xkcd

by **EsotericWombat** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 9:40 am UTC

well there we go. I guess I only framed it a certain way in my head because it's gotten seriously apeshit of late.

The demonstrators are apparently checking IDs before letting people into the crowd today. Egyptian IDs include occupation, so they've managed to exercise a level of control over who gets in. They've banned police, and have been extremely welcoming of journalists. AJE says that it will resume live coverage.

Watching the press get roughed up made me think of this scene from the West Wing

Spoiler:

by **SlyReaper** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 10:04 am UTC

The Reaper wrote:
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has said he would like to resign immediately but fears the country would descend into chaos if he did so.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12361948

It's a bit late for that surely?

by **EsotericWombat** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 10:19 am UTC

He's attempting to craft a different reality where the pro-Mubarak demonstrators outnumber the anti-government protesters, who hate Egypt and were acting on the whims of foreigners. In this reality, he wants to leave but he just loves his country too damn much to stop sending his thugs to kill the protesters

by **KnightExemplar** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 2:34 pm UTC

SlyReaper wrote:
The Reaper wrote:
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has said he would like to resign immediately but fears the country would descend into chaos if he did so.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12361948

It's a bit late for that surely?

Call me a cynic, but I think things can get much uglier than they are right now. Consider the French Revolution, where Nobles were hanged in the streets. For a revolution, things seem relatively tame, at least on one side. I just wonder how long it will be before the protesters feel like violence is necessary for self-protection (ie: large scale, organized pre-emptive attacks on the anti-protesters)

Things have gotten dicey from the journalist's point of view... but from what I've seen, protesters are still protecting the Museum for example. No matter how bad a situation is, it can always get worse.

by **The Reaper** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 3:25 pm UTC

People getting run over by cars: (graphic)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cWOK0Lfh7w

Egyptian authorities forced Vodafone to broadcast pro-government text message
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110203/ap_ ... ell_phones

Castro says Mubarak's fate is sealed.
http://links.org.au/node/2140

by **EsotericWombat** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 3:30 pm UTC

Yes, it can get worse. Want to know what the first step is towards making it worse? Make it so the press can't do their jobs.

If facts aren't verifiable, those with power will use that ambiguity to crush those with none.

Which is why President Obama has characterized access to information as a basic human right.

Also: The Jan 25th movement has it's very own Gavroche http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpVyhU6Dbl4

by **stratosfender** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 3:36 pm UTC

I always thought the USA claimed to be the paladins of democracy and human rights, but maybe there's not enough oil in egypt...

by **The Reaper** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 3:47 pm UTC

stratosfender wrote:I always thought the USA claimed to be the paladins of democracy and human rights, but maybe there's not enough oil in egypt...

Oh, plenty of us attempt to be, but not enough to make rash decisions like going in the middle of a domestic dispute in an area where most of the other people hate our guts for existing (and whatever past history they still feel a grudge about). Revolutions gotta happen on their own, otherwise you end up with shitty little puppet governments that end up as tyrannical dictators.

Hell, sometimes you still end up like that.

by **EsotericWombat** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 3:49 pm UTC

You may not have heard about this, but as it turns out, the Middle East is extremely skeptical of US intervention.

The Friday prayers specifically contained a declaration that the movement (a) Is not about religion or ideology (b) Seeks the end of emergency laws, the amending of the Constitution, and the release of political prisoners, and (c) Rejects Western intervention.

by **The Reaper** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 3:52 pm UTC

EsotericWombat wrote:You may not have heard about this, but as it turns out, the Middle East is extremely skeptical of US intervention.

The Friday prayers specifically contained a declaration that the movement (a) Is not about religion or ideology (b) Seeks the end of emergency laws, the amending of the Constitution, and the release of political prisoners, and (c) Rejects Western intervention.

All the more reason not to mess with them. Besides, we have problems of our own at home. I'd much rather see weapon dollars being used to make a country wide passenger rail system that isnt crazy expensive. :\

by **The Mighty Thesaurus** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 3:53 pm UTC

stratosfender wrote:I always thought the USA claimed to be the paladins of democracy and human rights, but maybe there's not enough oil in egypt...

That would be a pretty damning indictment if the US were an unthinking monolith.

by **bigglesworth** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 3:55 pm UTC

by **EsotericWombat** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 3:59 pm UTC

@Reaper: Egypt is extremely pro-military. We're not going to do ourselves or anyone else any favors by withdrawing aid. Using that aid to see to it that the Egyptian military defers to the will of the people is one of the few ways the United States can help without tainting the movement.

by **The Reaper** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 4:05 pm UTC

EsotericWombat wrote:@Reaper: Egypt is extremely pro-military. We're not going to do ourselves or anyone else any favors by withdrawing aid. Using that aid to see to it that the Egyptian military defers to the will of the people is one of the few ways the United States can help without tainting the movement.

Oh, I agree, I'm just against armed intervention by US soldiers in this particular situation currently.

by **Oregonaut** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 4:07 pm UTC

Ok, something confuses me here. If we're sending military aid to them, which can be shown to be a net good for them, as the Egyptian military has done a fine job of not listening to the "dark side" and going Tiananmen on the civvies, is it really bad to expect some "return" on that aid from an American perspective?

by **EsotericWombat** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 4:09 pm UTC

Did it seem like I was suggesting that? Because if so, I totally wasn't. I'm pretty sure it's called "diplomacy" when you do that.

by **Dream** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 4:10 pm UTC

The Reaper wrote:most of the other people hate our guts for existing (and whatever past history they still feel a grudge about).

Hahaha. You crack me up sometimes. "Past history". "Existing". Not, say, overtly supporting and facilitating the oppression under which they live, and exploiting it as a tool in the oppression of enemies of the United States the world over. Nah, it was probably some previous administrations silly mistake that they're just not leaving in the past like they should. And they hate your freedom, that's why they're fighting and dying to posses it themselves.

Oregonaut wrote:If we're sending military aid to them, which can be shown to be a net good for them, as the Egyptian military has done a fine job of not listening to the "dark side" and going Tiananmen on the civvies, is it really bad to expect some "return" on that aid from an American perspective?

America got a return on the military aid, it was Egypt's friendship and cooperation over decades. Why do you expect more now?

by **Oregonaut** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 4:13 pm UTC

EsotericWombat wrote:Did it seem like I was suggesting that? Because if so, I totally wasn't. I'm pretty sure it's called "diplomacy" when you do that.

Not you, but I've been discussing with people in my immediate area, and they've been suggesting that we shouldn't expect anything in return for our aid. I didn't know if I was just weird for seeing it as diplomacy as well. We help them, they thank us for our help by helping us with something that doesn't hurt them and helps us. Everyone wins.

@ Dream

Because the aid can stop if the return does. Why should we continue to aid Egypt's military if there is no benefit to us?

by **The Mighty Thesaurus** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 4:15 pm UTC

If it's ultimately a net gain for humanity, why should you think only of your own country?

by **stratosfender** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 4:16 pm UTC

don't get me wrong i'm not saying the US should make an intervention, i was just making fun of them for being the paladins of democracy

by **Oregonaut** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 4:18 pm UTC

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:If it's ultimately a net gain for humanity, why should you think only of your own country?

Because if not everyone is going to work towards the goal of a net gain for humanity it doesn't make sense to aid them?

I don't think it is wrong to wait and see what a democratic Egypt does before continuing to aid them. Why should we work against our own best interests?

by **Dream** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 4:20 pm UTC

Oregonaut wrote:Because the aid can stop if the return does. Why should we continue to aid Egypt's military if there is no benefit to us?

Personally, I think you own them big, after using them as a torture franchise for a decade. I'd like to see an announcement that the US will continue to support Egypt militarily under any future, peaceful government, with the tacit understanding that it's essentially reparations for the whole decades of dictatorship thing. Since most of the aid was spent on US companies, the return on the investment over that time makes me see this as America being heavily in Egypt's debt.

by **Oregonaut** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 4:25 pm UTC

And I'd rather not have my tax dollars going to someplace that is not going to benefit future generations of Americans, because I don't see Egyptians forgiving us regardless of what we do should they turn in an Iranian direction.. //Shrug.//

by **stratosfender** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 4:27 pm UTC

obahma what you doin wit ma tax dollers you dumb communist

I'm not sure if this is meant to be biting satire or if you're just an idiot, but either way, knock it off. -Hawk

by **Oregonaut** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 4:28 pm UTC

stratosfender wrote:obahma what you doin wit ma tax dollers you dumb communist

Seriously, troll harder.

by **bigglesworth** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 4:33 pm UTC

Well, if the Egyptian military buys American hardware it still helps them.

by **Oregonaut** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 4:35 pm UTC

Until we face American hardware on a battlefield because we expected peace and didn't get it. But, that is a risk regardless.

by **Dream** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 4:43 pm UTC

Who would have thought that paying for a few tanks wouldn't secure endless devotion and servitude? If you don't want your weapons used, maybe try the same international relations practised by the vast majority of the world: relations not based on military bribery.

by **bigglesworth** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 4:44 pm UTC

Did the US really expect peace with the Muhajideen? or did they just not care?

by **IcedT** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 4:47 pm UTC

bigglesworth wrote:Did the US really expect peace with the Muhajideen? or did they just not care?

"Peace" isn't a meaningful concept when you're talking about a bunch of international Muslim irregulars fighting commies in an unimportant bunch of hills. The basic assumption was that they would just settle down and not do much of anything ever again. But how does this relate to Egypt?

by **CorruptUser** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 4:50 pm UTC

I think the US assumed that the Muhajideen were relatively rational, and their disputes with the Russians were about territory/wealth, and religion was a cover story.

by **Dream** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 4:52 pm UTC

bigglesworth wrote:Did the US really expect peace with the Muhajideen? or did they just not care?

Mujahideen, they probably didn't care, Egypt, certainly expected peace, otherwise they would never have armed a neighbour of Israel.

CorruptUser wrote:I think the US assumed that the Muhajideen were relatively rational,

But I bet they still didn't really worry about what shape the heavily armed post-soviet Afghanistan ended up in.

by **Zamfir** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 5:05 pm UTC

Dream wrote:Who would have thought that paying for a few tanks wouldn't secure endless devotion and servitude? If you don't want your weapons used, maybe try the same international relations practised by the vast majority of the world: relations not based on military bribery.

Actually, I think military bribery is part of the international relations as practiced by the vast majority of the world. Countries that abstain from it tend to be countries with little internal arms industry, so other forms of bribery are more attractive to them.

by **IcedT** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 5:15 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:
Dream wrote:Who would have thought that paying for a few tanks wouldn't secure endless devotion and servitude? If you don't want your weapons used, maybe try the same international relations practised by the vast majority of the world: relations not based on military bribery.

Actually, I think military bribery is part of the international relations as practiced by the vast majority of the world. Countries that abstain from it tend to be countries with little internal arms industry, so other forms of bribery are more attractive to them.

^Truth. The third world isn't just swamped with American and Russian hardware, but also British, German, French, and Belgian gear. Hell, a thousand years ago not just weapons but soldiers would be given to seal deals, just look up Galloglaich or the Varangian Guard

by **EsotericWombat** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 5:31 pm UTC

Where the Mid-East is concerned, the betterment of humanity and United States interests are and ought to be the same thing. What we want is peace and stability. Has anyone here been listening to what the protesters are saying they want? It begins with a "P"

The idea that Egypt's military is somehow going to go rogue under democratic rule is... special.

Any Egyptian state will still be bound by the Camp David Accords unless it decides to reneg. And any govenment that moves to reneg is going to run up against an Egyptian military whose response will be, "what, are you idiots?"

Reneging on the treaty means tossing away 1.3 billion in military aid.

The Egyptian people have a great amount of respect and deference to the military. You'll notice that while they haven't believed a word that's escaped Mubarak's mouth, they've trusted the Egyptian Army to make good on its promises not to use force against the People. Just about every Egyptian family has a member in the military.

Remember how tough it was for the US to shut down production of the F-22? Imagine a national culture more militaristic than ours, and imagine that instead of killing one warplane, we proposed slashing a third of the military budget, and transitioning from our own hardware to whatever we can get from Russia, China, and Pakistan.

Not

Going

To

Fucking

Happen

If the military doesn't want war, there won't be war. And as long as we're training their officers, supplying their hardware, and conducting joint war games with them every two years, the military won't want war.

Seriously. The closeness of the relationship between Egypt and America's Defense Ministries/Departments can not be overstated. The two militaries' top brass freaking TRAINED WITH EACH OTHER.

But if you really need an extra perk, besides, you know, assurance from the military to wield its influence in a way that will preserve the relationship between the United States and Egypt, how about the fact that when our ships pass through the Suez Canal, they're going to get to jump the queue? You know, like they already do, because of Egypt's status as a Major Non Nato Ally

by **Zamfir** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 5:48 pm UTC

EsotericWombat wrote:The two militaries' top brass freaking TRAINED WITH EACH OTHER.

And where do you think the Persian army trained in the 1970s? Or the Eastern-European armies in the 1980s?

by **EsotericWombat** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 5:50 pm UTC

I don't believe I need to outline how the overthrow of the Shah is different from what's going on here.

by **Oregonaut** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 5:53 pm UTC

As long as it stays different, I can agree that cooperation is in our best interest. But I have been hearing rumblings of fear of persecution from...

You know, I can't even finish that thought without wondering. Christians in Egypt were afraid before, they're afraid now, honestly unless I see lynching in the streets, I'm starting to wonder how much wolf is being called.

by **Zamfir** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 5:58 pm UTC

EsotericWombat wrote:I don't believe I need to outline how the overthrow of the Shah is different from what's going on here.

I dunno. I don't have a clue what is going on, and let's be fair, neither do you or anyone else here. All I wanted to point out that it happens that armies train together as BFFs, and then turn hostile within a few years. If the new people in power do not like the US, they can kick out the pro-US officers. If they can't, they're not the people in power.

by **EsotericWombat** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 6:03 pm UTC

Bullshit. Information about what's going on over there is readily available if you're willing to look for it.

Co-operation between Christians and Muslims has been a key feature of the Jan 25th movement. During this morning's call to prayer, the Christians were forming a perimeter around the Muslims so that they didn't have to watch their backs. It's hard to imagine an amended Constitution that doesn't protect their rights.

Seriously you guys, The Al Jazeera English live blog should be required reading here:

http://blogs.aljazeera.net/node/3164

Also, is there seriously no one who has anything to say about this? FUCKING WATCH IT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpVyhU6Dbl4

Who is online