Revolution in Tunisia & Egypt, Protests in Libya, Bahrain, Oman & Yemen - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

roachboy · 01-30-2011, 10:07 AM

i think this is a good statement. it's a wholesale rejection of the american attempt to have its cake and eat it to, make vague hand-waving in the direction of supporting the demands of the revolt while in fact being ready to thro all that freedom business into the trash if it disrupts business...

Quote:

Dead-Enders on the Potomac

From the Editors

January 29, 2011

Every US administration has its mouthpiece in Washington’s think tank world, its courtier that will slavishly praise its every utterance. For the blessedly bygone Bush administration, that echo chamber was the American Enterprise Institute and the neo-conservative broadsheets in its orbit. For the Obama administration, it is the National Security Network, an operation founded in 2006 to bring “strategic focus to the progressive national security community.”

With one US-backed Arab despot dislodged and dodging Interpol, and another facing an intifada of historic proportions, many eyes looked to Washington, hopeful that President Barack Obama might reprise his ballyhooed Cairo speech of June 2009, showing the restive Arab masses that he felt and, perhaps, really understood their pain. Instead, Arab populations have heard a variation on Washington’s long-standing theme: “The Obama administration seeks to encourage political reforms without destabilizing the region.” That sentence, taken from the National Security Network’s January 27 press release, says it all: Democracy is great in theory, but if it will cause any disruption to business as usual, Washington prefers dictatorship.

And so it was no surprise, though a deep and indelible blot upon Obama and his “progressive” entourage, when the president took a White House lectern on the evening of January 28 -- Egypt’s “Friday of Rage” -- and announced his continued backing for the indefensible regime of President Husni Mubarak. In so doing, he ensured that the Arab fury of the winter of 2011 would be directed increasingly toward the United States as well as its regional vassals.

January 28 in Egypt was a rollercoaster of a day. The mass demonstrations following up on the January 25 Police Day uprising turned out to be larger and more vehement than even optimistic observers expected. Police stations and ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) headquarters burned to the ground in the middle-class Cairo neighborhoods of al-Azbakiyya and Sayyida Zaynab, as well as in poorer quarters, in Alexandria, Suez, Port Said, Damietta and Damanhour as well as in Upper Egypt and the Sinai. The NDP’s home base in Cairo’s main Tahrir Square itself went up in flames. Alexandria, Egypt’s second city, was overrun by protesters who had overwhelmed the riot police. Tanks rolled in to the cities; a curfew was declared; but the crowds ignored it and the army (for the most part) did not shoot at them.

On Al Jazeera, whose live feeds in both English and Arabic have riveted world audiences, the anchors did not quite know what narrative frame to employ, so rapid was the pace of events and so contradictory were the signals coming from the corridors of power. In Washington, outgoing White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs held a special briefing to discuss Egypt and, to a direct question, said that Obama had not spoken to Mubarak. Gibbs continued that US aid to Egypt, recipient of the second-largest annual packages since 1979, would be placed “under review.” A Pentagon spokesman added that the Egyptian army’s chief of staff, in Washington for consultations, had cut his trip short and returned home. Had the Obama team abandoned the Egyptian dictator to fate? In Cairo, as midnight approached, the speaker of the Egyptian parliament, Fathi Surour, said that he would have an “important announcement” soon. By the Egyptian constitution, like the Tunisian one, the speaker of Parliament is custodian of state in the case of a vacant presidency. Was Mubarak boarding a plane for exile? On the Arabic-language channel, several of the reporters, commentators and analysts could barely contain their jubilation. Not only did it seem that Mubarak would decamp exactly as Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali had done; he would do so with Egyptian protesters having died in fewer numbers than Tunisians.

Then the 82-year old Mubarak appeared on Egyptian state television himself. Egyptians must have felt as if they had traveled back in time, to the moment of any minor hiccup in the regime’s 30-year reign: Claiming to carry the protesters’ grievances in his heart, Mubarak vowed to speed up his program of political and economic reforms. Clearly, judging by the scenes in the streets, he had chosen the wrong team of ministers to implement the grand vision. That cabinet would be dismissed and a fresh one empaneled, all under his wise executive guidance, of course. In the meantime, he warned, “setting fires in the streets” was not the way to engage in dialogue with his government. The forces of law and order would prevail.

To this fossil of an oration, this half-debased, half-delusional assurance that all was normal as the capital burned in the wee hours of the morning, Egyptian opposition figures had an immediate, unequivocal response. Amin Iskandar of the Karama Party, a splinter of the Nasserist movement, predicted that Mubarak had delivered his last speech, for the uprising would continue unabated on the morrow. “The Egyptian people will not be fooled again” by droning repetition of past promises unfulfilled, he declared. ‘Isam Sultan, Al Jazeera’s next guest, one-upped Iskandar by saying that the demonstrators would press on without sleep until Mubarak was gone for good. Such, after all, has been the crystal-clear demand of the protests on Police Day and subsequently.

Weighing the "limited options," January 28, 2011. Clockwise from Obama: National Security Adviser Tom Donilon; White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley; Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communication Ben Rhodes; Tony Blinken, National Security Adviser to the Vice President; Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough; John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism; Robert Cardillo, Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Intelligence Integration; and Vice President Joe Biden. (White House/Pete Souza)

But apparently the Obama administration did not care to listen. Obama strode to the podium just minutes after Mubarak had finished his remarks, leaving little doubt that the timing of the two speeches had been coordinated in advance. First evincing concern to avoid further bloodshed, he then tacitly equated the heavily armed, habitually brutal Egyptian security forces with the weaponless, repeatedly wounded protesters, calling upon the latter as well to “express themselves peacefully.” He echoed the condescension of Mubarak himself in saying of the protesters that “violence and destruction will not lead to the reforms they seek.” He then added injury to insult, clarifying that America’s “close partnership” with Egypt was in fact with Mubarak, who had “pledged a better democracy” and now must “give meaning” to his words.

By all means, the unrest across the region has been occasion for Washington to scold its Arab allies for their unaccountable neglect of the aspirations of youth and their unseemly embezzlement of treasuries. At the Forum for the Future in Doha, Qatar, held on January 13, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton exhorted her audience of Arab elites to “build a future that your young people will believe in, stay for and defend.” Invest in vocational education, she urged. Create jobs. Root out corruption. Hold elections whose outcome is uncertain. Drop the reflexive hostility to civic engagement by regular folks. But the regimes remain the political address of record for her administration; having created the present crises through decades of avarice and contempt for the people they rule, they are now to be trusted to resolve the impasse. Vice President Joe Biden was typically clumsy, but most assuredly not off-message when, in response to a direct question from PBS host Jim Lehrer, he declined to label Mubarak a dictator, saying instead: “I think the time has come for President Mubarak...to be more responsive to some of the needs of the people out there.”

No, as the Tunisian example showed, and as the Egyptian experience may yet drive home, the US will stand by its favored authoritarian Arab states until the bitter end. From the January 28 performance on the Potomac, it is not clear that the US can even imagine an alternative course.

The reasons for this stance have changed little over the decades since the US became the superpower in the Middle East. Strategic interest number one is the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf to the world economy, unimpeded by a rival hegemon or a regional upstart that might raise prices dramatically or deploy the oil weapon to extract political concessions from the West. Number two is the security of Israel. But third -- not to be confused with tertiary -- is the stability of satrapies that Washington can trust to safeguard its other interests and initiatives, whether the US-sponsored “peace process” between Israel and the Palestinians (and the blockade upon Hamas that Egypt helps to enforce) or the campaign to curtail Islamist movements for which Tunisia’s Ben Ali so eagerly signed up. The US rewards its clients with cash and copious armaments, with scant regard for their records on democratization or human rights. After the Yemeni regime canceled elections in 2009, its aid package was quintupled. There have always been numerous dissenters within the US foreign policy apparatus who know the damage that is being done, but they are resolutely kept out of positions of real authority.

That roguish Bush administration, as the National Security Network flacks are fond of repeating, “destabilized” the Middle Eastern order, not just with its rash invasion of Iraq but also its swashbuckling talk of “freedom on the march” through the thickets of US-approved autocracy. The “progressive national security community,” like those to its right on Washington’s narrow political spectrum, is keen to be taken seriously by power, and so generally restricts its judgments of policy ventures to the impact on the US interest. The catastrophic loss of Iraqi life is rarely mentioned as a point against the invasion, for instance, and the sincerity of the Bush administration’s “democracy doctrine” is usually granted arguendo, civility being far more important to American politicos than accountability or, for that matter, decency.

Amidst the hand wringing in the mainstream media over Obama’s “limited options” in Egypt, through whose Suez Canal cruise oil tankers and the warships of the US Fifth Fleet, the truth is that the entire debate over democracy promotion in the Arab world and greater Middle East has been one long, bitterly unfunny joke. The issue has never been whether the US should promote democracy; it has been when the US will stop trying to suppress it. The bargains with tyrants lay a “commitment trap” for Washington, which must solemnly swear allegiance to each strongman lest others in the club have second thoughts about holding up their end. The despots, in turn, assume that the Marines or their equivalents will swoop in to the rescue if need be. Most, like Ben Ali, are mistaken, if nothing else because an ambitious underling is often waiting in the wings. Meanwhile, just as Iranians have not forgotten the Carter administration’s eleventh-hour loyalty to the Shah some 32 years later, neither will Pakistanis soon forgive the US for standing by Gen. Pervez Musharraf.

In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Americans wondered why their country had been targeted. Many, of course, settled upon the solipsistic, emotionally comforting explanation that “they hate us for our values” or resorted to conspiracy theory about Islam and world conquest. Saner sorts looked to the US history of support for Israel in its colonization of Palestine or coziness with certain kingdoms sitting atop vast pools of petroleum. But these factors have never been the whole answer. All who continue to wonder about the rest should ponder this day, January 28, 2011. The words of Obama and his chorus of apologists say it all: When it comes to the aspirations of ordinary Arabs for genuinely participatory politics and true self-determination, those vaunted American values are suspended, even when “special relationships” and hydrocarbon riches are not directly at issue. And the anti-democratic sentiment is bipartisan: On this question, there is less than a dime’s worth of difference between “progressive” Democrats and Republican xenophobes, between pinstriped State Department Arabists and flannel-clad Christian fundamentalists, between oil-first “realists” and Israel-first neo-conservatives. There is none.

Middle East Report Online: Dead-Enders on the Potomac by From the Editors

ARTelevision · 01-30-2011, 03:08 PM

The streaming video coverage on Al Jazeera's english-language web site is so much more insightful and penetrating than the US cable channels. I highly recommend it for 24-7 coverage. I have the US cable news channels on for comparison only. It's like night and day.

What mixedmedia says just above about our country without a clear place in this event is very true. On the one hand the Saudis have denounced the protestors in no uncertain terms and support the Egyptian regime, while the Iranians support the people in the streets (disingenuous as it is, it makes sense from a realpolitik perspective). That leaves us between a rock and a hard place and demonstrates that the US is stuck behind the 8-ball while history happens...

Charlatan · 01-30-2011, 04:34 PM

Frankly, over the year, the US has done enough damage in the Middle East. They need to stay out of this entirely (i.e. publicly and behind the scenes).

samcol · 01-30-2011, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Frankly, over the year, the US has done enough damage in the Middle East. They need to stay out of this entirely (i.e. publicly and behind the scenes).

My feelings exactly.

roachboy · 01-30-2011, 04:52 PM

i dont think that's an option. the us has been obviously involved up to its neck with mubarak from the outset...at this point, the us is trying to maintain a degree of policy continuity (which i still think they're doing by basically using its funding relation and personnel ties with the army) while finding some way to appear to actually support the revolt (which isn't easy as el barradei---rightly---keeps holding the americans' feet to the fire---though on this, the "street" is way out in front of him---and the us is losing credibility very quickly there) and somehow holding itself open to the possibility that mubarak won't leave---and maintain the appearance that they didnt throw an old ally under the bus...)...

in principle tho you're right.
but in this case principle is very abstract indeed.

i continue to be amazed by the low quality of american infotainment stream coverage of egypt, btw. if you want smart television analysis and better footage watch al jazeera.

i harbor some vague hope that this ill also damage the cesspool that is cnn.
fox is of course beyond the pale. so stupid, so retrograde.

Charlatan · 01-30-2011, 05:09 PM

It won't damage either CNN or Fox. The majority of their viewers are not going elsewhere for analysis. And, many, given the context in which they live, agree with the analysis.

I hear what you are saying about how deep the US already is with Mubarak and the Egyptian military. The thing is, there is a very fine edge to walk here. They can't come down on the losing side of this. They need to be able to count on whomever is in charge of Egypt -- and Egypt's military.

Those who think the US should intervene with direct military assistance, don't know their history (recent and not so recent).

dlish · 01-30-2011, 11:52 PM

I dont think the americans will make any sort of decision to side with anyone until they know who's going to come out the victor.

Siding with a losing side will be terrible news for american foreign policy in the middle east, but at some point their indecisveness will come back to haunt them.

I think they need to at least have a quiet word to mubarak and tell him to go. the only way Mubarak ( and the americans) can save face here is if he offers to stand down and remain in power as acting president until the elections.

Apart from that, i dont see how things are going to work out without leaving political vacuum.

roachboy · 01-31-2011, 07:28 AM

the pieces look like they may be in place for some kind of transitional phase, but obviously the situation is still open-ended.

suleiman could head a transitional govt. and mubarak stand down. but that's unlikely to work because he's too close to mubarak.

el barradei could be brought in to head a transitional govt. this seems to me from the outside to be the most sensible option. what i don't know (obviously) is the relation of the army to el barradei.

haaretz is reporting that mubarak has agreed to talk with opposition figures.
the army has also apparently pledged not to hurt anyone protesting tomorrow.

Mubarak to talk with opposition as 250,000 protesters gather in Cairo - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

the israelis are said to be quietly (that is off-camera) flipping their shit. good ole bibi, that hero of democracy, is urging the united states to back mubarak "for stability's sake"----which in the abstract is understandable, but is really very last monday.

the financial times is predicting a military dictatorship

FT.com / Global insight - Only certainty is army will play dominant role

at this point, though, i don't necessarily see that as inevitable.
i do think that the army will continue to run the show backstage, but i think they stand to benefit more from remaining out of power explicitly...at least from what i've been able to piece together.

what seems more obvious is that time is critical.
there's talk of a general strike.
food and fuel are already running low, logistics are at a snail's pace and cairo is a very very large city.

things could get ugly from any number of angles soon.

i hope mubarak figures it out and stands down.

samcol · 01-31-2011, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

the pieces look like they may be in place for some kind of transitional phase, but obviously the situation is still open-ended.

suleiman could head a transitional govt. and mubarak stand down. but that's unlikely to work because he's too close to mubarak.

el barradei could be brought in to head a transitional govt. this seems to me from the outside to be the most sensible option. what i don't know (obviously) is the relation of the army to el barradei.

haaretz is reporting that mubarak has agreed to talk with opposition figures.
the army has also apparently pledged not to hurt anyone protesting tomorrow.

Mubarak to talk with opposition as 250,000 protesters gather in Cairo - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

the israelis are said to be quietly (that is off-camera) flipping their shit. good ole bibi, that hero of democracy, is urging the united states to back mubarak "for stability's sake"----which in the abstract is understandable, but is really very last monday.

the financial times is predicting a military dictatorship

FT.com / Global insight - Only certainty is army will play dominant role

at this point, though, i don't necessarily see that as inevitable.
i do think that the army will continue to run the show backstage, but i think they stand to benefit more from remaining out of power explicitly...at least from what i've been able to piece together.

what seems more obvious is that time is critical.
there's talk of a general strike.
food and fuel are already running low, logistics are at a snail's pace and cairo is a very very large city.

things could get ugly from any number of angles soon.

i hope mubarak figures it out and stands down.

Do you think Mubarak could wait it out? As food and fuel continue to dwindle he could use it as political leverage. Just a thought.

roachboy · 01-31-2011, 08:16 AM

i dont really know. it's possible. i still think that the united states and likely europe has placed it's marbles with the army. 1.5 billion a year gets you some leverage. if that theory is right (and it's just a theory based on my take on stuff that happened friday and nothings' occurred since that shakes it for me...but am open to other readings)..then i think **may** be possible for mubarak to wait it out, but there will come a point that the army will be put in a position of having to choose...that's when things will change.

on the other hand, there's a real question as to how serious a game the united states can really play with that 1.5 billion. state said on friday that the funding was "up for review based on the outcome of the coming days"..

because if american strategic interests (read israel first of all) are contingent on the army's support of those objectives, then taking away the annual pay-off for making nice with israel would be a disaster for the americans.

so it's an interesting game.

there are several options and no way that i can see to tell which is the more likely yet.

what do you think? how does this situation look to you?

in the washington post this morning, there are indications that the obama administration may be inching closer to saying that it favors mubarak's resignation

Obama administration aligns itself with protests in Egypt with call for 'orderly transition'

but it's hardly what the headlines claim it is, a "firm alignment with the protestors"...i don't think the united states really cares that much what is transitioned to so long as this revolutionary business goes away. because that's how we roll.

dlish · 01-31-2011, 08:19 PM

the people have organised their own "million man march" today. where's farrakhan when you need him?

the army has said it wont take things into their own hands at the march, so a huge crowd is expected. could this day be the day?

Baraka_Guru · 01-31-2011, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

in the washington post this morning, there are indications that the obama administration may be inching closer to saying that it favors mubarak's resignation

but it's hardly what the headlines claim it is, a "firm alignment with the protestors"...i don't think the united states really cares that much what is transitioned to so long as this revolutionary business goes away. because that's how we roll.

There are several politicians and organizations in Canada (aside from the Prime Minister) who have taken clear stances suggesting a "peaceful transition" to a democratically elected government. It seems Harper is taking a page out of the Obama playbook by not being quite forceful in the suggestion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlish

the people have organised their own "million man march" today. where's farrakhan when you need him?

the army has said it wont take things into their own hands at the march, so a huge crowd is expected. could this day be the day?

It's hard to say. It all depends on how tightly Mubarak wishes to cling to power. He may still want to wait it out. It might have to come to what roachboy mentioned above with a general strike. If peaceful protest in large numbers doesn't work, I would imagine it would be only a matter of time before more disruptive measures are taken.

We can only hope that Mubarak caves sooner rather than later.

dlish · 02-01-2011, 12:36 AM

as expected petrol prices have started to shoot up and is the highest its been for 2 years. The obvious concern is the strategic passage of the Suez canal.

the problem with the fall of mubarak is that if the Suez fell into the wrong hands, it could wreak havoc with the worlds transportation and logistics.

i sure hope the egyptians have a contingency plan...if not we can always blame america for something. it's easy to pin it on the americans all the time.

Tully Mars · 02-01-2011, 02:47 AM

The more I read about this the US is screw regardless of any action or inaction it might decide to take. I mean I get it, we've done that to ourselves in many ways for many years. Still sucks and I hope the Egyptian people move to a real representative form of government.

Certainly amazing to watch it all unfold.

dlish · 02-01-2011, 03:35 AM

if you wanted to watch it live, Al Jazeera English website is streaming live pictures of the 'Million Man March'

you can see it here:

Al Jazeera English: Live Stream - Watch Now - Al Jazeera English

ottopilot · 02-01-2011, 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

The more I read about this the US is screw regardless of any action or inaction it might decide to take. I mean I get it, we've done that to ourselves in many ways for many years. Still sucks and I hope the Egyptian people move to a real representative form of government.

Certainly amazing to watch it all unfold.

I truly wish them success if they seek a democratic form of government. But I'm becoming very worried that the movement is quickly becoming co-opted by hard-line radical influences which seem to be very organized and gaining momentum. This is very reminiscent of Iran in 1979 where the vacuum of removing the Shah gave rise to the return of the Ayatollah Khomeini. This movement appears (to me) more orchestrated each day than grass-roots, which leads me to believe there is a considerable attempt by outside influences to shape the conflict.

dlish · 02-01-2011, 04:13 AM

who are these 'outside' influences that you speak of? the Muslim Brotherhood have not taken the lead in the demonstrations, but rather support them and call for the resignation of Mubarak. The only leader im seeing emerge who would be backed by the west is Baradei. Will be become another Karzai? i have no idea about Baradei's political credentials, but i can only see him as a stand-in for the next legitimate leader.

In terms of influence, i think the media is having more influence than any other nation on this whole thing.

today i was speaking with another egyptian friend who has family there and he seems to think that that everything is overblown and its a beatup by the media.

should egypt decide on anything other than a democratic system of government, do you think that the world will not support the egyptians for something that they choose? i'm pulling hamas parallels here, but i could be wrong.

roachboy · 02-01-2011, 05:07 AM

it's obvious that for the cretinocracy that animates cable infotainment in the united states that "concern about hardline elements" is the new red scare.

not only is the muslim brotherhood not behind this movement, but they've kept out of it as things have unfolded. their role is overstated and has been for years because it's played to the new american red-baiting and has thereby served mubarak's interests.

some analysts are saying that power is already held my suleiman and that egypt is de facto a military junta. under this scenario, mubarak is a figurehead.

the geopolitical concerns are likely one of the reasons the united states and others have put their marbles in the hands of the army.
the canal has not been disrupted to now---the logic that could extend to its disruption would be a general strike. that's the place where the shit could hit the fan. and i suspect that after today, if mubarak continues to hang on, that things will go to the general strike.
and a general strike is meaningless unless it is an instrument of pressure. cutting off flows through the suez canal would certainly jack up pressure on mubarak to go.
but at this point, that's just a scenario.
if in fact the army has all the marbles, preventing the closure would be paramount and a pretext to consolidate their position.

so it's hard to know.
what's less hard to know is that western capital is not and should not be allowed to dictate the outcome. futures trading in oil is just that. speculators do not run the world.

the images out of cairo are awe inspiring.
mubarak has to go. i hope he does soon.

ottopilot · 02-01-2011, 06:11 AM

cretinocracy indeed... do you believe Iran is not highly interested in nudging the events to their interests? If not, would you consider them, or their numerous international "associates", an inside or outside influence?

dlish · 02-01-2011, 06:34 AM

Al Jazeera is saying there's 2 Million people in tahrir square...

amazing scenes

mixedmedia · 02-01-2011, 06:36 AM

Egypt is nothing like Iran, neither politically nor socially. And this series of (what we now call) protests is nothing like the revolution in Iran, either.

ottopilot · 02-01-2011, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

Egypt is nothing like Iran, neither politically nor socially. And this series of (what we now call) protests is nothing like the revolution in Iran, either.

Perhaps, but the question is who is best prepared to fill the impending vacuum of power? Which factions are most organized, funded and aligned?

dlish · 02-01-2011, 06:52 AM

i think although iran has voiced its support for the 'peoples will', it would be quite hesitant to be very vocal in supporting the people in chance that they embolden their own people against the iranian government.

The last time the people spoke loudly in Iran after the elections last year, things got pretty nasty. so no, i dont think Iran has any business in any of this. It's a two edge sword for iran in the same way it is a two edge sword for many other countries, including the united states.

iran would and could have influence over lebanon because of the sizable shiites population there, as well as iraq, and possibly nth yemen, ... but i fail to see how they would have any sway on the egyptians demonstrations.

these demonstrations are almost faceless and leader-less. However, that could be a bad thing for a new government because the vision could fizzle out without a united approach led by a charismatic egyptian.

current word is that Baradei is not going to attend the 'million man march' for security concerns which may not go down well with the people since they are risking their lives for their own liberation

dc_dux · 02-01-2011, 06:56 AM

If I recall, the Ayatollah Khomeini was the driving force behind the Iran revolution from the very start, fermenting a protest against the secularization and westernization of Iran even when he was in exile in the early 70s.

No comparison at all to Egypt. There is no such comparable leader in the Muslim Brotherhood, even if one were to believe the hype from the US right that this is somehow a religious extremists, or even al Queda inspired, event rather than a populist movement of students and the working class.

roachboy · 02-01-2011, 06:58 AM

otto---i think that the central concern of everyone is that there be no power vacuum.
things are still quite open-ended right now, but there's no reason to expect there will be one because (and on this i think my take is correct) the us, europe and others who have a stake and influence (and the us has A LOT of both) are working with/through the army. like i said, some people are reading the situation as already a military junta---with mubarak as a figurehead---i don't see that as flying. what i expect is going to happen is that mubarak is going to be forced to stand down one way or another and that the military---likely someone other than suleiman, but maybe not (he's there after all) will start some kind of process to initiate elections.

i think it'd be way smarter for mubarak's cabinet to be a transitional affair and to give way to a credible temporary government that would oversee a move toward elections.

what would be the bad scenario would be for mubarak to try to stay in power for much longer.

you can't rely on fox or cnn for anything like coherent analysis of what's happening in egypt. or anywhere for that matter--but their collective failings are entirely evident in this case. what cnn is interesting to watch for is the parade of administration officials in damage control mode....

the images on al jazeera are stunning.

Leto · 02-01-2011, 07:05 AM

Add Jordan to the list of change....

Jordan?s Royal Palace says king has sacked government - thestar.com

Jordan’s Royal Palace says king has sacked government

AMAL HALABY Associated Press

AMMAN, JORDAN—Jordan's King Abdullah II fired his government Tuesday in the wake of street protests and asked an ex-prime minister to form a new Cabinet, ordering him to launch immediate political reforms.

The dismissal follows several large protests across Jordan— inspired by similar demonstrations in Tunisia and Egypt — calling for the resignation of Prime Minister Samir Rifai, who is blamed for a rise in fuel and food prices and slowed political reforms.

A Royal Palace statement said Abdullah accepted Rifai's resignation tendered earlier Tuesday.

The king named Marouf al-Bakhit as his prime minister-designate, instructing him to “undertake quick and tangible steps for real political reforms, which reflect our vision for comprehensive modernization and development in Jordan,” the palace statement said.

Al-Bakhit previously served as Jordan's premier from 2005-2007.

The king also stressed that economic reform was a “necessity to provide a better life for our people, but we won't be able to attain that without real political reforms, which must increase popular participation in the decision-making.”

He asked al-Bakhit for a “comprehensive assessment . . . to correct the mistakes of the past.” He did not elaborate.

The statement said Abdullah also demanded an “immediate revision” of laws governing politics and public freedoms.

When he ascended to the throne in 1999, King Abdullah vowed to press ahead with political reforms initiated by his late father, King Hussein.

Those reforms paved the way for the first parliamentary election in 1989 after a 22-year gap, the revival of a multiparty system and the suspension of martial law in effect since the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.

But little has been done since. Although laws were enacted to ensure greater press freedom, journalists are still prosecuted for expressing their opinion or for comments considered slanderous of the king and the royal family.

Some gains been made in women's rights, but many say they have not gone far enough. Abdullah has pressed for stiffer penalties for perpetrators of “honour killings,” but courts often hand down lenient sentences.

Still, Jordan's human rights record is generally considered a notch above that of Tunisia and Egypt.

Although some critics of the king are prosecuted, they frequently are pardoned and some are even rewarded with government posts.

It was not immediately clear when al-Bakhit will name his Cabinet.

Al-Bakhit is a moderate politician, who served as Jordan's ambassador to Israel earlier this decade.

He holds similar views to Abdullah in keeping close ties with Israel under a peace treaty signed in 1994 and strong relations with the United States, Jordan's largest aid donor and longtime ally.

In 2005, Abdullah named al-Bakhit as his prime minister days after a triple bombing on Amman hotels claimed by the Al Qaeda in Iraq leader, Jordanian-born Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

During his 2005-2007 tenure, al-Bakhit — an ex-army major general and top intelligence adviser — was credited with maintaining security and stability following the attack, which killed 60 people and labeled as the worst in Jordan's modern history.

Cimarron29414 · 02-01-2011, 08:19 AM

Perhaps all of this is obvious to most. I just wanted a place to write it:

I read an interesting analysis of the double-edged sword that the U.S. policy in Egypt is facing. The analysis stated that the U.S. "must" support any move towards greater freedom, as this is the basis for our birth as a nation.

However, the U.S. "must also" support it's allies in order to ensure consistent ties to governments. Basically, if we bail on our allies when there are a couple of protests in the streets (think a week ago, not today), that our allies would find us fickle and would be less likely to align. This would be bad for long term diplomacy.

The analysis concluded that it's this quandary which the Obama administration is struggling to resolve. So the wait and see approach became the only viable approach the government could take.

While I agree with this analysis in principle, I think the key mistake is that our original alliance was to a government rather than a nation. Diplomacy with nations extends to all people of that nation, not just the officials in the government. If our nation had historically taken the position that our alliance is to "Egypt" rather than "Mubarak", we could maintain a sound diplomatic position.

In truth, it's no different than what we expect from other nations. Each 4 to 8 years, a new regime with a completely different view of running a government becomes our government. We have an expectation from our allies that they will accept this as fact and work just as diligently with each regime. It seems only fair that we would do the same thing. So, for me, this exposes a failure in US diplomacy policies.

roachboy · 02-01-2011, 11:42 AM

it looks like the obama administration finally decided to do something beyond be pusillaminous and pull the plug on mubarak...but not quite...read on:

Quote:

Obama Urges Mubarak Not to Run Again
By MARK LANDLER

WASHINGTON — President Obama has told the embattled president of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, that he should not run for another term in elections in the fall, effectively withdrawing American support for its closest Arab ally, according to American diplomats in Cairo and Washington.

Al Arabiya television, citing unnamed sources, reported that Mr. Mubarak would announce in a nationwide address Tuesday evening that he would not run for another term.

The message was conveyed to Mr. Mubarak by Frank G. Wisner, a seasoned former diplomat with deep ties to Egypt, these officials said. Mr. Wisner’s message, they said, was not a blunt demand for Mr. Mubarak to step aside now, but firm counsel that he should make way for a reform process that would culminate in free and fair elections in September to elect a new Egyptian leader.

This back channel message, authorized directly by Mr. Obama, would appear to tip the administration beyond the delicate balancing act it has performed in the last week — resisting calls for Mr. Mubarak to step down, even as it has called for an “orderly transition” to a more politically open Egypt.

It was not clear whether the administration favors Mr. Mubarak turning over the reins to a transitional government, composed of leaders of the opposition movement perhaps under the leadership of Mohamed ElBaradei, or a caretaker government led by members of the existing regime, including the newly-appointed vice president, Omar Suleiman.

It was also far from certain such a pledge by Mr. Mubarak would placate the protesters in the streets of Cairo, who have made the president’s immediate and unconditional resignation a bedrock demand of their movement.

The decision to nudge Mr. Mubarak in the direction of leaving is a critical step for the United States in defining how its dealings not just with its most critical ally in the Arab world, but with the rising swell of popular anger on the streets of Cairo and in nearby countries like Jordan, Yemen, Algeria and Tunisia.

Mr. Wisner, who is now heading back to Washington, is among the country’s most experienced diplomats, and a friend of Mr. Mubarak. His mission was to “keep a conversation going,” according to a close friend of Mr. Wisner’s.

As a result, this person said, the administration’s first message to the Egyptian leader was not that he had to leave office, but rather that his time in office was quickly coming to a close. Mr. Wisner, who consulted closely with the White House, is expected to be the point person to deal with Mr. Mubarak as the situation evolves, and perhaps as the administration’s message hardens.

Mr. Wisner’s mission took shape over the weekend in a White House meeting, after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton recommended his name to the national security advisor, Thomas E. Donilon.

Reinforcing the administration’s message to Mr. Mubarak was an Op-ed article in The New York Times on Tuesday by Sen. John Kerry, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in which he advised Mr. Mubarak to bow out gracefully “to make way for a new political structure.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/wo...gewanted=print

mubarak is to make a speech soon (what that means, i dunno) in which he will announce something or another.

i am not sure that this is going far enough fast enough for the social movement that's taken shape. i think the moment of compromise from within even a temporary mubarak regime (now to september, say) is unacceptable.

so my suspicion is that one way or another, this will be a step along the way out, and not a viable transitional space.

but what do you think?

Cimarron29414 · 02-01-2011, 01:53 PM

So, he agrees to step down (giving him 7 to 10 more months to take financial advantage of his current position). Were I Egyptian, this would be an indequate proposal.

I did find it amusing that AlJazeera said there were 2M people in Cairo today and American outlets report 250K. Quite a disparity.

mixedmedia · 02-01-2011, 02:39 PM

It was my impression that the 2m figure included protesters all over Egypt, incl. Suez and Alexandria, but that there were well over 1m protesters in Tihrar Square in Cairo alone.

it probably won't happen, but at this point it would be really great if american purveyors of the news were to take a gigantic credibility hit over their coverage of these events. not only has it been shoddy but in some cases outright deceptive. we should be ashamed of ourselves if we sit back and watch Egypt demand to be given the reins of their country while we cannot even get ourselves to demand the responsible dissemination of information concerning critical international events.

Willravel · 02-01-2011, 02:42 PM

So now that Mubarak has announced he won't run again, now what? Is this the victory the people of Egypt are looking for, or is it just phase 1?

Baraka_Guru · 02-01-2011, 03:14 PM

Why do I get the feeling Mubarak's going to pull a switcheroo with Suleiman by having him replace him as president through an "election." Of course, with that setup, you can expect to have Mubarak acting as de facto president behind the scenes. You know, kinda how I suspect Putin is still kinda running the show in Russia....

samcol · 02-01-2011, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

So now that Mubarak has announced he won't run again, now what? Is this the victory the people of Egypt are looking for, or is it just phase 1?

I don't think it's enough, the elections aren't till September from what I understand. I think he needs to step down for the people to be satisfied at this point.

ASU2003 · 02-01-2011, 06:10 PM

I wonder what the next year will bring? Libya, Syria, Jordon, Pakistan, Yemen, Lebanon...

dippin · 02-01-2011, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

cretinocracy indeed... do you believe Iran is not highly interested in nudging the events to their interests? If not, would you consider them, or their numerous international "associates", an inside or outside influence?

Egypt is a mostly Sunni nation, while the regime and the majority of the population in Iran is Shia. The likelihood of Iran playing any significant role here is very, very small.

roachboy · 02-02-2011, 08:11 AM

police-sponsored "pro-mubarak" mob attacking people in tahrir square. the army is standing around watching. the interior ministry denies that the police are behind things, so all the police ids that are being confiscated from the pro-mubarak thugs must be a coincidence.

live footage:

Al Jazeera English: Live Stream - Watch Now - Al Jazeera English

the net is back up from egypt: #tahrir on twitter is streaming live updates from the square.

aceventura3 · 02-02-2011, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

it looks like the obama administration finally decided to do something beyond be pusillaminous and pull the plug on mubarak...but not quite...read on:

Quote:

Obama Urges Mubarak Not to Run Again
By MARK LANDLER

WASHINGTON — President Obama has told the embattled president of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, that he should not run for another term in elections in the fall, effectively withdrawing American support for its closest Arab ally, according to American diplomats in Cairo and Washington.

Read more: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/newrepl...#ixzz1Cq7GyWrw

but what do you think?

I think we have failed to hear the message. Mubarak is not the problem, him leaving will not address the problem and in an international economy with failed economic policies that have unintended consequences the dominoes start to fall - and we end up with scapegoat responses.

Quote:

Low wages and rising prices have sparked protests in Egypt since 2004. The economy in the country of 80 million people, the most populous in the Arab region, probably grew 6.2 percent in the last quarter of 2010, compared with 5.5 percent in the previous three months. The government says it needs growth of at least 7 percent to create enough jobs every year.

Economic growth was expected to accelerate to that level next year, the country’s former Finance Minister, Youssef Boutros Ghali, said on Dec. 13.

Headline inflation in urban areas, the rate that the central bank monitors, picked up to 10.3 percent in December from 10.2 percent the previous month. Core inflation, which excludes the prices of fruit and vegetables as well as regulated prices, accelerated to 9.65 percent as the costs of items such as rice, sugar and poultry increased.

Egyptians Face Food Inflation by Day, Roaming Looters at Night - Businessweek

Quote:

Egypt exported US$2.4 billion worth of merchandise to the United States in 2006, up 14.4% from 2005 and up 76.5% since 2002.

Egyptian imports from the U.S. rose 29.9% to $4.1 billion in 2006, up 43.1% since 2002.

In terms of the merchandise flow between the two countries, America’s trade surplus with Egypt was $1.7 billion in 2006, up 13.1% from 2002. The U.S. trade surplus with Egypt increased 60.1% in 2006 – a reversal from the 40.5% surplus decrease in 2005 from the year earlier.

Read more at Suite101: Top Egyptian Exports & Imports: Most Popular Products Traded Between Egypt & America Top Egyptian Exports & Imports: Most Popular Products Traded Between Egypt & America

The US's artificially low interest rates, US dollar devaluation and money supply management is severely hurting nations like Egypt with or without Mubarak. The price of corn alone is up over 80% in Egypt in the past year (thanks global warming fanatics and ethanol). So, what was the point in Obama requesting Mubarak to step down, and what good does he expect from it?

dc_dux · 02-02-2011, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I think we have failed to hear the message. Mubarak is not the problem, him leaving will not address the problem and in an international economy with failed economic policies that have unintended consequences the dominoes start to fall - and we end up with scapegoat responses.....

Egypt's economic growth has been among the highest in the Middle East in recent years....just not fast enough coming after years of stagnation and neglect.

The issue is not only economic. It is a corrupt regime, including rigged elections for years and a police force that acts as thugs for Mubarak.

Hardly the acts of a "scapegoat."

---------- Post added at 06:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:39 PM ----------

As to otto's cretinocracy.....one only need to look at the neo-con fear-mongering about how Mubarak is better than the radical theocracy that is "poised to take over the country."

Cretin #3 John Mccain: "El Baradei is not a friend of the United States. Second of all, he could be a figurehead for the Muslim Brotherhood ...."

Cretin #2 Bush's former US ambassador John Bolton: "the real alternative is not Jefferson democracy versus the Mubarak regime, but that it’s the Muslim Brotherhood versus the Mubarak regime...." and who suggests that if Mubakak falls, Israel should bomb Iran immediately.

And the #1 cretin: neo-con Islamaphobe Frank Gafney who insists that the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the Obama administration....."Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, is incessantly meeting with Muslim Brotherhood front organizations and I think has in the past, if not today, employed people who are associated with them."

roachboy · 02-02-2011, 03:59 PM

funny stuff ace. from bloomberg as usual you'd learn nothing whatsoever about the political situation; replacing it is some bland bourgeois concern with how bad it is to raise wages and invest in job creation because according to some wholly dysfunctional neo-liberal ideology, any political orientation that distributes wealth toward the citizenry is a priori bad. so people like you, who buy into this sort of stuff, have no real problem with brutal dictatorships. hell you like em so long as they keep stuff stable. so you cannot imagine why people in egypt would mobilize to rid themselves of a 30 year state of emergency of rigged elections and political repression, or routine torture...

i expect you'd have been out with the pro-mubarak goons that rolled into tahrir square this morning just at the time the army happened to stop patting down everyone who entered the square for weapons the way they had been for the last week or so.

this democracy business has to stop. people should learn their place, right ace?

ring · 02-03-2011, 05:21 AM

I can't connect directly to Al Jazeera English anymore. It can be found here though:

YouTube - AlJazeeraEnglish's Channel

01-30-2011, 03:08 PM	#42 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	The streaming video coverage on Al Jazeera's english-language web site is so much more insightful and penetrating than the US cable channels. I highly recommend it for 24-7 coverage. I have the US cable news channels on for comparison only. It's like night and day. What mixedmedia says just above about our country without a clear place in this event is very true. On the one hand the Saudis have denounced the protestors in no uncertain terms and support the Egyptian regime, while the Iranians support the people in the streets (disingenuous as it is, it makes sense from a realpolitik perspective). That leaves us between a rock and a hard place and demonstrates that the US is stuck behind the 8-ball while history happens... __________________ create evolution

01-30-2011, 04:34 PM	#43 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Frankly, over the year, the US has done enough damage in the Middle East. They need to stay out of this entirely (i.e. publicly and behind the scenes). __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

01-30-2011, 04:52 PM	#45 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i dont think that's an option. the us has been obviously involved up to its neck with mubarak from the outset...at this point, the us is trying to maintain a degree of policy continuity (which i still think they're doing by basically using its funding relation and personnel ties with the army) while finding some way to appear to actually support the revolt (which isn't easy as el barradei---rightly---keeps holding the americans' feet to the fire---though on this, the "street" is way out in front of him---and the us is losing credibility very quickly there) and somehow holding itself open to the possibility that mubarak won't leave---and maintain the appearance that they didnt throw an old ally under the bus...)... in principle tho you're right. but in this case principle is very abstract indeed. i continue to be amazed by the low quality of american infotainment stream coverage of egypt, btw. if you want smart television analysis and better footage watch al jazeera. i harbor some vague hope that this ill also damage the cesspool that is cnn. fox is of course beyond the pale. so stupid, so retrograde. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-30-2011, 05:09 PM	#46 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	It won't damage either CNN or Fox. The majority of their viewers are not going elsewhere for analysis. And, many, given the context in which they live, agree with the analysis. I hear what you are saying about how deep the US already is with Mubarak and the Egyptian military. The thing is, there is a very fine edge to walk here. They can't come down on the losing side of this. They need to be able to count on whomever is in charge of Egypt -- and Egypt's military. Those who think the US should intervene with direct military assistance, don't know their history (recent and not so recent). __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

01-30-2011, 11:52 PM	#47 (permalink)
dlish Currently sour but formerly Dlishs Super Moderator Location: Australia/UAE	I dont think the americans will make any sort of decision to side with anyone until they know who's going to come out the victor. Siding with a losing side will be terrible news for american foreign policy in the middle east, but at some point their indecisveness will come back to haunt them. I think they need to at least have a quiet word to mubarak and tell him to go. the only way Mubarak ( and the americans) can save face here is if he offers to stand down and remain in power as acting president until the elections. Apart from that, i dont see how things are going to work out without leaving political vacuum. __________________ An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay? - Filthy

01-31-2011, 07:28 AM	#48 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the pieces look like they may be in place for some kind of transitional phase, but obviously the situation is still open-ended. suleiman could head a transitional govt. and mubarak stand down. but that's unlikely to work because he's too close to mubarak. el barradei could be brought in to head a transitional govt. this seems to me from the outside to be the most sensible option. what i don't know (obviously) is the relation of the army to el barradei. haaretz is reporting that mubarak has agreed to talk with opposition figures. the army has also apparently pledged not to hurt anyone protesting tomorrow. Mubarak to talk with opposition as 250,000 protesters gather in Cairo - Haaretz Daily Newspaper \| Israel News the israelis are said to be quietly (that is off-camera) flipping their shit. good ole bibi, that hero of democracy, is urging the united states to back mubarak "for stability's sake"----which in the abstract is understandable, but is really very last monday. the financial times is predicting a military dictatorship FT.com / Global insight - Only certainty is army will play dominant role at this point, though, i don't necessarily see that as inevitable. i do think that the army will continue to run the show backstage, but i think they stand to benefit more from remaining out of power explicitly...at least from what i've been able to piece together. what seems more obvious is that time is critical. there's talk of a general strike. food and fuel are already running low, logistics are at a snail's pace and cairo is a very very large city. things could get ugly from any number of angles soon. i hope mubarak figures it out and stands down. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-31-2011, 08:16 AM	#50 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i dont really know. it's possible. i still think that the united states and likely europe has placed it's marbles with the army. 1.5 billion a year gets you some leverage. if that theory is right (and it's just a theory based on my take on stuff that happened friday and nothings' occurred since that shakes it for me...but am open to other readings)..then i think may be possible for mubarak to wait it out, but there will come a point that the army will be put in a position of having to choose...that's when things will change. on the other hand, there's a real question as to how serious a game the united states can really play with that 1.5 billion. state said on friday that the funding was "up for review based on the outcome of the coming days".. because if american strategic interests (read israel first of all) are contingent on the army's support of those objectives, then taking away the annual pay-off for making nice with israel would be a disaster for the americans. so it's an interesting game. there are several options and no way that i can see to tell which is the more likely yet. what do you think? how does this situation look to you? in the washington post this morning, there are indications that the obama administration may be inching closer to saying that it favors mubarak's resignation Obama administration aligns itself with protests in Egypt with call for 'orderly transition' but it's hardly what the headlines claim it is, a "firm alignment with the protestors"...i don't think the united states really cares that much what is transitioned to so long as this revolutionary business goes away. because that's how we roll. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-31-2011, 08:19 PM	#51 (permalink)
dlish Currently sour but formerly Dlishs Super Moderator Location: Australia/UAE	the people have organised their own "million man march" today. where's farrakhan when you need him? the army has said it wont take things into their own hands at the march, so a huge crowd is expected. could this day be the day? __________________ An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay? - Filthy

02-01-2011, 12:36 AM	#53 (permalink)
dlish Currently sour but formerly Dlishs Super Moderator Location: Australia/UAE	as expected petrol prices have started to shoot up and is the highest its been for 2 years. The obvious concern is the strategic passage of the Suez canal. the problem with the fall of mubarak is that if the Suez fell into the wrong hands, it could wreak havoc with the worlds transportation and logistics. i sure hope the egyptians have a contingency plan...if not we can always blame america for something. it's easy to pin it on the americans all the time. __________________ An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay? - Filthy

02-01-2011, 02:47 AM	#54 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	The more I read about this the US is screw regardless of any action or inaction it might decide to take. I mean I get it, we've done that to ourselves in many ways for many years. Still sucks and I hope the Egyptian people move to a real representative form of government. Certainly amazing to watch it all unfold. __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

02-01-2011, 03:35 AM	#55 (permalink)
dlish Currently sour but formerly Dlishs Super Moderator Location: Australia/UAE	if you wanted to watch it live, Al Jazeera English website is streaming live pictures of the 'Million Man March' you can see it here: Al Jazeera English: Live Stream - Watch Now - Al Jazeera English __________________ An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay? - Filthy

02-01-2011, 04:13 AM	#57 (permalink)
dlish Currently sour but formerly Dlishs Super Moderator Location: Australia/UAE	who are these 'outside' influences that you speak of? the Muslim Brotherhood have not taken the lead in the demonstrations, but rather support them and call for the resignation of Mubarak. The only leader im seeing emerge who would be backed by the west is Baradei. Will be become another Karzai? i have no idea about Baradei's political credentials, but i can only see him as a stand-in for the next legitimate leader. In terms of influence, i think the media is having more influence than any other nation on this whole thing. today i was speaking with another egyptian friend who has family there and he seems to think that that everything is overblown and its a beatup by the media. should egypt decide on anything other than a democratic system of government, do you think that the world will not support the egyptians for something that they choose? i'm pulling hamas parallels here, but i could be wrong. __________________ An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay? - Filthy

02-01-2011, 05:07 AM	#58 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	it's obvious that for the cretinocracy that animates cable infotainment in the united states that "concern about hardline elements" is the new red scare. not only is the muslim brotherhood not behind this movement, but they've kept out of it as things have unfolded. their role is overstated and has been for years because it's played to the new american red-baiting and has thereby served mubarak's interests. some analysts are saying that power is already held my suleiman and that egypt is de facto a military junta. under this scenario, mubarak is a figurehead. the geopolitical concerns are likely one of the reasons the united states and others have put their marbles in the hands of the army. the canal has not been disrupted to now---the logic that could extend to its disruption would be a general strike. that's the place where the shit could hit the fan. and i suspect that after today, if mubarak continues to hang on, that things will go to the general strike. and a general strike is meaningless unless it is an instrument of pressure. cutting off flows through the suez canal would certainly jack up pressure on mubarak to go. but at this point, that's just a scenario. if in fact the army has all the marbles, preventing the closure would be paramount and a pretext to consolidate their position. so it's hard to know. what's less hard to know is that western capital is not and should not be allowed to dictate the outcome. futures trading in oil is just that. speculators do not run the world. the images out of cairo are awe inspiring. mubarak has to go. i hope he does soon. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

02-01-2011, 06:11 AM	#59 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	cretinocracy indeed... do you believe Iran is not highly interested in nudging the events to their interests? If not, would you consider them, or their numerous international "associates", an inside or outside influence? __________________ "It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

02-01-2011, 06:34 AM	#60 (permalink)
dlish Currently sour but formerly Dlishs Super Moderator Location: Australia/UAE	Al Jazeera is saying there's 2 Million people in tahrir square... amazing scenes __________________ An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay? - Filthy

02-01-2011, 06:36 AM	#61 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	Egypt is nothing like Iran, neither politically nor socially. And this series of (what we now call) protests is nothing like the revolution in Iran, either. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

02-01-2011, 06:52 AM	#63 (permalink)
dlish Currently sour but formerly Dlishs Super Moderator Location: Australia/UAE	i think although iran has voiced its support for the 'peoples will', it would be quite hesitant to be very vocal in supporting the people in chance that they embolden their own people against the iranian government. The last time the people spoke loudly in Iran after the elections last year, things got pretty nasty. so no, i dont think Iran has any business in any of this. It's a two edge sword for iran in the same way it is a two edge sword for many other countries, including the united states. iran would and could have influence over lebanon because of the sizable shiites population there, as well as iraq, and possibly nth yemen, ... but i fail to see how they would have any sway on the egyptians demonstrations. these demonstrations are almost faceless and leader-less. However, that could be a bad thing for a new government because the vision could fizzle out without a united approach led by a charismatic egyptian. current word is that Baradei is not going to attend the 'million man march' for security concerns which may not go down well with the people since they are risking their lives for their own liberation __________________ An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay? - Filthy

02-01-2011, 06:56 AM	#64 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	If I recall, the Ayatollah Khomeini was the driving force behind the Iran revolution from the very start, fermenting a protest against the secularization and westernization of Iran even when he was in exile in the early 70s. No comparison at all to Egypt. There is no such comparable leader in the Muslim Brotherhood, even if one were to believe the hype from the US right that this is somehow a religious extremists, or even al Queda inspired, event rather than a populist movement of students and the working class. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

02-01-2011, 06:58 AM	#65 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	otto---i think that the central concern of everyone is that there be no power vacuum. things are still quite open-ended right now, but there's no reason to expect there will be one because (and on this i think my take is correct) the us, europe and others who have a stake and influence (and the us has A LOT of both) are working with/through the army. like i said, some people are reading the situation as already a military junta---with mubarak as a figurehead---i don't see that as flying. what i expect is going to happen is that mubarak is going to be forced to stand down one way or another and that the military---likely someone other than suleiman, but maybe not (he's there after all) will start some kind of process to initiate elections. i think it'd be way smarter for mubarak's cabinet to be a transitional affair and to give way to a credible temporary government that would oversee a move toward elections. what would be the bad scenario would be for mubarak to try to stay in power for much longer. you can't rely on fox or cnn for anything like coherent analysis of what's happening in egypt. or anywhere for that matter--but their collective failings are entirely evident in this case. what cnn is interesting to watch for is the parade of administration officials in damage control mode.... the images on al jazeera are stunning. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

02-01-2011, 07:05 AM	#66 (permalink)
Leto Junkie Location: The Danforth	Add Jordan to the list of change.... Jordan?s Royal Palace says king has sacked government - thestar.com Jordan’s Royal Palace says king has sacked government AMAL HALABY Associated Press AMMAN, JORDAN—Jordan's King Abdullah II fired his government Tuesday in the wake of street protests and asked an ex-prime minister to form a new Cabinet, ordering him to launch immediate political reforms. The dismissal follows several large protests across Jordan— inspired by similar demonstrations in Tunisia and Egypt — calling for the resignation of Prime Minister Samir Rifai, who is blamed for a rise in fuel and food prices and slowed political reforms. A Royal Palace statement said Abdullah accepted Rifai's resignation tendered earlier Tuesday. The king named Marouf al-Bakhit as his prime minister-designate, instructing him to “undertake quick and tangible steps for real political reforms, which reflect our vision for comprehensive modernization and development in Jordan,” the palace statement said. Al-Bakhit previously served as Jordan's premier from 2005-2007. The king also stressed that economic reform was a “necessity to provide a better life for our people, but we won't be able to attain that without real political reforms, which must increase popular participation in the decision-making.” He asked al-Bakhit for a “comprehensive assessment . . . to correct the mistakes of the past.” He did not elaborate. The statement said Abdullah also demanded an “immediate revision” of laws governing politics and public freedoms. When he ascended to the throne in 1999, King Abdullah vowed to press ahead with political reforms initiated by his late father, King Hussein. Those reforms paved the way for the first parliamentary election in 1989 after a 22-year gap, the revival of a multiparty system and the suspension of martial law in effect since the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. But little has been done since. Although laws were enacted to ensure greater press freedom, journalists are still prosecuted for expressing their opinion or for comments considered slanderous of the king and the royal family. Some gains been made in women's rights, but many say they have not gone far enough. Abdullah has pressed for stiffer penalties for perpetrators of “honour killings,” but courts often hand down lenient sentences. Still, Jordan's human rights record is generally considered a notch above that of Tunisia and Egypt. Although some critics of the king are prosecuted, they frequently are pardoned and some are even rewarded with government posts. It was not immediately clear when al-Bakhit will name his Cabinet. Al-Bakhit is a moderate politician, who served as Jordan's ambassador to Israel earlier this decade. He holds similar views to Abdullah in keeping close ties with Israel under a peace treaty signed in 1994 and strong relations with the United States, Jordan's largest aid donor and longtime ally. In 2005, Abdullah named al-Bakhit as his prime minister days after a triple bombing on Amman hotels claimed by the Al Qaeda in Iraq leader, Jordanian-born Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. During his 2005-2007 tenure, al-Bakhit — an ex-army major general and top intelligence adviser — was credited with maintaining security and stability following the attack, which killed 60 people and labeled as the worst in Jordan's modern history. __________________ You said you didn't give a fuck about hockey And I never saw someone say that before You held my hand and we walked home the long way You were loosening my grip on Bobby Orr http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Leto_Atreides_I

02-01-2011, 08:19 AM	#67 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	Perhaps all of this is obvious to most. I just wanted a place to write it: I read an interesting analysis of the double-edged sword that the U.S. policy in Egypt is facing. The analysis stated that the U.S. "must" support any move towards greater freedom, as this is the basis for our birth as a nation. However, the U.S. "must also" support it's allies in order to ensure consistent ties to governments. Basically, if we bail on our allies when there are a couple of protests in the streets (think a week ago, not today), that our allies would find us fickle and would be less likely to align. This would be bad for long term diplomacy. The analysis concluded that it's this quandary which the Obama administration is struggling to resolve. So the wait and see approach became the only viable approach the government could take. While I agree with this analysis in principle, I think the key mistake is that our original alliance was to a government rather than a nation. Diplomacy with nations extends to all people of that nation, not just the officials in the government. If our nation had historically taken the position that our alliance is to "Egypt" rather than "Mubarak", we could maintain a sound diplomatic position. In truth, it's no different than what we expect from other nations. Each 4 to 8 years, a new regime with a completely different view of running a government becomes our government. We have an expectation from our allies that they will accept this as fact and work just as diligently with each regime. It seems only fair that we would do the same thing. So, for me, this exposes a failure in US diplomacy policies. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

02-01-2011, 01:53 PM	#69 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	So, he agrees to step down (giving him 7 to 10 more months to take financial advantage of his current position). Were I Egyptian, this would be an indequate proposal. I did find it amusing that AlJazeera said there were 2M people in Cairo today and American outlets report 250K. Quite a disparity. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

02-01-2011, 02:39 PM	#70 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	It was my impression that the 2m figure included protesters all over Egypt, incl. Suez and Alexandria, but that there were well over 1m protesters in Tihrar Square in Cairo alone. it probably won't happen, but at this point it would be really great if american purveyors of the news were to take a gigantic credibility hit over their coverage of these events. not only has it been shoddy but in some cases outright deceptive. we should be ashamed of ourselves if we sit back and watch Egypt demand to be given the reins of their country while we cannot even get ourselves to demand the responsible dissemination of information concerning critical international events. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

02-01-2011, 02:42 PM	#71 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	So now that Mubarak has announced he won't run again, now what? Is this the victory the people of Egypt are looking for, or is it just phase 1?

02-01-2011, 03:14 PM	#72 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Why do I get the feeling Mubarak's going to pull a switcheroo with Suleiman by having him replace him as president through an "election." Of course, with that setup, you can expect to have Mubarak acting as de facto president behind the scenes. You know, kinda how I suspect Putin is still kinda running the show in Russia.... __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

02-01-2011, 06:10 PM	#74 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	I wonder what the next year will bring? Libya, Syria, Jordon, Pakistan, Yemen, Lebanon...

02-02-2011, 08:11 AM	#76 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	police-sponsored "pro-mubarak" mob attacking people in tahrir square. the army is standing around watching. the interior ministry denies that the police are behind things, so all the police ids that are being confiscated from the pro-mubarak thugs must be a coincidence. live footage: Al Jazeera English: Live Stream - Watch Now - Al Jazeera English the net is back up from egypt: #tahrir on twitter is streaming live updates from the square. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

02-02-2011, 03:59 PM	#79 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	funny stuff ace. from bloomberg as usual you'd learn nothing whatsoever about the political situation; replacing it is some bland bourgeois concern with how bad it is to raise wages and invest in job creation because according to some wholly dysfunctional neo-liberal ideology, any political orientation that distributes wealth toward the citizenry is a priori bad. so people like you, who buy into this sort of stuff, have no real problem with brutal dictatorships. hell you like em so long as they keep stuff stable. so you cannot imagine why people in egypt would mobilize to rid themselves of a 30 year state of emergency of rigged elections and political repression, or routine torture... i expect you'd have been out with the pro-mubarak goons that rolled into tahrir square this morning just at the time the army happened to stop patting down everyone who entered the square for weapons the way they had been for the last week or so. this democracy business has to stop. people should learn their place, right ace? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

02-03-2011, 05:21 AM	#80 (permalink)
ring ░ Location: ❤	I can't connect directly to Al Jazeera English anymore. It can be found here though: YouTube - AlJazeeraEnglish's Channel