Friday, February 11, 2011

Egypt

So I thought it was high time that I say something on this subject, since its been going on for weeks now.

I've heard some interesting things from both sides. The Republicans, as always, are taking the opposite side from President Obama. The President apparently decided it would look good politically, and earn us more friends, if he gave a nod to the "rioting masses" in Egypt. Since then, I've seen numerous Facebook comments from Republican friends saying something to the effect that Obama is stupid, Egypt should quell the uprising with deadly force, and that the people of Egypt should stop trying to contest the government.

A couple problems with that, Yoda has.

*ahem* Number one, you didn't see this kind of lay-down-and-take-it attitude when the communist government in China was blasting unarmed protesters in Tiananmen Square some years ago. Then, uprisings were wonderful. Uprisings such as that, movements of the people should be honored!

Number two, I think those people are forgetting their own country's heritage. People, America was founded on rabble rousers who formed...an uprising. And were none too quiet about it, either. They like, had guns. And were shooting people. Yeah.

So, to put it succinctly- Egypt's people have the right, just like all humanity, to choose their leaders. Isn't that one of the trademarks of the "American tradition?" Since Mubarak is a repressive dictator by all accounts, our wish to keep him in office is nothing more than the selective "freedom" we like to enforce. And as Mubarak wouldn't leave office quietly, the Egyptian people are doing their level best to make their intent and wishes known.

As to Egypt being a threat to us...what's changed, again? Get used to the fact that people don't like us, and it's probably because of us. That's how the world works.

9 comments:

Tragedy101 said...

I would think the uprising in Egypt more similar to the uprising in Iran. Oh wait, that happened during President Obama's watch and he gave the nod to the Ayatollah to ruthlessly crush that. What is the difference?

Iran is a democratic-theocracy controlled by a group of totalitarian Muslim clerics, while Egypt is a pseudo-democracy controlled by a "President" totalitarian-dictator.

suntzusays said...

Obama took a middle ground stance in Iran (and not saying "here go crush them"), but the principle difference is that the amount of actual influence America has on Iranian internal politics is about zero. And a compelling argument could be made that a strong American support for the Greens would have killed their little uprising a lot faster (by feeding the state's official narrative, the same one Egypt was using actually, that the rabble rousers were being led, funded, or encouraged by foreign agents and were thus traitors).

In Egypt there are a couple of billion reasons we have influence and a couple billions reasons why the army now maintains control of the regime but does not put down the rebellion as such.

Tragedy101 said...

After further consideration, I think this revolt was staged so that Mubarak could retire to somewhere nice with all of his liquid assets.

1) He has more liquid assets than most people.

2) The secrecy of the beginning of the "riots". No news, but official story.

3) The peaceful exit of Mubarak from Egypt with his VP just stepping into the void.

It is just too slick, too coincidental. It appears contrived. The person who benefits most from this is Mubarak.

suntzusays said...

That's an interesting theory, but I think you're vastly overstating this. There's something usually far more valuable than money involved with being a tyrant.

Power.

The money flows from having the power and the ability to demand bribes, kickbacks, and so on in exchange for your political influence on internal matters. But without the ability to create fear, or to command legions at your beck and call, the money is ultimately sort of disappointing and useless.

As for the other points...2) Al Jazeera was covering the riots from the beginning, as was the BBC. The blackout in coverage was on the American news agencies. It's not so much that Mubarak that arranged the secrecy but CNN and Faux did because it was awkward for the US 3) his VP didn't step into the void. They side-stepped him for the army itself.

Don Emmerich said...

Liberty,

As usual, excellent analysis.

Eman said...

"So, to put it succinctly- Egypt's people have the right, just like all humanity, to choose their leaders."
Liberty, you have no idea how wrong that statement is. You are so far from right I'm not sure you're on this planet.

Tragedy101 said...

I am confused Eman, please explain.

Man is capable of choosing their leaders on Earth, perhaps not ultimate leader if one is predisposed to predestination or behaviouralism. But from the perspective that man chooses to get up in the morning or not, men choose their leaders.

A government cannot govern save by the consent of the governed, even in totalitarian governments this is true. In those cases it may be consent or die, but death is still an option that some, and often many, choose.

Choice is a right. It is from the Creator. It is inalienable from what man is. It is a fundamental Christian belief that man can choose salvation. Thus to deny the ability and right of man to choose their leaders is inherently opposed to Christianity.

Liberty said...

Eman- are you seriously saying that the republic is not the best form of government? That democracy should not be spread around the world by whatever means possible?

Do not forget that America was founded upon the idea of natural law: that all men are naturally endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights. Those are, of course, life, liberty, and property. I would contest that liberty includes the right to choose your own leaders.

And as Tragedy pointed out, all governments rest upon the consent of the governed, no matter how authoritarian or otherwise they happen to be.

suntzusays said...

I suppose it's possible Eman is a hold out Hobbesian with a belief in divine law of kings (or dictators) or a might-makes-right type. But his statement doesn't make clear which form of rulership he is inclined to believe is more truthful than a free consent to govern by the people.