Can someone clear up what is happening in Egypt

mrk · 4 Feb 2011 at 11:30

The pro Mubarak protesters appear to have been hired BY his side to counter protest, they are plain clothed officers and officials who are armed - Various videos showing this.

There was a video posted yesterday as well where a diplomatic vehicle was taped running over protesters.

It is shambles.

Danthus · 4 Feb 2011 at 11:34

It makes me laugh how the west is trumpeting the idea of democracy in Egypt as long the election results in the type of leader it wants.

Castiel · 4 Feb 2011 at 11:36

The Egyptian People should decide what Government it wants, not the U.S or U.K or anyone else.

All we need to do is accept that is how they wish to be ruled and leave them to it.

Gilly · 4 Feb 2011 at 11:37

Castiel said:
The Egyptian People should decide what Government it wants, not the U.S or U.K or anyone else.

All we need to do is accept that is how they wish to be ruled and leave them to it.

I don't think it's as simple as that. If we just walk away and allow whatever goes on to go on, what is to say that is what the majority of Egyptians wanted?

Danthus · 4 Feb 2011 at 11:40

Gilly said:
I don't think it's as simple as that. If we just walk away and allow whatever goes on to go on, what is to say that is what the majority of Egyptians wanted?

And who are we to say what they want, look at the mess in the middle east, has the west meddling helped?

Theophany · 4 Feb 2011 at 11:40

As long as Egypt doesn't get a radical Muslim leadership, Israel won't be attacked and the UK/US won't lose their ****.

I'm not convinced the UK/US has any interest in who takes control provided that they don't destabilise the norm in the region. Last time Egypt flew off the handle the Suez canal was closed and we had a three day working week.

Participant · 4 Feb 2011 at 11:41

OldCoals said:
And who are we to say what they want, look at the mess in the middle east, has the west meddling helped?

I don't think it's going to be forced upon anyone in this case. It's not like the US are going to invade Egypt.

CliffyBiro · 4 Feb 2011 at 11:42

The latinos have mutated and are heating up the planet.

/obscure reference

Danthus · 4 Feb 2011 at 11:43

Robbie G said:
I don't think it's going to be forced upon anyone in this case. It's not like the US are going to invade Egypt.

I am pretty sure when the US, who provide something in the region of $1.6 billion dollars to Egypt, may have a vested interest in any future leader.

Castiel · 4 Feb 2011 at 11:44

Gilly said:
I don't think it's as simple as that. If we just walk away and allow whatever goes on to go on, what is to say that is what the majority of Egyptians wanted?

What is to say it is not. How does what the West wants automatically mean that is what the Egyptian majority want.

They must be allowed to determine their own destiny unfettered, otherwise it will be undermined constantly.

If the people choose radicalism then they must also pay the consequences of such actions. That is how people learn, the only way.

Danthus · 4 Feb 2011 at 11:45

Theophany said:
As long as Egypt doesn't get a radical Muslim leadership, Israel won't be attacked and the UK/US won't lose their ****.

People seem to like the Muslim Brotherhood over there, the west doesn't though.

I'm not convinced the UK/US has any interest in who takes control provided that they don't destabilise the norm in the region. Last time Egypt flew off the handle the Suez canal was closed and we had a three day working week.

A bit of a self contradiction there, the west will want a secure trade route and will happily prop up a puppet government to do so. Just look at Iraq and Afghanistan.

Danthus · 4 Feb 2011 at 11:46

Castiel said:
What is to say it is not. How does what the West wants automatically mean that is what the Egyptian majority want.

They must be allowed to determine their own destiny unfettered, otherwise it will be undermined constantly.

Absolutely, whether it happens is another thing though.

Theophany · 4 Feb 2011 at 11:47

OldCoals said:
People seem to like the Muslim Brotherhood over there, the west doesn't though.

Because they're pro-Palestinian and that is a bad thing in the West.

OldCoals said:
A bit of a self contradiction there, the west will want a secure trade route and will happily prop up a puppet government to do so. Just look at Iraq and Afghanistan.

A pro hardline Muslim leadership will not co-operate with the West.

Gilly · 4 Feb 2011 at 11:50

Castiel said:
What is to say it is not. How does what the West wants automatically mean that is what the Egyptian majority want.

I didn't mention anything about what the West wants. Why did you mention it?

Castiel said:
They must be allowed to determine their own destiny unfettered, otherwise it will be undermined constantly.

Then the biggest bully gets the cheese. Is that what the Egyptian people want?

Castiel said:
If the people choose radicalism then they must also pay the consequences of such actions. That is how people learn, the only way.

Who is to say the radicals would be fairly voted in? The people are revolting now, but as it stands the person in control of the armies would be most likely to attain leadership, no?

Dj_Jestar · 4 Feb 2011 at 11:59

lol, first reply brings Muslims into it, giving an opinion that it's the Muslims' fault. And to think that was from the same person that no doubt calls Muslims "fanatical".

Castiel · 4 Feb 2011 at 12:00

Gilly said:
I didn't mention anything about what the West wants. Why did you mention it?

'We' are the West, are we not?

You did mention it, in fact it was the entire point of your post. That somehow, the Egyptian Majority cannot be trusted to determine for themselves what they want.

Gilly said:
Then the biggest bully gets the cheese. Is that what the Egyptian people want?

It is up to the People to ensure that doesn't happen, and not to settle for it, if it does.

Gilly said:
IWho is to say the radicals would be fairly voted in? The people are revolting now, but as it stands the person in control of the armies would be most likely to attain leadership, no?

I am jot saying that is what is likely, only stating that 'the people' should do what they want, not what we want.

As for Armies and such, I reiterate my earlier point, 'the people' don't have to bow down, do they?

Cosimo · 4 Feb 2011 at 12:03

skippi90 said:
The latinos have mutated and are heating up the planet.

/obscure reference

Quite and how does this relate to the current situation?

Danthus · 4 Feb 2011 at 12:10

Gilly said:
Who is to say the radicals would be fairly voted in? The people are revolting now, but as it stands the person in control of the armies would be most likely to attain leadership, no?

Burma is a military dictatorship, hold free and fair elections and the result would almost be a forgone conclusion, Aung San Suu Kyi would be elected, she controls no army.

Gilly · 4 Feb 2011 at 12:13

Castiel said:
'We' are the West, are we not?

You did mention it, in fact it was the entire point of your post. That somehow, the Egyptian Majority cannot be trusted to determine for themselves what they want.

I think I probably know better the point of my own post

My point was not 'the West needs to be intrinsically involved in all ongoings in Egypt to ensure whoever gets power is sympathetic to us', but 'walking away and letting the people decide their own future may not be the best option if, in fact, their people don't get that option'.

Castiel said:
It is up to the People to ensure that doesn't happen, and not to settle for it, if it does.

How do they ensure fairness? The persons controlling the media and controlling the armies would be able to run roughshod over the general public if required. Are you saying that if that happened the people could actually do something about it? How long has it taken them this time around?

Castiel said:
I am jot saying that is what is likely, only stating that 'the people' should do what they want, not what we want.

As for Armies and such, I reiterate my earlier point, 'the people' don't have to bow down, do they?

I agree wholeheartedly that the people should do what they want. If we are in a position where we can help them do so, are we not morally obligated?

Yes, I understand I brought morals into politics, an alien concept

OldCoals said:
Burma is a military dictatorship, hold free and fair elections and the result would almost be a forgone conclusion, Aung San Suu Kyi would be elected, she controls no army.

Thank you, that well proves my point

wildman · 4 Feb 2011 at 12:15

Theophany said:
Because they're pro-Palestinian and that is a bad thing in the West.

A pro hardline Muslim leadership will not co-operate with the West.

Only if you are a pro-Israel puppet like the UK and the US. It won't affect anyone who does not always leans to the israeli side. If the US were to call Israel to task on their illegal occupations and wars none of this would really matter to any of us.