Egypt's President Morsi Is No Longer In Power

[Guest]

Like many political movements the MB was born out of terrorism so it seems reasonably likely that in defeat they will return to their old ways. There's was a one shot gun and they blew it big time. They are to big and influential to just fade away.

Br Cornelius

[Wickian]

Now that other political parties actually have some organization, new elections might not go the MB's way. Who knows, the next constitution might even be drafted without the President making decree's that he cannot be second guessed by the courts.

[libstaK]

It's interesting that the News on the BBC are careful to emphasise "the Democratically elected president", and not a mention of his support from and for the Muslim Brotherhood and all that crowd. i don't know whether this is deliberate, or just that they see things in simple black & white terms; "Democatically elected: Good".

I've noticed the same flavour from our own news networks - it bothered me, no one straight out stated the Egyptian people's concerns with Morsi, it was all about him not achieving what he claimed he would and the Egyptian people not perceiving they got what they voted for - yep as vague as that, since when is this kind of news not followed up by a play by play account of what created the situation - never, until now.

[Guest]

Our great western leaders are starting to become concerned about their own positions. Europe is only one crisis away from a popular uprising sweeping the south.

Cannot have it reported that such an approach can get results !!

Br Cornelius

[DeWitz]

they sure did, but that was when they were a Staunch ally against Assad and other sources of Evil. They probably hoped to build up Egypt as another bastion against Evil like those other beacons of human rights, S. Arabia.

I think the Colonel is correct. US military aid to The Land Of the Pharaohs has been flowing since the Sadat-Begin peace agreement brokered by then-President Carter. It's nothing new, unless one is adjusting for inflation.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

What now?

[Big Bad Voodoo]

Our great western leaders are starting to become concerned about their own positions. Europe is only one crisis away from a popular uprising sweeping the south.

Cannot have it reported that such an approach can get results !!

Br Cornelius

Europe isnt in crysis anymore.

[DeWitz]

I've noticed the same flavour from our own news networks - it bothered me, no one straight out stated the Egyptian people's concerns with Morsi, it was all about him not achieving what he claimed he would and the Egyptian people not perceiving they got what they voted for - yep as vague as that, since when is this kind of news not followed up by a play by play account of what created the situation - never, until now.

What do we (I'm speaking only as an American, whose government for decades has poured money into Egypt like grain into the goose) make of the accurate statement, "Morsi was democratically elected in the first free elections in Egyptian history"? It's a truism, but it's being bandied about as if it doesn't matter.

The people of Egypt gave him fewer than 12 months before hitting the bricks and exercising the "right of the people." If a coup is the best the Egyptian people and military can come up with after less than a year in power, woebetide any other elected official who doesn't pass muster with the good folk marching in the streets.

Democratically elected? In office less than a year? A "tainted" political-theocratic pedigree? Therefore a coup? This doesn't smell like "democracy" to me.

How ironic that some Americans are celebrating Morsi's (democratically elected and internationally recognized) ouster on this, the glorious 237th anniversary of our nation's founding. King George III and his advisers and military considered the Founding Fathers (Mothers, too) to be terrorists and insurrectionists, for sure. The first president of the Palestinian Authority, allied with Hamas, was democratically elected also, and received the same pie-eyed expressions of disbelief: "Oh, that the people would elect the person they want?! Horrors!" But isn't that the way representative democracies work? Otherwise, what's the point of elections?

A most egregious example of this kind of "having-it-both-ways" cynicism was Henry Kissinger exclaiming (and I paraphrase), "We're not going to let Chile go socialist just because that's what their people voted." The result was the CIA assassination of democratically elected President Salvador Allende in 1973, and US support for the fascist General Augusto Pinochet, who truly did butcher his own people. I don't recall mass reprisals last year when Morsi was elected.

Sic transit gloria mundi.

[F3SS]

It's interesting that the News on the BBC are careful to emphasise "the Democratically elected president", and not a mention of his support from and for the Muslim Brotherhood and all that crowd. i don't know whether this is deliberate, or just that they see things in simple black & white terms; "Democatically elected: Good".

You know why. Well maybe it's just my two cents but first they don't want to say that people aren't down with the lively organization that is the Muslim Brotherhood who've been portrayed as wonderful moderates. In short, they don't want to offend Islam because the PC crowd will jump right on the religion of peace/you're an intolerant bigot mantra. Second, coming out in support of a people who meant business and succeeded in their convictions of tossing your tyrannical government to the curb for not doing what they promised won't look good for the statists and elites who rule the rest of the world.

Like many political movements the MB was born out of terrorism so it seems reasonably likely that in defeat they will return to their old ways. There's was a one shot gun and they blew it big time. They are to big and influential to just fade away.

Br Cornelius

They probably will return to 'the old ways' although the old ways never really left in the first place. Maybe this is the start of a new trend. People probably though the same thing about Pablo Escobar. No one thought he'd fade away at the time. I k ow he's only one terrorist but he had a huge circle of power and influence. Maybe not a great analogy but the point is that eventually when people get sick of someone or group they get mad as hell and they're not gonna take it anymore and sooner or later those larger than life evil presences will be dealt with. The MB probably thought they were untouchable once they began to rule a country like Egypt. Now their egos are hurt and they're going to begin to act stupidly and will probably assist in their own demise.

Now that other political parties actually have some organization, new elections might not go the MB's way. Who knows, the next constitution might even be drafted without the President making decree's that he cannot be second guessed by the courts.

Lol, that was in their constitution? Good grief.

My feel-good thoughts aside, I'm not sure what the revolutionist want so I can't say for sure that I support their next decision. I know the MB is bad so their overthrow is good but the people there did elect them I only a year ago. You'd think people from the Mid East would know that electing radical Islamists wasn't going to result in promise keeping. All I know is that I want ancient Egypt and all it's artifacts and architectures to remain in tact. I'm always concerned about them.

[F3SS]

What do we (I'm speaking only as an American, whose government for decades has poured money into Egypt like grain into the goose) make of the accurate statement, "Morsi was democratically elected in the first free elections in Egyptian history"? It's a truism, but it's being bandied about as if it doesn't matter.

The people of Egypt gave him fewer than 12 months before hitting the bricks and exercising the "right of the people." If a coup is the best the Egyptian people and military can come up with after less than a year in power, woebetide any other elected official who doesn't pass muster with the good folk marching in the streets.

Democratically elected? In office less than a year? A "tainted" political-theocratic pedigree? Therefore a coup? This doesn't smell like "democracy" to me.

How ironic that some Americans are celebrating Morsi's (democratically elected and internationally recognized) ouster on this, the glorious 237th anniversary of our nation's founding. King George III and his advisers and military considered the Founding Fathers (Mothers, too) to be terrorists and insurrectionists, for sure. The first president of the Palestinian Authority, allied with Hamas, was democratically elected also, and received the same pie-eyed expressions of disbelief: "Oh, that the people would elect the person they want?! Horrors!" But isn't that the way representative democracies work? Otherwise, what's the point of elections?

A most egregious example of this kind of "having-it-both-ways" cynicism was Henry Kissinger exclaiming (and I paraphrase), "We're not going to let Chile go socialist just because that's what their people voted." The result was the CIA assassination of democratically elected President Salvador Allende in 1973, and US support for the fascist General Augusto Pinochet, who truly did butcher his own people. I don't recall mass reprisals last year when Morsi was elected.

Sic transit gloria mundi.

I think the problem is that Morsi went straight from being an obedient democratically elected public servant to quickly implementing Islamic rule instead of what they needed and were promised which is sensible economic and diplomatic governing for the people. The MB had no diplomacy and wasn't doing jack about their economy. The whole election, or who was elected I should say, defeated the whole point if ousting Mouhasni Mubarack or whatever the hell the old dictators name was.

I think eliminating the problem promptly before it got too big was the best thing they could do. Now.... If this becomes a yearly trend in Egypt then well, I don't know but let's give the people the benefit of the doubt that they made a mistake on their first ever real election.

Edited July 4, 2013 by F3SS

[Space Commander Travis]

As has been remarked, the "leaders" in the West, who were elected on rather more shaky grounds than Morsi (who did get more than 50% of the vote, which is rather more than what, for instance, UK Pry Ministers usually get), must be worrying. They wouldn't want to encourage a precedent for people to get rid of their leader if they've failed to deliver on their promises and haven't managed to deliver Hope or Change, would they ....

[Frank Merton]

Democratic elections are a way to get an acceptable government up and running, provided the winner doesn't try to turn the victory into a way to arrange that from then on they will never lose power.

[DeWitz]

I think the problem is that Morsi went straight from being an obedient democratically elected public servant to quickly implementing Islamic rule instead of what they needed and were promised which is sensible economic and diplomatic governing for the people. The MB had no diplomacy and wasn't doing jack about their economy. The whole election, or who was elected I should say, defeated the whole point if ousting Mouhasni Mubarack or whatever the hell the old dictators name was.

I think eliminating the problem promptly before it got too big was the best thing they could do. Now.... If this becomes a yearly trend in Egypt then well, I don't know but let's give the people the benefit of the doubt that they made a mistake on their first ever real election.

I hear you, F3SS. I wish we Americans demanded a Mulligan! At present I find yet another "experiment" in Middle Eastern democracy to be D.O.A. That's not encouraging.

[DeWitz]

As has been remarked, the "leaders" in the West, who were elected on rather more shaky grounds than Morsi (who did get more than 50% of the vote, which is rather more than what, for instance, UK Pry Ministers usually get), must be worrying. They wouldn't want to encourage a precedent for people to get rid of their leader if they've failed to deliver on their promises and haven't managed to deliver Hope or Change, would they ....

Thanks, Colonel--you make my point from a different angle.

[DeWitz]

Democratic elections are a way to get an acceptable government up and running, provided the winner doesn't try to turn the victory into a way to arrange that from then on they will never lose power.

I read of all the stuff Morsi apparently accomplished in Year One, then I read that he didn't accomplish squat. What do I know? It's this process that concerns me. In fewer than 12 months the masses were demonstrating against him, and the military followed their lead. Egypt is in for serial elections (unscheduled), military dominance or civil war. Perhaps there is a 4th or 5th option, but I don't know what those might be. Worrisome for all who think democracy is "the way" for the region; grist for the mill for those who say Middle Eastern nations always needs a 'strong man' government.

[questionmark]

I read of all the stuff Morsi apparently accomplished in Year One, then I read that he didn't accomplish squat. What do I know? It's this process that concerns me. In fewer than 12 months the masses were demonstrating against him, and the military followed their lead. Egypt is in for serial elections (unscheduled), military dominance or civil war. Perhaps there is a 4th or 5th option, but I don't know what those might be. Worrisome for all who think democracy is "the way" for the region; grist for the mill for those who say Middle Eastern nations always needs a 'strong man' government.

The problem here is different, it is not like Morsi accomplished nothing, he did but in the wrong direction. His Islamic directives broke Egypt's lifeline: Tourism. As long as the tourists are afraid to go there the country will be going downhill. And most Egyptians, whether fanatically Muslim or not, understood that by now.

[+and-then]

The M.B. basically won by default because they were the only organized party capable of voter turnout. While they might be re-elected, I doubt the opposition will make the same mistake of being so splintered this time around.

[F3SS]

If the MB are re-elected then p***s on them and they get what they deserve and this'll be the last time I care what they do. I can't see it though. This whole thing would be pointless.

Edited July 4, 2013 by F3SS

[F3SS]

http://directorblue....e-protests.html

15 Photos From the Tahrir Square Protests You'll Never See In Legacy Media. #Egypt #Morsi #Obama

Curiously, a massive wave of anti-Obama sentiment in Egypt has been utterly ignored by vintage media, even though the protests may be the largest in all of human history.

Edited July 4, 2013 by F3SS

[A rather obscure Bassoon]

Obama seems to be having it a bit rough just lately....

[Corp]

...nothing strange about it at all.. the American led Arab "spring" got rid of secular Middle East dictators and replaced them with leaders sympathetic to Islamic values and terrorists (i.e.Tunisia, Libya and Egypt and very nearly Assad), and NOW it seems that the USA has realized the error of removing Mubarak, and possibly the rest too.. then given the nod to the US lackey, the Egyptian army, to step in and clean up the "Arab Spring" mess..

So in your mind then Arabs are unable to form opinions of their own? Do they just sit around waiting for an American to tell them what to think?

It's interesting that the News on the BBC are careful to emphasise "the Democratically elected president", and not a mention of his support from and for the Muslim Brotherhood and all that crowd. i don't know whether this is deliberate, or just that they see things in simple black & white terms; "Democatically elected: Good".

...well he were democratically elected. It might not have been what the world wanted and they did quickly go off the deep end but they were still the democratically elected government of Egypt if we like it or not.

Frankly I'm surprised that so many people here are so upset that Obama respected the wishes of the Egyptian people and worked with the government they selected and isn't now breaking US law to fully support what can largely be seen as a coup. I can only assume that what you wanted Obama to do after Morsi was elected to tell Egypt that they would be getting no more aid until they picked a government the US approved of. And that you all fully support the US policies towards Gaza. Though I rather doubt it.

[Shiloh17]

Morsi may have been "democratically" elected, but he reneged on what he said, and promised. In other words, he was a typical "democratically"

elected politician.

[F3SS]

So in your mind then Arabs are unable to form opinions of their own? Do they just sit around waiting for an American to tell them what to think?

...well he were democratically elected. It might not have been what the world wanted and they did quickly go off the deep end but they were still the democratically elected government of Egypt if we like it or not.

Frankly I'm surprised that so many people here are so upset that Obama respected the wishes of the Egyptian people and worked with the government they selected and isn't now breaking US law to fully support what can largely be seen as a coup. I can only assume that what you wanted Obama to do after Morsi was elected to tell Egypt that they would be getting no more aid until they picked a government the US approved of. And that you all fully support the US policies towards Gaza. Though I rather doubt it.

It's the naive support of the Muslim brotherhood that is upsetting. Should we have sustained support towards Hitler since he was elected just the same? We should only support governments that promote freedom and liberty. Supporting the people of countries with undesirable governments is a different matter but giving billions of dollars to an unworthy government is asinine. It's sometimes done under the guise that it's helping the people but you know damn well that those shady b******* hoard all that aid to themselves.

[Yamato]

It's the naive support of the Muslim brotherhood that is upsetting. Should we have sustained support towards Hitler since he was elected just the same? We should only support governments that promote freedom and liberty. Supporting the people of countries with undesirable governments is a different matter but giving billions of dollars to an unworthy government is asinine. It's sometimes done under the guise that it's helping the people but you know damn well that those shady b******* hoard all that aid to themselves.

How about giving billions to a worthy government? Which one would that be?

How about not giving billions to any government? How about not relying on the political opinions of bureaucrats and their supporters to tell us who's worthy and who isn't while they extort money from us for being productive members of society? How about letting the people decide, and pay, for whatever they think is worth paying for? How about getting government out of the way? How about letting freedom and all its problems ring?

[Space Commander Travis]

A trukly democratic government, you mean? Well, I think we can see here what happens when you allow Democracy. People tend to be easily swayed by people promising them Hope and Change, and then when they get a new leader, and he fails to provide said Hope or Change, they would, if allowed pure democracy, elbow him out of office and instal a military strong man in his place. It would certainly rpovide for, as the Chinese say, interesting times, but it would hardly seem to be much of a recipe for stability or allow any kind of long term planning in government.

And people always seem to want to rally around a Leader, even if the constiution didn't provide for one; a Leader would inevitably arise, and in those kind of circumstances it would inevitably be the one who was strongest and mst ruthless. I fear that allowing pure democacy would in the end just lead to totalitarianism, particularly if there was no provision for checks and balances because the system didn't takem into account the possibility of this arising.

Edited July 4, 2013 by Colonel Rhuairidh