Abdel Fatah al-Sisi, the head of the military, just finished the announcement as I’m writing this. Fun fact: He was appointed by Morsi himself after Gen. Tantawi, the head of the junta that preceded Morsi, was removed to avert his own possible coup attempt. Morsi must have thought Sisi would be more loyal/subservient. Oops.
I stand by my remarks, which were correct. The Muslim Brotherhood is being restained by the military. No actions against other political factions in Egypt have taken place. So far, it appears to be a secular military intervention ala the Turkish military style removal of a loose cannon in office. Why would Morsi appoint someone he thought that he could not trust ?
You did question his loyalty IIRC, while I had no reason not to. I will still maintain that Morsi was elected only because he fronted the MB. Whoever fronted the MB would get the votes is my position, which is consistent with my remarks above.
I think that overall, I have correctly anticipated the Arab Spring, Obama's handling of it and the fallout. Obama blew the handling of Mubarek's ouster ... he's our guy and then he isn't and then he is and then he isn't. Morsi is our guy and now he isn't. Obama has succeeded in pissing off all the Egyptians towards the US. Now we are getting into when is a coup not a coup ?
I sure as hell think I could have done a better job than Obama. My real experience is the same as his going into office amd he has 4 years under his belt now and a slew of campaign donors experts running his show. Obama does trump me in that he has helped erect more basketball hoops on neighborhood playgrounds than I have. But that is what his specialty is as a community organizer ... And I would never have had a 9 / 11 truther (Van Jones) on my White House staff like he has either.
Obama is an unrepentant tool. All subsequent discussions should be prefaced with that remark. Everywhere, all the time. not exclusive to RP.
Morsi now controls the military. The second thing he did was purge all the old generals and install new ones of whom he is sure of their loyalty. And we still sent the jets and the tanks to him after the fact. Forget about the cash for a minute. Remember the jets that are more advanced than the ones we sold Israel and another couple of hundred tanks ? And for what good reason ?
A political party elected Morsi. The voters only voted for the party candidate, not the man. That is the only western spin applicable to Egypt. Otherwise here it would be the like the congregation voting for the elders' pick. The congregation had no input. Egypt is firmly divided between Islamists and secularists. There is no in between. The Islamists, who are the Muslim Brotherhood, are in charge, period. They have no quarter or tolerance to those who are not. The Charter of the Muslim Brotherhood is quite specific.
Abdel Fatah al-Sisi, the head of the military, just finished the announcement as I’m writing this. Fun fact: He was appointed by Morsi himself after Gen. Tantawi, the head of the junta that preceded Morsi, was removed to avert his own possible coup attempt. Morsi must have thought Sisi would be more loyal/subservient. Oops.
I stand by my remarks, which were correct. The Muslim Brotherhood is being restained by the military. No actions against other political factions in Egypt have taken place. So far, it appears to be a secular military intervention ala the Turkish military style removal of a loose cannon in office. Why would Morsi appoint someone he thought that he could not trust ?
You did question his loyalty IIRC, while I had no reason not to. I will still maintain that Morsi was elected only because he fronted the MB. Whoever fronted the MB would get the votes is my position, which is consistent with my remarks above.
I think that overall, I have correctly anticipated the Arab Spring, Obama's handling of it and the fallout. Obama blew the handling of Mubarek's ouster ... he's our guy and then he isn't and then he is and then he isn't. Morsi is our guy and now he isn't. Obama has succeeded in pissing off all the Egyptians towards the US. Now we are getting into when is a coup not a coup ?
I sure as hell think I could have done a better job than Obama. My real experience is the same as his going into office amd he has 4 years under his belt now and a slew of campaign donors experts running his show. Obama does trump me in that he has helped erect more basketball hoops on neighborhood playgrounds than I have. But that is what his specialty is as a community organizer ... And I would never have had a 9 / 11 truther (Van Jones) on my White House staff like he has either.
Morsi now controls the military. The second thing he did was purge all the old generals and install new ones of whom he is sure of their loyalty. And we still sent the jets and the tanks to him after the fact. Forget about the cash for a minute. Remember the jets that are more advanced than the ones we sold Israel and another couple of hundred tanks ? And for what good reason ?
A political party elected Morsi. The voters only voted for the party candidate, not the man. That is the only western spin applicable to Egypt. Otherwise here it would be the like the congregation voting for the elders' pick. The congregation had no input. Egypt is firmly divided between Islamists and secularists. There is no in between. The Islamists, who are the Muslim Brotherhood, are in charge, period. They have no quarter or tolerance to those who are not. The Charter of the Muslim Brotherhood is quite specific.
The coup in Egypt has caused oil to close at over $101 bbl for the first time in ages.
Drill for peace.
As far as American politics and Egypt are concerned, our current laws prohibit sending any aid to a country that is ruled by their military via a coup.
It will be most interesting to see how Obama deals with this problem.
American RPeeps aren't Egyptians, we know only fragments of the issue from what Media is allowed to report on. There is MUCH we do NOT know. Let's accept that and realize we are in no position to judge or attach American Politics to it.
Unless one has an irresistible compulsion to do so.
Personally, I simply wish Egypt the outcome that is truly best for its people and with as little violence as possible.
Not a surprise. Could have been worse. Let's hope they sort it out soon.
Oh by the way, what's the story here? The first democratically-elected President ends up forced from office by protesters/military intervention? Did he change into a monster after he took office? Or was the election decided by a small number of dedicated, outspoken radicals, and the majority of the electorate just now woke up to the fact they're headed toward a theocracy?
It's a good thing nothing like that could ever happen here.
Democracy in Egypt is what, a year old? We didn't get it right the first try either.
Just electing despots isn't enough—unless the rights of minorities are protected it's still tyranny. At least it only took them a year to figure that out, if indeed they have.
Not a surprise. Could have been worse. Let's hope they sort it out soon.
Oh by the way, what's the story here? The first democratically-elected President ends up forced from office by protesters/military intervention? Did he change into a monster after he took office? Or was the election decided by a small number of dedicated, outspoken radicals, and the majority of the electorate just now woke up to the fact they're headed toward a theocracy?
It's a good thing nothing like that could ever happen here.
Morsi now controls the military. The second thing he did was purge all the old generals and install new ones of whom he is sure of their loyalty. And we still sent the jets and the tanks to him after the fact. Forget about the cash for a minute. Remember the jets that are more advanced than the ones we sold Israel and another couple of hundred tanks ? And for what good reason ?
A political party elected Morsi. The voters only voted for the party candidate, not the man. That is the only western spin applicable to Egypt. Otherwise here it would be the like the congregation voting for the elders' pick. The congregation had no input. Egypt is firmly divided between Islamists and secularists. There is no in between. The Islamists, who are the Muslim Brotherhood, are in charge, period. They have no quarter or tolerance to those who are not. The Charter of the Muslim Brotherhood is quite specific.
"There is no in between"—what would that mean? That there are no voters picking a candidate based on how good an administrator they think he'd be rather than his stance on religion in politics? How could you know that?
The Muslim Brotherhood has a majority in the Egyptian parliament and their candidate is president, but the hardly means the rest of the country has just rolled over or gone away. Egypt's politics is far more complex than you seem willing to admit.
Who controls the $1.3B in aid we give them? Mostly the military, which gets over a billion of that. The Egyptian military is probably the largest secular institution in Egypt; it's not a model of good governance but it remained apolitical during the uprising and remains an independent power base outside Morsi's direct control. Americans are used to the military being subordinate to civilian government but that's not how it works in large parts of the world, including Egypt. Point 3: The people who elected Morsi are ordinary people. The people opposing Morsi are ordinary people. I'm sorry they all look like Islamists to you; if that's what you're determined to see I'm sure you can find sources to show it to you, but it doesn't resemble the middle east the rest of the world sees.
Morsi now controls the military. The second thing he did was purge all the old generals and install new ones of whom he is sure of their loyalty. And we still sent the jets and the tanks to him after the fact. Forget about the cash for a minute. Remember the jets that are more advanced than the ones we sold Israel and another couple of hundred tanks ? And for what good reason ?
A political party elected Morsi. The voters only voted for the party candidate, not the man. That is the only western spin applicable to Egypt. Otherwise here it would be the like the congregation voting for the elders' pick. The congregation had no input. Egypt is firmly divided between Islamists and secularists. There is no in between. The Islamists, who are the Muslim Brotherhood, are in charge, period. They have no quarter or tolerance to those who are not. The Charter of the Muslim Brotherhood is quite specific.
(...) The Egyptian military is probably the largest secular institution in Egypt; it's not a model of good governance but it remained apolitical during the uprising and remains an independent power base outside Morsi's direct control. Americans are used to the military being subordinate to civilian government but that's not how it works in large parts of the world, including Egypt. (...)
Officially (in both cases). However, arguably, in practice, they are part of the establishment looking out for (their own) business interests (under the nomenclature of "national security").
Point 1: Yes that is exactly what I am saying in fact. As much as you would like to compare Egypt's government to ours, you cannot. Of course there are secular intellectuals and general supporters of democracies in all Arab countries and these people have very little voice and virtually no power in their governments as always which as I said earlier is the driving force of the Arab spring uprisings. In the context of government relations and where foreign aid goes, I am sorry but at this time for all intents and purposes the Muslim Brotherhood is all there is. Who do you think controls the 1.3 billion we just gave them, the citizens on the street, the secular intellectuals???? Uh.....no.
Point 2: As far as my remarks regarding Syria, although I did not clarify I was more thinking aloud considering that this strategy of course will not be employed so I did not even feel the need to clarify. I made these remarks more out of frustration of the building effort in Washington towards considering arming the Sunni rebels and how much a mistake this would be. In reality, what I would really like is to do is absolutely nothing. Most of these countries are already sick of us intervening clearly in support of our own interests or worse, the interest of Israel and I support them in this disgust. My overall argument is to let these countries have complete autonomy to decide whatever they want to do even if that includes blowing each other up. The only true deterrent of keeping it all from getting out of hand is the nuclear capability of Russia, China, US and Israel. Even WHEN not if, Iran joins this group it is doubtful they would actually deploy the weapons because of this. We really have no control or say ultimately in anything else as much as we would like to think so.
Point 3: Regarding of who I think matters and who doesn't. In my personal opinion, I only care about the common man on the street in any country including ours and especially now in this region where they seem to have always had Monarchies or Facist governments that have not served the citizens of these countries best interest and I see no signs of that changing anytime soon. As a matter of fact Islamic theocracies seem to be waiting in the wings to fill any power vacuum left over from any overthrow. Islamic theocracies are the prevailing power and in any type of government to government relationship that we have with most of the countries in this region, that is who we have to deal with. Now, unofficial and backdoor relations are a different story but that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about official US aid to the Morsi government and possible arms and money shipments to the Sunni rebels in Syria. Just where are the secularists true democracy supporters involved in these transactions? Final point: Morsi = Muslim Brotherhood Assad = Hezbollah. I see no distinction in regards to these governments, you may. That is fine we are all entitled to our opinions.
Point 1: yes I can, I did, and I gave some examples to support my point. It might be helpful for you to give some examples to suport your point instead of just repeating your thesis.
Who controls the $1.3B in aid we give them? Mostly the military, which gets over a billion of that. The Egyptian military is probably the largest secular institution in Egypt; it's not a model of good governance but it remained apolitical during the uprising and remains an independent power base outside Morsi's direct control. Americans are used to the military being subordinate to civilian government but that's not how it works in large parts of the world, including Egypt.
Point 2: I apologize for taking this seriously, but it is hard to tell.
Point 3: The people who elected Morsi are ordinary people. The people opposing Morsi are ordinary people. I'm sorry they all look like Islamists to you; if that's what you're determined to see I'm sure you can find sources to show it to you, but it doesn't resemble the middle east the rest of the world sees.
Point 1: Yes that is exactly what I am saying in fact. As much as you would like to compare Egypt's government to ours, you cannot. Of course there are secular intellectuals and general supporters of democracies in all Arab countries and these people have very little voice and virtually no power in their governments as always which as I said earlier is the driving force of the Arab spring uprisings. In the context of government relations and where foreign aid goes, I am sorry but at this time for all intents and purposes the Muslim Brotherhood is all there is. Who do you think controls the 1.3 billion we just gave them, the citizens on the street, the secular intellectuals???? Uh.....no.
Point 2: As far as my remarks regarding Syria, although I did not clarify I was more thinking aloud considering that this strategy of course will not be employed so I did not even feel the need to clarify. I made these remarks more out of frustration of the building effort in Washington towards considering arming the Sunni rebels and how much a mistake this would be. In reality, what I would really like is to do is absolutely nothing. Most of these countries are already sick of us intervening clearly in support of our own interests or worse, the interest of Israel and I support them in this disgust. My overall argument is to let these countries have complete autonomy to decide whatever they want to do even if that includes blowing each other up. The only true deterrent of keeping it all from getting out of hand is the nuclear capability of Russia, China, US and Israel. Even WHEN not if, Iran joins this group it is doubtful they would actually deploy the weapons because of this. We really have no control or say ultimately in anything else as much as we would like to think so.
Point 3: Regarding of who I think matters and who doesn't. In my personal opinion, I only care about the common man on the street in any country including ours and especially now in this region where they seem to have always had Monarchies or Facist governments that have not served the citizens of these countries best interest and I see no signs of that changing anytime soon. As a matter of fact Islamic theocracies seem to be waiting in the wings to fill any power vacuum left over from any overthrow. Islamic theocracies are the prevailing power and in any type of government to government relationship that we have with most of the countries in this region, that is who we have to deal with. Now, unofficial and backdoor relations are a different story but that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about official US aid to the Morsi government and possible arms and money shipments to the Sunni rebels in Syria. Just where are the secularists true democracy supporters involved in these transactions? Final point: Morsi = Muslim Brotherhood Assad = Hezbollah. I see no distinction in regards to these governments, you may. That is fine we are all entitled to our opinions.
Point 1: yes I can, I did, and I gave some examples to support my point. It might be helpful for you to give some examples to suport your point instead of just repeating your thesis.
Who controls the $1.3B in aid we give them? Mostly the military, which gets over a billion of that. The Egyptian military is probably the largest secular institution in Egypt; it's not a model of good governance but it remained apolitical during the uprising and remains an independent power base outside Morsi's direct control. Americans are used to the military being subordinate to civilian government but that's not how it works in large parts of the world, including Egypt.
Point 2: I apologize for taking this seriously, but it is hard to tell.
Point 3: The people who elected Morsi are ordinary people. The people opposing Morsi are ordinary people. I'm sorry they all look like Islamists to you; if that's what you're determined to see I'm sure you can find sources to show it to you, but it doesn't resemble the middle east the rest of the world sees.
I'm not going to jump in between you two on this, but I will say that I see it your way.
On point number 2, since I did fully support your remarks in question and stated so at the time, I'll add that your rebuttal is consistent with my views. What you stated above is what I read into your original remarks on the matter.
Funny thing is I actually think as far as proposed US action, Lazy and I agree that we should not get involved in Syria and should not be so freely doling out enormous amounts of cash to the government de jour of Egypt regardless of who they really are. He just does not agree with the details of how I got there.
