Clinton's response to the Egyptian protests

[Undesired Walrus]

“our assessment is that the Egyptian Government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people..

..with respect to Egypt, which, as your question implied, like many countries in the region, has been experiencing demonstrations. We know that they’ve occurred not only in Cairo but around the country, and we’re monitoring that very closely. We support the fundamental right of expression and assembly for all people, and we urge that all parties exercise restraint and refrain from violence.”

Wimpish condemnation for a regime that is behaving like this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/27/egypt-riot-security-force-action) and this (http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/egypt-blocks-twitter-as-unrest-grows-81726)

I know the US has a friend in the current regime for geopolitical reasons, but I thought Obama would uphold the statement he made in the campaign about another unpopular dictator:

So I agree that we have to speak responsibly and we have to act responsibly. And the reason Pakistan -- the popular opinion of America had diminished in Pakistan was because we were supporting a dictator, Musharraf, had given him $10 billion over seven years, and he had suspended civil liberties. We were not promoting democracy.

This is the kind of policies that ultimately end up undermining our ability to fight the war on terrorism, and it will change when I'm president.

What happened to that?

[PhantomWolf]

Yeah because Police in more civilised countries never go beating up protesters.

[Undesired Walrus]

They don't ban social networking sites that's for sure.

[Cleon]

Silly Egyptians. Who needs democracy and civil rights when you have a perfectly good US ally running the country?

**** you, Hillary.

[Undesired Walrus]

Tear gas too. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/26/egypt-protests)

[PhantomWolf]

Tear gas too. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/26/egypt-protests)

Wow, must be the first time that police have ever used tear gas to break up violent protests. Next you'll be telling us that they used water cannons too. :jaw-dropp

[PhantomWolf]

Silly Egyptians. Who needs democracy and civil rights when you have a perfectly good US ally running the country?

**** you, Hillary.

Yes because we all know that the best way to change Government policy is to roam about the streets in packs destroying property, setting cars alight and throwing petrol bombs at the police.

[Undesired Walrus]

Wow, must be the first time that police have ever used tear gas to break up violent protests. Next you'll be telling us that they used water cannons too. :jaw-dropp

And shutting down free expression?

[Cleon]

Yes because we all know that the best way to change Government policy is to roam about the streets in packs destroying property, setting cars alight and throwing petrol bombs at the police.

It's not Egyptian government policy that needs to change, it's the Egyptian government. A little revolution, now and then, is a good thing.

[Childlike Empress]

I always told the clowns in the anti-Chavez threads that i'll start taking them seriously if they show at least equal outrage over Mubarak, who does everything they feign to be worried Chavez might do in the future - since decades.

Epic hypocrisy.

[Undesired Walrus]

Yes because we all know that the best way to change Government policy is to roam about the streets in packs destroying property, setting cars alight and throwing petrol bombs at the police.

Isn't this essentially the French and US revolutions?

[WildCat]

It's not Egyptian government policy that needs to change, it's the Egyptian government. A little revolution, now and then, is a good thing.
Yes, I'm sure that a revolution in Egypt would produce a liberal democracy, and the Muslim Brotherhood would have no influence at all.

I also believe in the Tooth Fairy.

[Cleon]

Yes, I'm sure that a revolution in Egypt would produce a liberal democracy, and the Muslim Brotherhood would have no influence at all.

I also believe in the Tooth Fairy.

Fortunately, the Egyptian people aren't buying into the "we must support Mubarak's dictatorship or the MB will get into power" malarkey. That excuse has worked very well keeping Mubarak in power all these years.

[ANTPogo]

Yes, I'm sure that a revolution in Egypt would produce a liberal democracy, and the Muslim Brotherhood would have no influence at all.

I also believe in the Tooth Fairy.

There are more options (and more likely results to these protests) than either of those two extremes. This isn't the American Revolution, but neither is it the Iranian Revolution.

Not yet, at least.

[Travis]

Isn't this essentially the French and US revolutions?

More the French than the US one.

But protests don't do much. If you really want to accomplish anything you shouldn't be wasting time shouting slogans in the street you should be making preparations to physically seize the seats of power via force.

[geni]

Yes, I'm sure that a revolution in Egypt would produce a liberal democracy, and the Muslim Brotherhood would have no influence at all.

I also believe in the Tooth Fairy.

It looks rather like much of the Muslim Brotherhood's support is simply due to being the closest the place has to a meaningful opposition.

[Undesired Walrus]

Yes, I'm sure that a revolution in Egypt would produce a liberal democracy, and the Muslim Brotherhood would have no influence at all.

I also believe in the Tooth Fairy.

Where is this statement going? Cleon says the Egyptian Government must go. Do you disagree?

[PhantomWolf]

Where is this statement going? Cleon says the Egyptian Government must go. Do you disagree?

Do you believe that democratically elected Governments ahould be toppled by violence rather then ballots?

And yes I know that Egyptian elections have extremely low turn out, but that squarely lies on the shoulders of those that don't exercise their right to vote.

[Childlike Empress]

Do you believe that democratically elected Governments ahould be toppled by violence rather then ballots?

And yes I know that Egyptian elections have extremely low turn out, but that squarely lies on the shoulders of those that don't exercise their right to vote.


LOL

[WildCat]

Where is this statement going? Cleon says the Egyptian Government must go. Do you disagree?
I'm no supporter of Mubarak. But remember the circumstances under which he took power.

[DC]

I'm no supporter of Mubarak. But remember the circumstances under which he took power.

:eye-poppi

[ANTPogo]

Do you believe that democratically elected Governments ahould be toppled by violence rather then ballots?

I sure don't.

But what has that got to do with the current Egyptian government, which is only marginally more democratically elected than Saddam's was?

[applecorped]

It's not Egyptian government policy that needs to change, it's the Egyptian government. A little revolution, now and then, is a good thing.

Are you a Tea Bagger?

[Mycroft]

It's not Egyptian government policy that needs to change, it's the Egyptian government. A little revolution, now and then, is a good thing.

So...who in Egypt do you support to take over?

[PhantomWolf]

I sure don't.

But what has that got to do with the current Egyptian government, which is only marginally more democratically elected than Saddam's was?

So would you rather there was a marginally democratic government who was making the governing of the country more secular and opening it up to more of the democratic processes, or the Muslim Brotherhood that want to run it under sharia law?

[kellyb]

I'm no supporter of Mubarak. But remember the circumstances under which he took power.

Sure:
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051224-1.html

[PhantomWolf]

So...who in Egypt do you support to take over?

I'd like to see El-Ghad get the support it needs to do that, but I don't believe that you can do such a thing through violence. Eygptians need to make an effort to actually get out and vote regardless of what the current government does. Only then do they have a legitimate claim for change.

[Undesired Walrus]

Do you believe that democratically elected Governments ahould be toppled by violence rather then ballots?

And yes I know that Egyptian elections have extremely low turn out, but that squarely lies on the shoulders of those that don't exercise their right to vote.

Egypt is a democracy?

[Undesired Walrus]

It's not like the Brotherhood are stamped out by Mubarak, they still run as Independents or under alternative names. As advocates of Freedom of Speech rightly say on this forum, you outlaw one, another springs up in its place.

And it is far from certain they would do well in free and fair elections:

Egypt's secular opposition argues that the government stokes fear of the Brotherhood to quash real democratic change. "This is the myth that Mubarak has been selling for 30 years," says Ibrahim Issa, the former editor of the influential newspaper al-Dustour, who was recently dismissed because, he says, of his overt criticism of the regime. (The newspaper's owners say the dismissal was due to an internal dispute.) "He is using the Muslim Brotherhood as a scarecrow. Mubarak says, 'It's either me or the jihadists.' [It's] his only guarantee for staying in power."

..In numerical terms, it doesn't present much of a threat. Membership is in the low hundreds of thousands, and in a fair election, the Islamists would not be expected to win — in 2005, only 3% of the population voted for the Brotherhood. And some of those votes were in protest of an inept regime rather than wholehearted endorsements of the Islamist cause. "Many of the people who vote for the Muslim Brothers are doing it in order to vote against the National Democratic Party," says Sayed al-Badawi, the head of the Wafd, Egypt's oldest legal opposition party.

What's scary about the Muslim Brotherhood? (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2032260-2,00.html#ixzz1CKCpqDTh)

I remember several people here saying that when the UK Government outlawed Islam4Uk, all it did was boost their cause, recognition and support. The same is said in the article above:


Legal recognition could diminish the Brothers' appeal, says human-rights activist Hossam Bahgat of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights: "Once you allow them into the political race, they become politicians, and they are judged as politicians."

Legal status would also undermine the Brotherhood's claim to victimhood.

[PhantomWolf]

Egypt is a democracy?

Check the quote in your next post. I have already acknowledged that their elections are not up to western standards, but all Eygptians are entitled to vote in the elections. Most of them don't. Regardless of the intimidation, vote fixing and other things, if the population don't vote they are giving the current Government tacit approval.

Consider some of the changed happening in Zimbabwe after people got out and voted despite threats and intimidations. Yes it's going to take longer to fix that place, but they have made a few steps in the right direction and since the power sharing started, the economy has actually turned around showing growth while the rest of the world was going through resession (not that they could have gotten much lower.)

[Undesired Walrus]

So the Egyptian Government has shut down the Internet and all Mobile phone communication.

Does anyone still want to pretend this is a regime worth supporting?

[Meadmaker]

Yes because we all know that the best way to change Government policy is to roam about the streets in packs destroying property, setting cars alight and throwing petrol bombs at the police.

Well, yes.

How else are you going to do it, assuming there are no real elections?



ETA: I'm not saying that in this particular instance I think it's a good idea. Whatever government emerges after this round of protest and possible revolution may be worse than the current government. I just was noting that if you live in a dictatorial society, and you want to change policy, you will rarely have any success without throwing some petrol bombs at police.

[Cleon]

So the Egyptian Government has shut down the Internet and all Mobile phone communication.

Does anyone still want to pretend this is a regime worth supporting?

It's this bizarre circular logic:

"We must support a dictator like Mubarak, because as bad as he is he supports our ally, Israel."
Why is supporting Israel so important?
"Because it's the only democracy in the Middle East."
*Facepalm*

[WildCat]

:eye-poppi
You do know he was assasinated by army officers who killed him for making peace with Israel, don't you?

I'm saying you don't know who the army supports or what kind of government would emerge from a post-Mubarak Egypt. Do you think another Israeli-Arab war would be an acceptable outcome? Or an Egypt that sends arms to Hamas?

[WildCat]

Sure:
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051224-1.html
:confused:

[Undesired Walrus]

It's this bizarre circular logic:

"We must support a dictator like Mubarak, because as bad as he is he supports our ally, Israel."
Why is supporting Israel so important?
"Because it's the only democracy in the Middle East."
*Facepalm*

How far does it go before we no longer tolerate the enemy of our enemy? Does a regime like the Taliban get billions in funding each year because it is effective at preventing a communist takeover?

Notice the Republicans who were criticising Obama for being almost silent over the Iranian election protests aren't doing the same regarding his silence over Mubarak.

[Thunder]

Obama should stay neutral...and let Clinton show support for the protestors.

[Undesired Walrus]

You do know he was assasinated by army officers who killed him for making peace with Israel, don't you?

I'm saying you don't know who the army supports or what kind of government would emerge from a post-Mubarak Egypt. Do you think another Israeli-Arab war would be an acceptable outcome? Or an Egypt that sends arms to Hamas?

I'm sure a CBT therapist would advice you that you cannot live your life on 'what-ifs' and excessive catastophising. It's the same kind of non-reasoning that stops an agoraphobe from leaving the house ("What if I have the same panic attack I did last time? What if I faint? What if").

[PhantomWolf]

Well, yes.

How else are you going to do it, assuming there are no real elections?



ETA: I'm not saying that in this particular instance I think it's a good idea. Whatever government emerges after this round of protest and possible revolution may be worse than the current government. I just was noting that if you live in a dictatorial society, and you want to change policy, you will rarely have any success without throwing some petrol bombs at police.

My main issue is that there are elections, even if they are weighted in favour of the Govt. It doesn't matter that they are weighted though, because most people don't vote, and last year a lot of the opposition partys boycotted them.

I'd have more support for them if they got all their supporters to the polls and showed that there was an overwhelming demand for legitimate change, and Mubarak rigged it to stop it from occuring, or simply ignored the election results.

Since this didn't happen, the evidence isn't there that the protesters actually have the majority on their side, and that this isn't a case of a violent minority using extreme tactics to take down a, no matter how poorly, duely elected Government.

Refusing to use elections and then turning to violence to get your way is not acceptable in my beliefs. Violence is only acceptable after all other peaceful methods have been tried and failed, and that has not been done.

[Thunder]

You do know he was assasinated by army officers who killed him for making peace with Israel, don't you?

I'm saying you don't know who the army supports or what kind of government would emerge from a post-Mubarak Egypt. Do you think another Israeli-Arab war would be an acceptable outcome? Or an Egypt that sends arms to Hamas?

are you suggesting the USA support the current Egyptian dictator simply because its "good for the Jews Israel"?

[Undesired Walrus]

Obama should stay neutral..

Why? What ever happened to 'give me liberty or give me death' or 'live free or die'? The latter is good enough for the leafy suburbs of New Hampshire but not for the burning streets of Cairo?

I've heard it frequently mentioned on these forums that Obama should get more like Reagan, who called the Soviet Union an 'evil empire' rather than an 'entity with ideological differences'. It seems one is only allowed to get tough when they have nothing to lose.

We're allowed to proclaim the black and white statement 'no negotiation with terrorists' but not 'no negotiation with dictators'?

[Thunder]

Why? What ever happened to 'give me liberty or give me death' or 'live free or die'?

we don't live in the 1700's anymore. we have matured.

[WildCat]

I'm sure a CBT therapist would advice you that you cannot live your life on 'what-ifs' and excessive catastophising. It's the same kind of non-reasoning that stops an agoraphobe from leaving the house ("What if I have the same panic attack I did last time? What if I faint? What if").
:rolleyes:

[WildCat]

are you suggesting the USA support the current Egyptian dictator simply because its "good for the Jews Israel"?
No, I'm saying that there are very real implications for regional stablity at play here. Revolutions often have disastrous outcomes.

[WildCat]

Why? What ever happened to 'give me liberty or give me death' or 'live free or die'? The latter is good enough for the leafy suburbs of New Hampshire but not for the burning streets of Cairo?
What evidence do you have that the end result of this will be freedom and liberty?

It took 150,000 US troops to enforce the transition to democracy in Iraq, and even then the final result is something less than what most in the west would call freedom and liberty.

The protestors (like the US and allies) may well find that toppling a regime is the easy part, what comes next is much, much more difficult. And they won't have 150,000 western troops there battling the extremists so the moderates can transition to power.

[DC]

You do know he was assasinated by army officers who killed him for making peace with Israel, don't you?

I'm saying you don't know who the army supports or what kind of government would emerge from a post-Mubarak Egypt. Do you think another Israeli-Arab war would be an acceptable outcome? Or an Egypt that sends arms to Hamas?

I want just that the people get the government they actually want. and i am not to convinced that they want it headed by Mubarak.
what will come if it changes will be seen. I do indeed not know who will come. But we will have to deal with it, one way or another.

I think some interim government and then soon elections would be ideal. Then we will see what the people want and with what we will have to deal with in future.
But what i wish doesn't influence them, they are grown up, they will decide themselves when they are let to.

[Undesired Walrus]

It took 150,000 US troops to enforce the transition to democracy in Iraq, and even then the final result is something less than what most in the west would call freedom and liberty.

Why do you assume that situation in Egypt will parallel Iraq? I'm sure you would agree that the current circumstances of an internal revolution are entirely different to an external invasion. Besides, Egypt has a different history and association with democracy, a different situation with regards to Sunni-Shia rivalry (Shias number in the small thousands) and its opposition Islamist movement is not nearly as popular as it is made out to be. The street protests have been overwhelmingly devoid of cries for theocracy (a la Iran 1979) and instead entrenched in calls for democracy.

[Undesired Walrus]

we don't live in the 1700's anymore. we have matured.

It is still the state motto in NH.

[Thunder]

No, I'm saying that there are very real implications for regional stablity at play here. Revolutions often have disastrous outcomes.

would you support a new Egyptian govt. that offered much more freedom, humane policies, and equality....but wanted to suspend economic relations with Israel?

[WildCat]

would you support a new Egyptian govt. that offered much more freedom, humane policies, and equality....but wanted to suspend economic relations with Israel?
Are they sendfing arms to Hamas? Are they honoring the treaty Sadat forged?

[Thunder]

Are they sendfing arms to Hamas? Are they honoring the treaty Sadat forged?

end to economic relations and downgrading of diplomatic relations.

....but still respecting Israel's borders as defined by the Camp David accord.


and no, no arms smuggling to Hamas.

[WildCat]

end to economic relations and downgrading of diplomatic relations.

....but still respecting Israel's borders as defined by the Camp David accord.


and no, no arms smuggling to Hamas.
They're certainly free to do those things if they wish.

[Darth Rotor]

Thunder, why would Hillary come out in support of the protesters?

[Childlike Empress]

Here's a great little video removing the propaganda filter from Clinton's response:

rBuMuzhvYeA

[marksman]

Egypt has a different history and association with democracy
It's different, but I see no evidence that it's more amenable to democracy than Iraq. When the Ottomon Empire fell in 1914, Egypt fell under British colonial control. In 1922, the British granted Egypt a sham independence, while ruling the "Kingdom of Egypt" as a puppet regime. In 1952, Nasser led a military coup, which finally ousted the British. Nasser fell into the Soviet sphere for a decade or so. When Nasser died, Sadat succeeded him and decided the Americans could make a better offer. He threw out the Soviets and allied with America and then concluded a peace treaty with Israel.

In 1981, he was assassinated and Mubarak succeeded him and ran the country for 40 years.

Nowhere in there is any hint of Egyptians having a meaningful experience with democracy. Mubarak's democracy is a sham. So was Sadat's. So was Nasser's. Before that, Egypt was a cog in the British Empire, and before that, in the Ottoman Empire.

Right now, the protests are anti-Mubarak. I don't see that they are going to result in liberal democracy even if Mubarak is ousted. I hope I'm wrong. ElBaradei, as an opposition leader, has a lot going for him. I hope it gets better. I see very little indication it will.

You're right. Iraq is different from Egypt. But looking at Egypt qua Egypt doesn't fill one with a whole lot of hope either.

[Darth Rotor]

Nowhere in there is any hint of Egyptians having a meaningful experience with democracy. Mubarak's democracy is a sham. So was Sadat's. So was Nasser's. Before that, Egypt was a cog in the British Empire, and before that, in the Ottoman Empire.

Right now, the protests are anti-Mubarak. I don't see that they are going to result in liberal democracy even if Mubarak is ousted. I hope I'm wrong. ElBaradei, as an opposition leader, has a lot going for him. I hope it gets better. I see very little indication it will.

You're right. Iraq is different from Egypt. But looking at Egypt qua Egypt doesn't fill one with a whole lot of hope either.

Well put. Would that more people would see through your lens.

But for the sake of argument, I'd like to hold out some hope for the people in Egypt. They can aspire to a more democratic system, and if nobody thinks it will be an overnight sensation, can maybe put one together, one that is Egyptian in character.

The odds may be long, but I'd like to see that nag run the race anyway!

[marksman]

Me too. I hope nobody confuses pessimism with pro-autocracy. I'm glad Mubarak is being ousted. I hope he is replaced with something better.