World affairs. Who is right and who is wrong in Egypt?

[graciegirl]

I am clueless because I don't understand the latest changes that are happening in Egypt. Now over a hundred people have been killed and there is chaos on the streets in Cairo today.

Because the moderators might think this is political, perhaps you could send me a PM. I am interested in what many of you think about all this.

[JP]

Egypt, the Middle East, and in fact the whole Mediterranean is a mess that is not going to get any better forever. As time goes on the same problem is going to spread to Europe. You have a group of people who don't play well with others.

[Monkei]

I am not sure this "issue" is going to spread to Europe. The middle east is a totally different animal. Europe's issues are one of finance.

The real discouraging part of this Egyptian violence is that neither faction finds the US as favorable. It also shows us that democracy does not work in all countries like ours.

[blueash]

Morsi was certainly NOT one of "our" people. He was an active leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and the west was outmaneuvered by them in the elections. They were determined to put strict Muslim law in effect. That is what brought on this current chaos.

This is an interesting post. It reveals much about why America is disliked in so many places. The idea that "the west" has any right at all to play a role in the election of the Egyptian government by the Egyptian people bespeaks our national arrogance. We tout the importance of democracy, of the will of the people. But if the election goes in a way America doesn't like, it seems that we feel betrayed, blame the electorate for being uninformed or even ignorant, and too often we seem to play a role in overthrowing that elected government. This is not new to our national policy. Whether it was the Shah of Iran being placed on the peacock throne, or the will of the Chilean people being usurped with the CIA interventions that lead to a military dictatorship and Allende's death, America has intervened in "free elections" both before and after the voting too often. When Hamas won in Gaza, when Hezbollah won in Lebanon, when the Muslim Brotherhood won in Egypt these elections reflected not just the citizens' support for Islamic government, but also was a clear repudiation of the possibility of America telling them what to do.
So now in Egypt a democratically elected government which was opposed by the US has been overthrown in a military coup. Those new leaders, using weapons largely supplied by the US have brutally slaughtered their own citizens who were peacefully assembled in protest with the death toll near 300. There are no good guys in this story but clearly the people in charge in Egypt now have lost whatever moral authority they may have hoped to claim. And if the next election is a fair one I would expect that the Muslim Brotherhood will have a very successful day as nothing works so well to turn the unsure against the US supported leadership as a massacre.

[JP]

I am not sure this "issue" is going to spread to Europe. The middle east is a totally different animal. Europe's issues are one of finance.

The real discouraging part of this Egyptian violence is that neither faction finds the US as favorable. It also shows us that democracy does not work in all countries like ours.

I agree about democracy not working in all countries but if you look at the birth rates of different religions in Europe you will see that muslims are reproducing at a much faster rate than any other religion and will soon assume a majority status by numbers of people in much of Europe in the not so distant future. Majorities elect who and what they want.

[Monkei]

I agree about democracy not working in all countries but if you look at the birth rates of different religions in Europe you will see that muslims are reproducing at a much faster rate than any other religion and will soon assume a majority status by numbers of people in much of Europe in the not so distant future. Majorities elect who and what they want.

not all issues are muslim related. personally I don't see any problem with a muslim population electing a muslim. I don't mind if we elected a Christian or a Mormon, or even a muslim here in the US. What would bother me, however, if we became a theocracy.

[Bucco]

This is an interesting post. It reveals much about why America is disliked in so many places. The idea that "the west" has any right at all to play a role in the election of the Egyptian government by the Egyptian people bespeaks our national arrogance. We tout the importance of democracy, of the will of the people. But if the election goes in a way America doesn't like, it seems that we feel betrayed, blame the electorate for being uninformed or even ignorant, and too often we seem to play a role in overthrowing that elected government. This is not new to our national policy. Whether it was the Shah of Iran being placed on the peacock throne, or the will of the Chilean people being usurped with the CIA interventions that lead to a military dictatorship and Allende's death, America has intervened in "free elections" both before and after the voting too often. When Hamas won in Gaza, when Hezbollah won in Lebanon, when the Muslim Brotherhood won in Egypt these elections reflected not just the citizens' support for Islamic government, but also was a clear repudiation of the possibility of America telling them what to do.
So now in Egypt a democratically elected government which was opposed by the US has been overthrown in a military coup. Those new leaders, using weapons largely supplied by the US have brutally slaughtered their own citizens who were peacefully assembled in protest with the death toll near 300. There are no good guys in this story but clearly the people in charge in Egypt now have lost whatever moral authority they may have hoped to claim. And if the next election is a fair one I would expect that the Muslim Brotherhood will have a very successful day as nothing works so well to turn the unsure against the US supported leadership as a massacre.

"has been overthrown in a military coup."

If, as you suggest, but our government has not yet, this is a coup, then BY LAW of this country, we are to stop the 1.5 BILLION dollars given to that country of which almost all goes to the military.

If we do not call it a coup, then we financed it I suppose with that billions of dollars.

[janmcn]

President Obama will make a statement on the crisis in Egypt at 10:15 EDT. Stay tuned.

[Bucco]

We have cancelled a military exercise with Egypt and told them to play nice, or else !!

Cannot say more...opinions become politics so easy

[chachacha]

i fear democracy can only work in a country where Judeo-Christian principles of justice, fair play and acceptance of election results will be in place. there must be a moral concensus of the people before democracy can truly function as it should. perhaps we are in danger of losing our own democracy?

[Monkei]

i fear democracy can only work in a country where Judeo-Christian principles of justice, fair play and acceptance of election results will be in place. there must be a moral concensus of the people before democracy can truly function as it should. perhaps we are in danger of losing our own democracy?

Why would we be in danger?

[Taltarzac725]

Not sure if this is true about Judeo-Christian ethics . We had a lot of extremely serious problems with our own democracy like slavery, the treatment of the Indians, monopolies by many different business, lack of voting for women, racial discrimination of all kinds against blacks, native americans, Irish, German, Chinese, Catholics, etc. Most of these wrongs were done while the Judeo-Christian ethics were in place.

Islam does have a very strong ethical current of its own which is based on the Judeo-Christian religion to a very strong extent. Of course, the same kinds of problems with slavery, discrimination, genocide show up in their countries' histories as with those of the Western heritage countries.

[chachacha]

the reason i see us being in danger of losing our democracy is that there is evermore corruption in our public officials on both sides, the voters are often led by selfish motives instead of the good of the nation, and fraud at the voting booth denies the people of their true wishes. when morals decay, democracy cannot flourish. i see these problems on both sides of the political spectrum. the wrongs mentioned by Tal were overcome largely because of the ethics of the majority of the people...when the majority no longer has ethics, the democracy fails.

[graciegirl]

the reason i see us being in danger of losing our democracy is that there is evermore corruption in our public officials on both sides, the voters are often led by selfish motives instead of the good of the nation, and fraud at the voting booth denies the people of their true wishes. when morals decay, democracy cannot flourish. i see these problems on both sides of the political spectrum. the wrongs mentioned by Tal were overcome largely because of the ethics of the majority of the people...when the majority no longer has ethics, the democracy fails.

There is a lot to think about in what you just typed.

I know one thing Cha. You are a good person.

[DaleMN]

Going down in flames!! Or not. :ohdear:

[bmarlo767]

This is an interesting post. It reveals much about why America is disliked in so many places. The idea that "the west" has any right at all to play a role in the election of the Egyptian government by the Egyptian people bespeaks our national arrogance. We tout the importance of democracy, of the will of the people. But if the election goes in a way America doesn't like, it seems that we feel betrayed, blame the electorate for being uninformed or even ignorant, and too often we seem to play a role in overthrowing that elected government. This is not new to our national policy. Whether it was the Shah of Iran being placed on the peacock throne, or the will of the Chilean people being usurped with the CIA interventions that lead to a military dictatorship and Allende's death, America has intervened in "free elections" both before and after the voting too often. When Hamas won in Gaza, when Hezbollah won in Lebanon, when the Muslim Brotherhood won in Egypt these elections reflected not just the citizens' support for Islamic government, but also was a clear repudiation of the possibility of America telling them what to do.
So now in Egypt a democratically elected government which was opposed by the US has been overthrown in a military coup. Those new leaders, using weapons largely supplied by the US have brutally slaughtered their own citizens who were peacefully assembled in protest with the death toll near 300. There are no good guys in this story but clearly the people in charge in Egypt now have lost whatever moral authority they may have hoped to claim. And if the next election is a fair one I would expect that the Muslim Brotherhood will have a very successful day as nothing works so well to turn the unsure against the US supported leadership as a massacre.
Your post is mostly right on. But the Brotherhood ran as a moderate group but was governing as strict Muslim law. The majority of the country seem to be moderates.
There were many more demonstrators against Morisi than for him. The Military Fell into the Brotherhood's trap. they do not care if many of their people are killed if it futures their cause.

[Bucco]

the reason i see us being in danger of losing our democracy is that there is evermore corruption in our public officials on both sides, the voters are often led by selfish motives instead of the good of the nation, and fraud at the voting booth denies the people of their true wishes. when morals decay, democracy cannot flourish. i see these problems on both sides of the political spectrum. the wrongs mentioned by Tal were overcome largely because of the ethics of the majority of the people...when the majority no longer has ethics, the democracy fails.

You are on it. In the political spectrum, we have NO statesmen at all..NONE.

Simply politicians playing politics.

[billethkid]

what we are witnessing is not the people electing who ever they want but the powerful few setting a direction to be taken for the benefit of the powerful few.

The USA keeps confusing the issue by measuring what other countries do by the USA yard stick. Which after many, many years and hundreds of billions of payolla dollars and thousands and thousands murdered......does not and will not work.

Guys like Mubaric knew how to play the game and get the goodies from the USA as well as keeping the people maybe not happy but stable. The first upset was with Morsi....another powerful few who knew how to keep getting billions from the USA but not how to keep the people stable.

And then the military coup (which the USA insista is not a coup) who keeps getting the billions has now decided it doesn't care what the people think or like or anybody else. Who also know that as long as the USA keeps it's head in the sand by saying it ain't a coup...they continue to get more billions of dollars.

And the billions of dollars is for what? At some point we will have to understand that no matter what we send for support we are not going to change how the powerful few want to run their country or how they treat their people.

What we the people should make sure we learn from what is happening and being allowed/tolerated to happen because it could happen here.

Why not. Do we not subscribe/condone/allow/choose to be lead by ....A POWERFUL FEW????

btk

[Monkei]

the reason i see us being in danger of losing our democracy is that there is evermore corruption in our public officials on both sides, the voters are often led by selfish motives instead of the good of the nation, and fraud at the voting booth denies the people of their true wishes. when morals decay, democracy cannot flourish. i see these problems on both sides of the political spectrum. the wrongs mentioned by Tal were overcome largely because of the ethics of the majority of the people...when the majority no longer has ethics, the democracy fails.

Greed breeds corruption. This country has to get back to the way it was before the rich got so damn rich and the poorer got more poor and the middle class becoming smaller. Back to the days when students paid for 20 percent of a college education and the universities 80. Now it is just about turned around where the students are paying 80 percent. Greed is not good and it has never been good. I could go on and on like when CEOs got only 30 or so more pay than the workers in the company ... Etc etc

But you are right about motives, etc

[patfla06]

They were right for getting rid of Morsi.
The problems now are from the Morsi supporters.

I wonder why the media is NOT talking about the
24 Christian Churches burnt down?
IMAGINE if it was a mosque???

The U.S. should stay out of it.
We do not fully understand the dynamics.

The U.S. keeps thinking that every country should be
a democracy. This does not work with certain people.
We should not try to interject our views in countries
in which we have no knowledge.

[JP]

not all issues are muslim related. personally I don't see any problem with a muslim population electing a muslim. I don't mind if we elected a Christian or a Mormon, or even a muslim here in the US. What would bother me, however, if we became a theocracy.

I think most of the issues are Koran related which most muslims by the definition of being a muslim follow. The world is in serious trouble with these people and it is just going to get worse and I for one DO NOT want a muslim president.

[batman911]

This is an interesting post. It reveals much about why America is disliked in so many places. The idea that "the west" has any right at all to play a role in the election of the Egyptian government by the Egyptian people bespeaks our national arrogance. We tout the importance of democracy, of the will of the people. But if the election goes in a way America doesn't like, it seems that we feel betrayed, blame the electorate for being uninformed or even ignorant, and too often we seem to play a role in overthrowing that elected government. This is not new to our national policy. Whether it was the Shah of Iran being placed on the peacock throne, or the will of the Chilean people being usurped with the CIA interventions that lead to a military dictatorship and Allende's death, America has intervened in "free elections" both before and after the voting too often. When Hamas won in Gaza, when Hezbollah won in Lebanon, when the Muslim Brotherhood won in Egypt these elections reflected not just the citizens' support for Islamic government, but also was a clear repudiation of the possibility of America telling them what to do.
So now in Egypt a democratically elected government which was opposed by the US has been overthrown in a military coup. Those new leaders, using weapons largely supplied by the US have brutally slaughtered their own citizens who were peacefully assembled in protest with the death toll near 300. There are no good guys in this story but clearly the people in charge in Egypt now have lost whatever moral authority they may have hoped to claim. And if the next election is a fair one I would expect that the Muslim Brotherhood will have a very successful day as nothing works so well to turn the unsure against the US supported leadership as a massacre.

And yet we all enjoy and the economic and security benefits resulting from all that interference. A lot of the wealth and security we have in the USA has come from using our power and influence in other countries to benefit the USA. What do you think Iran or Egypt would do if they had that power? I do not believe you would like the result. Everyone likes to eat chicken but no one wants to butcher one. Don't blame the butcher if you are eating the chicken.

[wendyquat]

I would like to comment but just cannot without using the "P" word!:crap2:

[Bucco]

And yet we all enjoy and the economic and security benefits resulting from all that interference. A lot of the wealth and security we have in the USA has come from using our power and influence in other countries to benefit the USA. What do you think Iran or Egypt would do if they had that power? I do not believe you would like the result. Everyone likes to eat chicken but no one wants to butcher one. Don't blame the butcher if you are eating the chicken.

I suspect the view of anyone who opposes interference to protect our own interest does not follow the UN nor the use of OPEC prices, or basically anything happening in this world.

[TexaninVA]

not all issues are muslim related. personally I don't see any problem with a muslim population electing a muslim. I don't mind if we elected a Christian or a Mormon, or even a muslim here in the US. What would bother me, however, if we became a theocracy.

I wouldn't lose any sleep over that one (ie theocracy) happening, especially in today's more agnostic culture.

[TexaninVA]

This is an interesting post. It reveals much about why America is disliked in so many places. The idea that "the west" has any right at all to play a role in the election of the Egyptian government by the Egyptian people bespeaks our national arrogance. We tout the importance of democracy, of the will of the people. But if the election goes in a way America doesn't like, it seems that we feel betrayed, blame the electorate for being uninformed or even ignorant, and too often we seem to play a role in overthrowing that elected government. This is not new to our national policy. Whether it was the Shah of Iran being placed on the peacock throne, or the will of the Chilean people being usurped with the CIA interventions that lead to a military dictatorship and Allende's death, America has intervened in "free elections" both before and after the voting too often. When Hamas won in Gaza, when Hezbollah won in Lebanon, when the Muslim Brotherhood won in Egypt these elections reflected not just the citizens' support for Islamic government, but also was a clear repudiation of the possibility of America telling them what to do.
So now in Egypt a democratically elected government which was opposed by the US has been overthrown in a military coup. Those new leaders, using weapons largely supplied by the US have brutally slaughtered their own citizens who were peacefully assembled in protest with the death toll near 300. There are no good guys in this story but clearly the people in charge in Egypt now have lost whatever moral authority they may have hoped to claim. And if the next election is a fair one I would expect that the Muslim Brotherhood will have a very successful day as nothing works so well to turn the unsure against the US supported leadership as a massacre.

Some noble but overly idealistic thoughts, especially when offered from afar and in the comfort / safety of what American power since WWI has enabled most of us to enjoy.

It should be crystal clear by now that the Brotherhood is violently anti-West and, by our definition at least, crazy in some ways. The objective here geopolitically in terms of what's in our interest, is to see them lose.

Ooops ...let me make that plainer ... to see the Brothherhood crushed as a viable political and military force. We already have the issue of Iran about to get nukes ... we sure as heck don't need wackos running the show in Egypt.

[TexaninVA]

I am clueless because I don't understand the latest changes that are happening in Egypt. Now over a hundred people have been killed and there is chaos on the streets in Cairo today.

Because the moderators might think this is political, perhaps you could send me a PM. I am interested in what many of you think about all this.

Good question and it's not really political in the sense of Dems vs Repubs etc. This is world reality at work and in plain view ... with a lot of ugliness, imperfection and unfairness etc ... in other words, reality.

it's a very complicated issue. By way of simplistic summary, the Egyptian elites have, over the years, appropriated much of the wealth while also messing up the economy thus making life pretty miserable for the masses. Unfortunately, it's still largely a statist system, mixed with cronyism, which explains their poverty. The Egyptian Brotherhood got its start years ago as a welfare organization to administer aid etc. Again unfortunately, over time, it bought into the radical Islam agenda.

The Egyptian military is still largely pro-US ... a generalization I realize. If the Brotherhood truly crushes the military and takes over, I think we'll eventfully see a replay of what happened after the Iranian Revolution ...ie the radical crazies take over.

From our perspective, it's a mess ... but since when has the Middle East been anything but a mess? However, our national security would be enhanced if the military stays in power ... and would take a big nose dive should the Brotherhood win.

Thus, I'm hoping we'll see the Brotherhood defeated or at least held at bay. We can not fix the dysfunction, and certainly do not want the US involved militarily ... but we do have a stake in who wins.

Just my perspective.

[wendyquat]

Some noble but overly idealistic thoughts, especially when offered from afar and in the comfort / safety of what American power since WWI has enabled most of us to enjoy.

It should be crystal clear by now that the Brotherhood is violently anti-West and, by our definition at least, crazy in some ways. The objective here geopolitically in terms of what's in our interest, is to see them lose.

Ooops ...let me make that plainer ... to see the Brothherhood crushed as a viable political and military force. We already have the issue of Iran about to get nukes ... we sure as heck don't need wackos running the show in Egypt.

:agree::agree:

[Monkei]

I think most of the issues are Koran related which most muslims by the definition of being a muslim follow. The world is in serious trouble with these people and it is just going to get worse and I for one DO NOT want a muslim president.

How about an atheist president?

[Monkei]

Good question and it's not really political in the sense of Dems vs Repubs etc. This is world reality at work and in plain view ... with a lot of ugliness, imperfection and unfairness etc ... in other words, reality.

it's a very complicated issue. By way of simplistic summary, the Egyptian elites have, over the years, appropriated much of the wealth while also messing up the economy thus making life pretty miserable for the masses. Unfortunately, it's still largely a statist system, mixed with cronyism, which explains their poverty. The Egyptian Brotherhood got its start years ago as a welfare organization to administer aid etc. Again unfortunately, over time, it bought into the radical Islam agenda.

The Egyptian military is still largely pro-US ... a generalization I realize. If the Brotherhood truly crushes the military and takes over, I think we'll eventfully see a replay of what happened after the Iranian Revolution ...ie the radical crazies take over.

From our perspective, it's a mess ... but since when has the Middle East been anything but a mess? However, our national security would be enhanced if the military stays in power ... and would take a big nose dive should the Brotherhood win.

Thus, I'm hoping we'll see the Brotherhood defeated or at least held at bay. We can not fix the dysfunction, and certainly do not want the US involved militarily ... but we do have a stake in who wins.

Just my perspective.

How do we square up the notion of a democratic Egypt with an elected official with support for a military takeover against that same elected official? Can we be the standards for democracy and then within a couple of years abandon those standards.

[CFrance]

How about an atheist president?

I believe an atheist president would be much preferable to a religious fanatic. Don't confuse atheism with amorality. (And I am not an atheist, nor have I played one on TV.)

[CFrance]

How do we square up the notion of a democratic Egypt with an elected official with support for a military takeover against that same elected official? Can we be the standards for democracy and then within a couple of years abandon those standards.

My understanding of the situation was that Morsi was a closet religious fanatic when he ran for office. He talked a good talk, and then after he was elected ran a constitution through in a couple of days that pretty much defied any notion of democracy. Suddenly the people realized they'd been hoodwinked. Has happened in every country.

Now they are trying to right the situation. Maybe not in the best way. The slaughtering of protesters is definitely not democratic. Who knows where this will go.

[wendyquat]

[QUOTE=CFrance;728203]My understanding of the situation was that Morsi was a closet religious fanatic when he ran for office. He talked a good talk, and then after he was elected ran a constitution through in a couple of days that pretty much defied any notion of democracy. Suddenly the people realized they'd been hoodwinked.

You mean that can REALLY happen? Imagine that!

[TexaninVA]

I believe an atheist president would be much preferable to a religious fanatic. Don't confuse atheism with amorality. (And I am not an atheist, nor have I played one on TV.)

Yes, but I think that is inadvertently setting up a straw man / false choice between two extremes ...

How about instead someone who is a reasonably moral / religious man (or woman) and a product of America's Judeo-Christian heritage?

[CFrance]

Yes, but I think that is inadvertently setting up a straw man / false choice between two extremes ...

How about instead someone who is a reasonably moral / religious man (or woman) and a product of America's Judeo-Christian heritage?

Case by case.

[Monkei]

Yes, but I think that is inadvertently setting up a straw man / false choice between two extremes ...

How about instead someone who is a reasonably moral / religious man (or woman) and a product of America's Judeo-Christian heritage?

I think that is entirely what we have had e last 45 times.

[Bucco]

How do we square up the notion of a democratic Egypt with an elected official with support for a military takeover against that same elected official? Can we be the standards for democracy and then within a couple of years abandon those standards.

We cannot !!!

This was a coup by any definition, and we should call it that and go from there.

I realize nothing is quite that simple, especially in the mideast, but it is what it is.....I am amazed that we continue to fund this coup. We are ignoring killing any many countries of the mideast and now this....am very confused.

Not talking politics here because I do not think anyone has any easy solutions for this, but at least lets be honest about it.

You are right, we cannot simply change our definitions....this was a military coup.

[billethkid]

how about a premise that the religion just happens to be a secondary issue. The primary is MAN....regardless their religion or politics the common denominator is MAN. Who will do what he wants to do to rule the world, his town, his group......who oh by the way happens to be black, white, muslim, racist, etc.

Their success or not is a function of whether sufficient lemmings or fear or both follow his lead.

And then of course there is the colorization of it all by the media to make it to be what ever will get one to tune in to their horn.

MAN is the culprit without a doubt.

btk

[Monkei]

how about a premise that the religion just happens to be a secondary issue. The primary is MAN....regardless their religion or politics the common denominator is MAN. Who will do what he wants to do to rule the world, his town, his group......who oh by the way happens to be black, white, muslim, racist, etc.

Their success or not is a function of whether sufficient lemmings or fear or both follow his lead.

And then of course there is the colorization of it all by the media to make it to be what ever will get one to tune in to their horn.

MAN is the culprit without a doubt.

btk

I can agree with that because religion was invented by man.

[Bucco]

I can agree with that because religion was invented by man.

Trying to get back on subject......does anyone object to this being called a coup ? Knowing the consequences and possible consequences ?

[billethkid]

Trying to get back on subject......does anyone object to this being called a coup ? Knowing the consequences and possible consequences ?

by definition it certainly is a coup (coup de tate)....the people in the area call it a coup....most Eeuropeans call it a coup.....
It is only the USA politicians that are calling it something else to suit their needs/agenda...and of course the followers do likewise.

btk

[Golfingnut]

They have had issues over their for thousands of years, just that now we have better media capabilities.

[Golfingnut]

by definition it certainly is a coup (coup de tate)....the people in the area call it a coup....most Eeuropeans call it a coup.....
It is only the USA politicians that are calling it something else to suit their needs/agenda...and of course the followers do likewise.

btk

Correct x 10

[Monkei]

Trying to get back on subject......does anyone object to this being called a coup ? Knowing the consequences and possible consequences ?

It was a coup no doubt but that was not the original subject, was it?

[Bucco]

It was a coup no doubt but that was not the original subject, was it?

Well the question was..who is right and who is wrong in what is happening in Egypt.

I think you and I agree a coup took place....but we are not calling it such. The coup was against the Muslim brotherhood who was elected in a surprise.

We got ourselves in a jam on this, with more to come I am afraid. As one of our politicians said recently....we HAD influence..did not use it. Time to call it what is...a coup and cut off the money. Will cause different problems but I do not think we want to be seen backing a coup, especially in the ME