a thread about the civil unrest in egypt (& elsewhere in 'the region' if necessary)

Also, Britons: Can you explain why the BBC media player's max audio level is '11'?

the news eventually gets round to estimating a few hundred pro-mubaraks, after a quarter-hour of giving the impression Egypt is split 50/50

I love that - can only be a spinal tap reference

Risible:

1604: Witnesses tell BBC Arabic that the camels and horses that charged anti-government demonstrators in Tahrir Square earlier belonged to people who work at the Pyramids in Giza. They were apparently angry that the unrest was driving away tourists from Cairo and hurting their businesses.

I certainly hope so.

xpost

^^ that's not so surprising. if the government and economy are as corrupt as people say, i'm sure the plum gigs like antiquities tourism are going to be held by loyalists

xp

hoping for a bloke in an ostrich costume after the elephants

http://www.avians.net/scarletdown/gallery/Misc-Art/Joust-Poster.jpg

Gibbs press conference on right now. If I hear him refer to the administration's "posture" one more time in gonna barf.

goole, I would not be that surprised if it were true, but it's not a terribly astute assessment to blame the demonstrators at this point.

i turned off the gibbs conference after ten minutes of stuttered replies about the egyptian people's right to demand change.

when does Jay Carnival take command of the press office?

u guys have noticed that the WH mouthpiece's job is to figure out how not to answer questions, ja?

i only went the ten minutes because i thought it might end.

i turned off the gibbs conference after ten minutes of stuttered replies about the egyptian people's right to demand change.

i'm torn on what the administration's proper response should be. you think they should forcefully denounce mubarak and endorse the protestors?

waiting for fox to run a story about "(mu)bara(c)k obama."

no i really do appreciate the miserable difficulty of their embarrassing geopolitical situation! it's just dull to watch is all.

http://www.empireonline.com/images/features/how-to-beat-a-train-strike-movie-style/8.jpg

It followed Mr. Mubarak’s 10-minute television address on Tuesday, in which he pledged to step down within months — an offer that was rejected by his opponents, who have demanded his immediate resignation — and was met with a call by President Obama for a political transition “now” that infuriated Cairo.

“There is a contradiction between calling on the transition to begin now, and the calls which President Mubarak himself has made for an orderly transition,” an Egyptian official said Wednesday. “Mubarak’s primary responsibility is to ensure an orderly and peaceful transfer of power. We can’t do that if we have a vacuum of power.”

The official said that the Egyptian government has “a serious issue with how the White House is spinning this.”

ie "30 years of loyalty and this is how you treat me?"

Utter bullshit. There's no reason an interim govmt cannot arrange for elections and it frankly would be any more lacking in legitimacy than he is. He is the biggest obstacle to stability right now.

Egyptian Constitution says: resignation of president triggers elections in 60 days

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/democracy_for_egypt_m/

ffs so the sticking-point is pride, a bit of dignity, facesaving? It's not important, pal, you're not going to spend the rest of your life mattering. Be content with your big house in Riyadh and do one

(incidentally, do you really need real player to get the al-jz live feed?)

the US will NEVER do what it SHOULD do in these situations, bcz it will always support despots when they are deemed strategically "necessary." For all the acknowledgment of realpolitik in the public sphere, "we support freedom" is the mother's milk of public rhetoric.

Hard to believe that a man who is being openly reviled and rejected by millions of his countrymen, who have taken to the streets for this sole purpose, thinks he has any reason for pride.

There are legitimate fears that if the U.S. appears to support the opposition, say someone like ElBaradei, it will diminish that person's credibility in the eyes of many in Egypt.

Or put more simply, the U.S. may help the opposition more by shutting up.

Also, U.S. involvement could boost the popularity of extremist factions in the opposition.

i think the US should worry about their strategic alliances and just by saying that they will acknowledge the will of the Egyptian people is about the extent to which i think they should go in promoting democracy in egypt. not because i don't think democracy in egypt is a worthwhile cause (promoting democracy is the most worthwhile cause even) but because why should the US be participating in another country's attempts to become more democratic? that's just more colonial bullshit. offer them support, encourage the dictator not to use violence, but otherwise let them find their way into democracy themselves.

http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/2011/02/egypts_incipient_revolution.html

Mordy otm

"sclerotic" is such a great word

the US will NEVER do what it SHOULD do in these situations, bcz it will always support despots when they are deemed strategically "necessary." For all the acknowledgment of realpolitik in the public sphere, "we support freedom" is the mother's milk of public rhetoric.

― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, February 2, 2011 7:44 PM (37 minutes ago) Bookmark

what in your opinion SHOULD the US be doing? something? nothing? stop arming egypt in future? what?

overthrowing capitalist plutocracy, refusing to allow anyone under 40 to write for snl iirc

(kind of stayed out of this thread because i kind of felt, well, it's great and kind of surprising we have this many experts on egypt, how did i miss them all these years on ilx, and what could i bring to the table?)

X-post-Ha. So you have to be an expert to comment on this board? Wow. Didn't know that.

i think the US should worry about their strategic alliances and just by saying that they will acknowledge the will of the Egyptian people is about the extent to which i think they should go in promoting democracy in egypt

Right-wingers I see want to be on both sides of this issue. Tony Blankely (who worked for Gingrich and Reagan and is now at some right wing think-tank) just had an editorial in the Washington Times saying the Iranian Green revolution failed because Obama was too quiet, but then he argued that Egypt was different and complained that Obama was being too loud in his support for the Egyptian people.

So you have to be an expert to comment on this board? Wow. Didn't know that.

no, but there's a kind of bien-pensant vibe relating to matters egyptian im not so comfortable with

i'm not an expert on egypt, i'm just reading the news

sorry history mayne

*looks up "bien-pensant"*

Tony Blankely (who worked for Gingrich and Reagan and is now at some right wing think-tank) just had an editorial in the Washington Times saying the Iranian Green revolution failed because Obama was too quiet

i am no expert on this subject, but this sounds like utter nonsense.

Right wingers basically want to hedge so that if a transition to democracy works out they can say yay democracy we were right all along and if it doesn't they can blame Obama for "undermining stability" or whatever.

I really don't care to expound on what a gangster entity like the US govt should be doing in some fantasy dimension, enrique.

Wondering whether Mubarak has a dedicated thug budget, or if it just comes out of the general slush fund.

Another good article:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/02/the-battle-in-cairos-tahrir-square/70663/

Roy Edroso catches a writer at National Review getting off the bus they built and drove for eight years: The rebellions sweeping across North Africa and into Jordan may in fact be the stuff of the neocon/Bushian fantasy that all peoples everywhere yearn to be free and that the answer to “Islam is the answer” is Jacksonian democracy. But color me skeptical.

he US will NEVER do what it SHOULD do in these situations, bcz it will always support despots when they are deemed strategically "necessary."

i wish we lived in a country that did not do this, like atlantis

Speaking of Iran, will the right-wingers also blame Obama for Iran executing 66 people in January (a rate three times that of last year). http://af.reuters.com/article/southAfricaNews/idAFLDE7111UG20110202

I heard someone interviewed on the radio who said most of those executions were for political reasons, and they suggested that iran wants to especially keep things quiet now (because of Egypt and the anniversary of the earlier protests in Iran)

i assume the right-wing hedge-betting is mostly that, if the uprising succeeds, it was inspired by the iraq invasion.

I saw posters with pictures of Mossadegh during the Green Revolution ostensibly pointing out that, just like in 1953, the will of the people had been thwarted. Obama underlinging the essential sovereignty of the people and stating support for govmt forebearance and the right of the people to assmble and petition w/o threat of violence has been spot-on in both cases and meddling in other peoples' affairs in either Iran or Egypt is counter-productive.

Speaking of Iran, will the right-wingers also blame Obama for Iran executing 66 people in January

The US officially called on Iran to halt political executions yesterday.

i wish we lived in a country that did not do this, like atlantis

sooooooo adult o' you.
how about Switzerland?