Egyptian Revolution Live [video](english.aljazeera.net) |
Egyptian Revolution Live [video](english.aljazeera.net) |
What I can't believe is the irresponsible behavior with taking down the Internet in a civilized country smack-dab in the middle of the World. That reckless behavior only goes to show how out of touch the current regime really is. There's no thinking whatsoever in how catastrophic (economically, politically, morally) such an action really is.
Yet beyond that, I'm just worried. I'm terrified actually. While the regime needs to change, I'm not yet sure about the future. Will Islamists seize power? Will another corrupt official do that? Will Chaos and Anarchy ensue?
The trouble with Tunisia is that we've yet to see the results of the revolution. Things are developing...but we don't yet know if it's successful or not.
Not to mention that certain events are making me very sad. I do realize it's hard to mass-protest in a very sane manner...but something like lighting up the National Democratic Party's HQ on fire, when it's across the street from the National Museum (King Tut + 100,000 other priceless treasures) and there's a huge threat of the fire spreading...just worries me. I remember when Iraq was first attacked; the first things that were looted were priceless treasures from Mesopotamia.
Fear of Islamists is what kept Mubarak in power for the last 30 years. We have no trouble dealing with blood-thirsty, Quran waving Islamist criminals; U.S. is happily in bed with Saudi Arabia and likes the taste of Islam there. Egypt shouldn't be different.
King Tut's relics are the least of my worries.
-------
Also, while I get what you're saying, Russia did lose a lot of priceless artifacts from the Winter Palace.
Instead of travelling to St. Petersburg to see Raphael's Alba Madonna, I now have to go to the National Gallery of Art in Washington. The Winter Palace also lost other great works of art from Botticelli, van Eyck, Rembrandt, Titian, among others.
We've had a long history of that happening to us. The Rosetta Stone's in Britain, Nefertiti's in Berlin, and out of 36 Ancient EGYPTIAN obelisks only 9 are actually in the country of Egypt. The city of Rome, by itself, boasts 8. 9 if you count the Vatican.
So, no. I'm actually really worried about our relics.
The chances are though that that is because they're not reporting on their 'home turf', does that extend to them reporting on Arab affairs as well?
It's the kind of journalism we're just not used to anymore in the U.S.
Al Jazeera does not cover issues that are uncomfortable to Qatar - whether it's the WikiLeaks Qatar documents, where they urge the US to strike Iran or issues within Qatar itself. Their hard-hitting coverage is limited to issues that won't harm Qatar's interests - in much the same way USSR's Pravda might cover American corruption.
It's amazing how easy it is to fool people with just a slightly more sophisticated approach.
My impression comes mostly through direct conversations with Israelis who were at certain reported-upon events and have a very different account of how the events transpired than were reported on Al Jazeera. Of course, my sources could be mistaken and/or disingenuous, and are certainly biased.
The NYTimes shared comments (and criticisms) about Al Jazeera today: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/28/world/middleeast/28jazeera...
Although it's possible it has improved since 2003, the Arabic version of Al Jazeera back then was even worse than Fox News in what they reported and how they reported it.
I'm fairly convinced the english version they've been cultivating is a massive coup for mind share in the US. They've done an absolutely amazing job at convincing the intelligent elite that they're an unbiased news source to be trusted. My experience is exactly the opposite.
http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/eryzu/al_jazeera_...
This has been a long time coming for Egypt and this revolution will most likely succeed as well.
The only concerning outcome, which is to be determined, is if Egyptians are up to the challenge of establishing a respected level of checks and balances. Without this, all is lost.
Now everybody is asking "who will be the next president". Now that's the wrong question considering the importance of stability. ElBaradei will not grant stability. Somebody else will not grant stability. The only way to have stability is to have an institutionalized system of checks and balances where not a single member can override the system and become single leader.
The lack of such a system was what allowed the rise to power of a dictator in the first place. And without such a system it will happen again.
To really fix Egypt and bring lasting freedom - checks and balances. Because the right question to ask is: How will they implement multiple sources with power.
Let's see if the protesters can figure this one out.
As an American, I am glad that the arab youth is escaping the imperialistic shadow that US has casted over the middle east. As an American, I lament that this is the end of the US dominance. As an American, I fear that the revolution around the world will force US into a totalitarian government. As an American, I hope that true democracy will ultimately triumph.
If this revolution goes through it's 50/50, liberal democracy (ElBaradei) vs Islamic theocracy (Muslim Brotherhood). It's that 50% chance that keeps us supporting Mubarak.
American foreign policy is deigned to secure American national security- we have our hands full in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq, and Somalia. The last thing we need right now is to have to worry about Egypt as well.
the last thing you got now.
it was only a matter of time things started to blow off. if you look at the demographics in the arab countries (+ Egypt) and their lack of perspective, it is/was very careless to think it will continue just like the last decades.
If that were the case, I think American leaders would sleep relatively well. The issue is that if those latest elections had not been rigged by Mubarak, then the Muslim Brotherhood would have won by a clear majority. I think the narrative that Western media is pushing about El Baradei being the future leader of Egypt is just the sort of somewhat fanciful thinking that has brought us to where we are today.
The power of technology only serves as a multiplier for the effectiveness of the people utilizing it. It does not change their hopes, or fears, or tastes, or biases.
It took me a long time to realize in my euphoria about the implications of widespread access to technology, that the Human Element is the weakness in the system...
Or its strength.
Say what you want about how repressive Mubarak's regime is (and it certainly is hostile to the world view i hold dear), but this is a burning house that could easily torch the entire neighborhood.
Egypt's current regime is secular and not hostile to Israel, which are two things we can not take for granted for whatever regime replaces Mubarak.
In so far as the entire world has stakes in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the revolution in Egypt poses a variety of very real risks both in terms of foreign policy for nations like the US, and in terms of potential for lives lost.
This is quite the statement. To me personally shocking, but sadly not shocking in general.
Allow me to rephrase:
We must hold an entire nation hostage to a brutal and incompetent dictator, otherwise who knows what their foreign policy will be.
My reply to that is, what gives anyone the right to trade other people's rights, freedoms, and frequently even lives, for hypothetical political fallout?
Doe Egypt have enough nukes to end the world? Do they have any nukes?
Are we sure another regime will be worse? How much worse? What's the worst that could happen realistically? Is us completely betraying our own American ideals of truth, justice and freedom for all, worth it?
If at all possible the West should avoid to let the enemy of its enemy become its friend.
And converting a government to democracy always comes with a price. I am sure the arab youth is ready and willing for that result.
That would end the war on terror, on drugs, save the US economy and make them super popular around the world again.
Have you done any studying of the history of revolutions? The track record on what usually happens after them ain't so good...
Sometimes Americans underestimate how poorly and bloody and vicious revolutions usually are. Something like 80%+ of them wind up worse than the original regime they overthrew. If you've never looked into, I could try to compile some sort of list of revolutions. It really wouldn't be a pretty list. And revolutions led by angry youth have an even worse track record than the general one...
If they weren't the only democracy, people might start making comparisons.
Israel has been able to count on relatively peaceful relations with Egypt for the last few decades, meaning that since the treaty with Jordan they've only had to worry about one hostile immediate neighbor. Suddenly having to worry about Egypt as well as Lebanon would represent a big change.
Turkey is the ONLY secular democracy in the region.
I make no such assumption, but I'm not willing to support dictatorship in order to avoid dictatorship. Straussian compromises of democratic values quite honestly make my blood run cold.
you should worry more that this revolution moves Egypt more on the progress path (whichever you find right yourself), than what happens to some relics (many of which you lost to colonial powers anyway).
It is naïve to not ask what the potential outcomes will be to toppling Mubarak, especially if one cares about about human rights.
This is the exact same sort of reasoning that Neo-cons used for why Iraq should be invaded, damn the consequences! Is Iraq a better place? Has the lot of Iraqis improved? If you believe it has, at what cost in terms of lives and treasure?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebelli...
...it errs on the side of too much information though, and doesn't distinguish between successful/failed, and major/minor. Also, stuff like "the Mexican drug war" is on there from 2006-present - it clearly has elements of violence against the current government, but I think it's fair to say their objective isn't regime change.
I'm having a hard time coming up with a good source, because "revolution" is used for a lot of stuff in Google and having hard time narrowing it down. I study a lot of history, though, and the vast majority of revolutions go really poorly... you almost always wind up with a revolutionary military government in charge, which don't historically govern well. The U.S. is kind of a weird outlier in revolutionary history, in that the first President was a military leader who honestly didn't want the job, and abdicated after eight years to civilian government... that just doesn't ever happen. Like, ever.
The middle east holds a similar web of interconnected alliances and individual flash points that histories of WWI point out in Europe.
Reform and/or toppling of regimes in the middle east are certainly long over due, but uncontrolled destabilization is an incredibly risky and dangerous proposition, and nations like Iran are an example of what can result.
One can hardly claim that that would be an outcome resulting in improved conditions for Egyptians.
Both povs are short sighted. I do not favor either support for brutal dictatorships, or the rabid furor that Mubarak opponents have begun to spout (either out of a loathing for Mubarak, or a loathing of the US).
But people who support the collapse of the Mubarak regime without an acknowledgment and understanding that there are factors like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt are like the Neo-cons supporting GWBs push into Iraq w/o a plan for setting up credible institutions, and defusing tensions after the immediate conflagration.
Mark my words, there will be even more suffering and political upheaval in the power vacuum after Mubarak.
That's an adult lifetime.
That doesn't change the fact that their international reporting, much like the BBC's, is quite good. To compare it to Pravda is ridiculous.
The UK is a democracy where some of the taxpayer's money goes towards financing the BBC.
Qatar is a monarchy, where the control of the nation is passed within Al Thani dyansty which uses some of its oil/gas revenues to finance Al Jazeera.
When the BBC reports something that is inconvenient to the UK government, as it often does, there's no real risk involved. Al Jazeera simply does not report things inconvenient to Qatar's Emir, with good reason.
The UK is a constitutional monarchy.
Going by your own statement, if Israel is declared a Jewish state but a secular democracy in "practice", then all rights granted to others are only nominal and on case by case basis. There is absolutely no separation between Church and state.
So no, even Denmark is far from a secular state, either by law or by practice.
That's like wishing for an avalanche to start. The problem with avalanches is that you do not know when they'll stop, potentially you're talking about thousands or even tens of thousands of people to die. If the end result is worth it or not can not be known at this point in time. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
That is a form of democracy. I'd prefer to wish it ending well than to wish it not happening at all.
2.) The avalanche has already started, despite our massive meddling.
3.) US should not have a say in middle east, period. What gives us the right?
Don't put words in my mouth. If democracy is the outcome then that's good. There are many other possible outcomes.
> 2.) The avalanche has already started, despite our massive meddling.
I don't know who 'our' is but I had no part in that, not even by proxy. The avalanche may have started, it may not have, it may be that this will burn out or it may be that regime change in Egypt is now inevitable. If it is I hope for it to happen quickly and in a way that will be a model for other states to follow, if it turns out that it gets messy (or even very messy) with a bad or worse outcome than the current situation then I would hope for the avalanche to be restricted to Egypt. Beware of exchanging the devil that you know for one that you haven't met yet.
> 3.) US should not have a say in middle east, period. What gives us the right?
I agree with that, but again, I'm not a part of 'us'.
Chances are that there will be no democracy in Egypt but that a little sideshow called 'the Muslim brotherhood' will seize power.
I remember Persian students taking to the streets to overthrow the dictator and to improve things. That's called "The Islamic Republic of Iran" today and I every much doubt that people in general think that is an improvement over the arguably very bad regime of the Shah.
Sorry to be pedantic, but if gas prices were high enough to make electric cars economical, then electric cars wouldn't have to be mandated by the government. That's how markets and prices work.
I would think that's actually very far from a simple idea. How do you evaluate the quality of reporting? By going to where the news happened and researching it yourself? By choosing the source that confirms what you wanted to believe?
If your answer is "by seeing who reports about Kim Kardashian and who interviews Chomsky", then this is exactly the trick AJ is pulling on you. Al Jazeera is well financed and can afford not to pander to ratings (that's the English version - the Arab version is a crasser version of Fox). This provides the appearance of quality reporting, until you dig deeper and see certain stuff is just not reported on at all.
It's a very simple idea that if someone gives you money, you're indebted to them. I'd rather my network indebted to the UK taxpayer than to the Qatar ruling family.
I understood the subtle point your making, but what struck me was that it is roughly the heuristic I use to choose between whether to visit CNN.com or DemocracyNow.org on any particular day. And yes I prefer hearing what Chomsky has to say rather than Kimmie.
As I mentioned, the biggest ships today already can't use the Panama canal, and yet we keep building bigger ships because despite the extra time and cost of going 'round South America, it is still profitable.
Now would going around Africa be that much different? For huge container ships? For the US navy?
Suez is real issue if you want to move that force into Mediterranean.