandria in 1965 and taught economy-related courses at several universities, including the University of Southern California, until 1980.[7][8] He became a manager at the Industrial Bank of Kuwait in 1980, serving there until 1983.[3] From 1983 to 1995, he was chairman and chief executive of the Export Development Bank in Egypt.[3] Then he worked at the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) as executive secretary from 1995 to 2000.[3] Next, he served as an advisor to the Arab Monetary Fund in Abu Dhabi from 2001 to 2011.[9]
After the January - February 2011 Egyptian revolution, Beblawi became a founding member of the Egyptian Social Democratic Party.[7] He was appointed to the government as deputy prime minister for economic affairs, as well as minister of finance, in a cabinet reshuffle on 17 July 2011.[3][10] He succeeded Samir Radwan, who had served as finance minister since January 2011.[11] The cabinet was headed by Prime Minister Essam Sharaf.[12][13][14]
After nearly four months in office, Beblawi resigned from office in October 2011 when Coptic Christians were killed by security forces.[12] However, his resignation was not accepted by the ruling military council.[15][16] Beblawi's tenure lasted until December 2011, when he was replaced by Momtaz Saeed as finance minister; Saeed had served as Beblawi's deputy at the ministry of finance.[17]
Beblawi was one of the nominees for prime minister after the 2012 presidential election, together with Mohamed ElBaradei and Farouk El Okdah.[18]
Following the removal of the former President Mohammad Morsi from office by the Egyptian military on 3 July 2013, Beblawi was appointed as interim prime minister on 9 July.[19] He subsequently suspended his membership in the Social Democratic Party.[20] His cabinet was sworn in on 16 July 2013.[21]'

 

[Craig234]

I think it was a nod of respect by the military to democratic principles to pick someone in that position.

But I wouldn't read too much into it. If the US military removed Obama and put John Roberts in as 'interim president', maybe that's a little better than a general, but still.

There are unkwowns. Apparently he's not too well known in Egypt, and again the puppet issue is a possibility. I'm saying he's terrible -just not agreeing he's George Washington.

(Yes, I know Washington was a General in case a pedant was going to feel the need to point out that discrepancy.)

 

[EagleKeeper]

Funny, your story stops at 'Morsi removed'. Not one word about what's happened after that. Not one word about the miitary's viewing the large part of the nation as its enemy for selfish reasons unrelated to the bad things Morsi did, and strongly wanting to remove him for reasons unrelated to his behavior - but using his bad behavior to do what they wanted.

If the story had stopped with your version, I was much more sympathetic if it had led to a quick move toward democracy, rather than grabbing power and slaughtering for politics.

Even in your version, there's a bit of nonsense. That '48 hours' for Morsi seems kind of a joke to me, nothing specific demanded, it's not at all clear what he could have done to placate the military. It was a bit like Bush's ultimatum to Saddam to turn over WMD in 72 hours or whatever it was - a political move that would hardly have avoided war. Morsi couldn't end the protests - the protests the military had encouraged, as justified as they were - in 48 hours in any reasonable fashion. They were going to be used for a coup.

You don't seem to be understanding the issue of the agenda of the military to protect their power when they see the Muslim Brotherhood as a threat to it.

You don't show any concern at all - not even including it in your story - about their actions once in power.

You are posting in a very one-sided and partisan manner - if one protester is violent, then 'the protestors were all violent' seems to be how you approach this.

It seems you'd play right into their hands - they massacre to trigger a violent response they can point at to say 'this group are terrorists!' You would ignore the massacre and say as they want you to only that 'see, the Muslim Brother responded so they're terrorists and the massacre was justifed!'

You list only one motivation for the military - defending the consitution. The facts suggest that's not the only motivation.

You're being one-sided and simplistic.

your original statement was that Morsi had as much responsibility of creating the situation as the military.

There is a huge difference between creating a situation and the results of the situation.

The military is reacting to what damage Morsi did; they allowed him enough rope to "hang himself".

If they had not done so; it would have been a coup that was not justified.

there were no protests being met by force while Morsi was in place.
The people supporting him will notnto accept that he broke/circumvented the laws. This is typical of most mob rule.
they look at the results; ignoring the events/situations leading up to the current issue.

 

[Craig234]

your original statement was that Morsi had as much responsibility of creating the situation as the military.

There is a huge difference between creating a situation and the results of the situation.

The military is reacting to what damage Morsi did; they allowed him enough rope to "hang himself".

If they had not done so; it would have been a coup that was not justified.

there were no protests being met by force while Morsi was in place.
The people supporting him will notnto accept that he broke/circumvented the laws. This is typical of most mob rule.
they look at the results; ignoring the events/situations leading up to the current issue.

EK, this is a crude analogy, but it seems one might be helpful.

Imagine you drink too much and threaten your girlfriend. She calls the police, who arrest you for some domestic charge. You caused that situation.

Then in their custody, they punch you repeatedly and humiliate you to punish you for your behavior.

The way you're arguing, you have no right to complain about that, since 'you caused the situation'.

Maybe there's even evidence these cops really wanted to do that to you for a long time, and waited until you gave them the justification to arrest you.

Doesn't matter, right? All that matters, you seem to argue, is that you did wrong that led to the situation - and then the wrongs they do are no problem, since you did.

When you have the military in a country viewing the party that wins an election as an enemy, that's a problem. When they have a conflict of interest making them want to remove the elected president, that's a problem. When they, after taking power, pursue their own power agenda to attack a group of citizens by propagandizing against them, painting them as terrorists in order to justfy violence against them, massacre them in order to get a response that they can use to claim they're terrorists, that's a problem.

That's why my support for the military coup - it was a coup - was cautious and with conditions. Militaries removing legiimately elected leaders is very dangerous to democracy.

In this case, there were enough problems with Morsi's actions to lead to the people dissenting. A problem is that for whatever reason they had no mechanism to reign in his actions, or to remove him from office in a legal process. But instead of some simply 'removing him for the sake of democracy' action, we got the military protecting their own power, starting their own war on their own people who they don't like.

You mention that Morsi supporters don't acknowledge what he did wrong that led to his removal. Maybe that's true - let's say it is. When Nixon was being impeached, he had supporters who said he did nothing wrong also. Any leader who has done wrong and is removed has some supporters who don't acknowledge those wrongs. So what?

The fact Nixon had some supporters who didn't want him removed didn't change the fact that enough did that he had to leave. That didn't justify people replacing him who would then launch an attack on his supporters, and slaughter them to help paint a picture that the supporters were 'terrorists' who should be treated as such, for their own interests.

Even though, in that case, Nixon's supporters included misguided members of Congress who held a grudge and leaped at the opportunity to 'get even' by improperly impeaching President Clinton. At least that was a non-violent abuse of power - but trying to remove the elected president on a pretense is an abuse of power. Good thing the military didn't decide to remove him.

In the extreme case you want to violate democracy and remove a leader outside the law, as the Egyptian military did, you want a more impartial group doing it, for the sake of the country and democracy, not its own interests, not using the situation to launch violence for its own agenda. That's why militaries deciding to remove presidents is a very dangerous thing.

Some people mistakenly treat this as 'well I don't like the group who won the election, so I don't care if the military removes him, glad to see him gone. And if they try to destroy that gorup I don't like, all the better, good for them.' Any group in power can have those feelings about the groups they're in opposition to. Launching violence against them is not ok.

A less crude analogy seems to me to be as if elected a Tea Party guy as President - say, Ted Cruz - and he began by recognizing how all his hatred for 'establishment Washington' still had power in Congress, in the courts, in the military, and he began trying to gain more power by gettind rid of the power in those other groups.

At that point, the country might be pretty horrified - this guy's a radical! - and view him as a threat to our democracy and want him removed. Let's say the military stepped in and said 'because of his actions and popular opposition to them, we're removing him'. That's a pretty terrible situation already - but somewhat defensible. But then if you find that the military who made that decision are against Cruz because he wanted to cut military spending, and the military launched a 'Tea Party are terrorists' propaganda campaign and tried to get them banned as a political group in the country and slaughtred them if they protested, and arrested all tea party leaders - that's going too far even for his abuses, isnt' it?

You seem to have a problem with acknowledging that both sides can do wrong things.

 

[sm625]

The US isnt really so different from Egypt. If you think otherwise, just watch what happens to any congressman who votes to cut defense spending. The entire system moves against him... the media, the corporations, it all moves as one solid entity against this individual.

 

[Craig234]

The US isnt really so different from Egypt. If you think otherwise, just watch what happens to any congressman who votes to cut defense spending. The entire system moves against him... the media, the corporations, it all moves as one solid entity against this individual.

Don't forget the voters, who fall for the attacks.

How many people know FDR didn't want the pentagon to be a permanent building because he was concerned about the military's influence growing too much?

Eisenhower's Cross of Iron and farewell speeches could use some re-airing regularly.

But we aren't Egypt, the military doesn't go that far.

 

[Agent11]

Interesting article from the BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23783055
Egypt court orders Hosni Mubarak freed

'An Egyptian court has ordered the release on bail of former President Hosni Mubarak in a corruption case.

Reports from Cairo suggest he may be freed from prison on Thursday and state prosecutors say there can be no appeal.

The 85-year-old still faces charges of complicity in the killing of protesters during the uprising that forced him from power in 2011.

He was sentenced to life in jail last year, but a retrial was later ordered after his appeal was upheld.

That retrial opened in May but Mr Mubarak has now served the maximum amount of pre-trial detention permitted in the case.'

It is good to see the rule of law seems to be in effect.

 

[Anarchist420]

The US isnt really so different from Egypt. If you think otherwise, just watch what happens to any congressman who votes to cut defense spending. The entire system moves against him... the media, the corporations, it all moves as one solid entity against this individual.

I agree with that more than I disagree with it.

But we aren't Egypt, the military doesn't go that far.

It probably will soon.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Craig

your crude analogy is that the police went after you because the GF complained.
then while in custody, they beat you up because they wanted to.

My analogy using you concept is that the police have been called to the GF location multiple times because you have been seen beating her up; not just on her word.
You are given a restraining order and VIOLATE IT.

So you are then hauled in.

do you get beaten up because you resist being hauled in, because they are pissed off at you for violating the restraining order or you interrupted their nap.

I feel that they are pissed off at violation of the order and when you attempt to resist; they let it out.

You may feel that they had no need to take you in; violating a restraining order is not a big deal. they are pissed off that their nap was interrupted.

 

[Craig234]

Craig

your crude analogy is that the police went after you because the GF complained.
then while in custody, they beat you up because they wanted to.

My analogy using you concept is that the police have been called to the GF location multiple times because you have been seen beating her up; not just on her word.
You are given a restraining order and VIOLATE IT.

So you are then hauled in.

do you get beaten up because you resist being hauled in, because they are pissed off at you for violating the restraining order or you interrupted their nap.

I feel that they are pissed off at violation of the order and when you attempt to resist; they let it out.

You may feel that they had no need to take you in; violating a restraining order is not a big deal. they are pissed off that their nap was interrupted.

Changing whether you threatened her (a cirme) or beat her (a crime) doens't change the point at all. The point is you did something wrong, and their reaction was also wrong.

 

[Craig234]

It probably will soon.

That seems like paranoia. Based on what?

I'm quick to agree the military has excessive power and size, and that politicians are at the mercy of the defense industry in large part, but the military removing a president is a whole other level. When Clinton wanted to allow gays, Colin Powell had the clout to stop him, despite Clinton being his boss. But that's not the military removing the president, or close.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Changing whether you threatened her (a cirme) or beat her (a crime) doens't change the point at all. The point is you did something wrong, and their reaction was also wrong.

Their reactions is based on the instigation.

Poke a caged tiger enough from the tip of a fence and it will swat back.

Yes, it should not be attacking you, but climbing onto the safety fence was your fault.

Signs were posted and were ignored.

The military or anyone's else reaction has to look at the situation and what is reasonable to ignore before neglecting their duties.

They are responsible to the people, to ensure the government follows the desire of the people. In Egypt, the government chose to ignore the people. As a result the military was forced to step in, just like the did with Mubarak.

 

[EagleKeeper]

That seems like paranoia. Based on what?

I'm quick to agree the military has excessive power and size, and that politicians are at the mercy of the defense industry in large part, but the military removing a president is a whole other level. When Clinton wanted to allow gays, Colin Powell had the clout to stop him, despite Clinton being his boss. But that's not the military removing the president, or close.

Closest anything has come was what would be the military reaction had Nixon declared martial law instead of taking the honorable way out.

Many papers were generated in the War Colleges over such.

 

[Craig234]

Their reactions is based on the instigation.

Poke a caged tiger enough from the tip of a fence and it will swat back.

Yes, it should not be attacking you, but climbing onto the safety fence was your fault.

Signs were posted and were ignored.

The military or anyone's else reaction has to look at the situation and what is reasonable to ignore before neglecting their duties.

They are responsible to the people, to ensure the government follows the desire of the people. In Egypt, the government chose to ignore the people. As a result the military was forced to step in, just like the did with Mubarak.

You don't seem to appreciate the line between the military 'stepping in' to protect democracy, and 'stepping in' to protect its own power - at the expense of democracy.

You don't want there to be any confusion between the two - and there's a hell of a lot of confusion here.

Your analogy is very flawed - you can't blame tigers for attacking people who come in their cage, but you can blame a military who goes too far.

 

[Craig234]

Closest anything has come was what would be the military reaction had Nixon declared martial law instead of taking the honorable way out.

Many papers were generated in the War Colleges over such.

That would be interesting to see. It's a little like how Alexander Haig quietly instructed the military to not follow any orders to launch nuclear weapons without his ok.