No Coup in Egypt
Seriously WTH , now the spin doctors are saying that a coup did NOT take place in Egypt...must be the same idiots that thought that it wasnt a terrorist attack in Benghazi on 9/11
lets see the sitting President is in custody and not in communication with the outside world, the military has taken over the country...what do they call that, a "power shift" or a "personnel change"
If it's a coup then they lose USA funding. I'm sure that's what it's all about.
"Personnel change" ... sounds about right :-)
Congress is holding up the delivery of the last 4 F-16 fighter jets.
I think it's kind of amazing that the Egyptian military has a lot of power, and they seem to have exercised admirable restraint in using it.
If we were talking about Obama, I would call it a miracle!
Originally Posted by BonMallari
The U.S. is prevented by law, from helping a country that is taken over by a military coup. Whether there was a definition before or not, I don't know, but at least as of now we are deciding to define it as when a military takes over power and seizes it for itself. Since the military turned over power to a transitional government, no coup occurred. That allows us to continue funding the military. A situation that has worked well for our interests. It also removes the Muslim brotherhood from power, which I think is a good thing.
I could tend to agree with you on this, Henlee. The MB acquiring the power in Egypt turned out to be a not-so-good idea since they chose to use the power to advance their agenda with disregard for what the population wanted.
I'd suspect that the population favored the social and economic freedoms they had with Muburak, without the dictatorship & the attendant abuses that come with dictatorship. Instead the MB took away the former, without improving on the latter.
Makes me wonder that if there are some sane people nurtured in the military, why isn't there anyone from the military who is, perhaps, retired, that could make a good leader.
I strongly suspect, that they think it would look really bad and therefore avoid it. I am sure they will find some competent leader. The MB was the only organization that had a political party set up and ready to go for the first round of elections. Hopefully their people will be a little more ready for democracy this time around.
I think you are correct, Henlee, about "readiness" for democracy. It is very difficult for some cultures to fully understand that democracy or a republic can be hard work. A population can know what it wants, but not quite know what it takes to make it so. It takes organization, leadership, and also patience.
If one has grown up just following rules imposed by a dictator, they do not really understand how a democracy requires individuals to learn about issues and support issues ... to make the rules themselves. Is that perhaps why there are low-information voters right here? It is easier to vote for someone based on just one issue rather than understand and evaluate a broader range of issues.
There are many countries where this would be a problem, but especially in cultures where tribalism has dominated the culture.
The US had one advantage in that it started on its journey made up of individuals that left dictatorial places. They were the "mavericks" who believed in making their own destiny and were willing to work hard toward that goal. In that context it doesn't seem surprising that they conjured up a form of govt that required some attention from the people the govt would serve. When we look at the Pilgrims arriving in 1620 (or so), and the American Revolution starting in the 1770s, we see that it took 150 years! for the band of "mavericks" to formulate their plan for something different in govt. They did not have to overcome the effects of tribalism because they were already a group of mavericks from a lot of different tribes.
With the exception of the "tribal" culture of slavery (which they didn't solve until another 100 years had gone by), they weren't bound by the dominance of any one tribe in any one area.
The ME and Africa have strong tribal loyalties which work against working together on a larger scale. The Sunnis believe their version of Islam is correct; while the Shia take the opposite view. In all these centuries they have not made much progress in putting that aside to unite Islam. It would appear to me that even if Islam were successful in establishing their universal caliphate, the bloodshed would continue until one or the other of those two groups were totally eradicated. It could be just as likely that two caliphates would result, and neither group would still not have any idea about our western concept of religious liberty.
I think that is why these cultures need to be left to work these things out on their own, before they are ready for democracy as we define it.
As I typed this I was overwhelmed by the complexity of this problem! It took hundreds of years for the original Church to evolve to a point where Catholics and Protestants could respect each other's beliefs and work together ecumenically ... and that was based on the New Testament that focused not on brute strength, but on God's love for all humanity. Even the Jews, who base their faith on the Old Testament, somehow have managed to shift their focus from the militarism in the Old Testament, to become more directed toward peace than war.
Even an atheist would have to admit that religion plays a large role in any society, even if they personally don't have a belief. Even atheism is a form of belief :-) Through the ages humans have sought to find meaning in their human condition by a belief in some force greater than themselves; or nothingness. That is religion in its simplest form which can then express itself in actions.
If tribal-type cultures can work this out, it will not be because some outsider imposed change on them. It will come from within their own culture in terms that they can relate to.
Henlee, this piece in American Thinker is exactly what we were posting yesterday ... except this author believes that any Arab democratic-type govt will always be on a background of Islam. Could be correct.