2011 Egyptian protests Options

[Peter Damian]

I was surprised by the apparent size of the pro-Mubarak contingent yesterday. The media are representing them as paid by Mubarak, or supporters of his party. This may be true but experience tells me it can sometimes be otherwise. So I checked in Wikipedia, which has an enormous article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Egyptian_protests on the protests, with 280 references.

This reassured me that the pro-Mubarak supporters are indeed the henchmen of the evil dictator. The article says that "Mubarak's government earned the "support of the West and a continuation of hefty annual aid from the United States, by maintaining policies of heavy handedness towards Islamic militants and peace with Israel" and that "political corruption in the Mubarak administration's Ministry of Interior has risen dramatically, due to the increased power over the institutional system necessary to prolong the presidency". He is unpopular because "many Egyptians regard Mubarak as serving the interests of West and not the people, angering especially the youth."

On the identity of the supporters, it says that "Wednesday saw major clashes between protestors in Tahrir Square and well-organised pro-Mubarak squads who launched a suprise assault against them. " and that "The NDP sent many people to show support to Hosni Mubarak." Worse still, "provocateurs sent by the Egyptian government, came riding on horses and camels armed with swords, whips, clubs, stones, rocks, and pocket knives, attacked anti-government protesters in central Cairo" "With banks currently closed and not due to open for three more days, cash-starved Egyptians were offered food and money to side against the anti-Mubarak protesters in Tahrir Square."

That's it then. Three cheers for crowdsourcing, although it strikes me that if Mubarak is spending all that money on getting people onto the streets, he ought to employ about 100 of them to get into a huge edit war on that article. It would be amusing and a lot less dangerous than hurling rocks at each other. If there were a civil war they could just pay people to stay at home and have the war on Wikipedia. Arbcom could vote on it and the winner gets to be president for life.

See also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International...yptian_protests
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_resp...yptian_protests
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pres..._election,_2011

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...t=108.14.100.42

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Thu 3rd February 2011, 7:31pm

[lilburne]

Two years ago I spent a week in Egypt so I think I can say I'm an expert on the subject.

Anyway, the guide we had continually pointed out buildings and landmarks as "The Mubarak Soldiers Hospital - what a wonderful man our President Mubarak is, he gives us everything, it says so on all the buildings", "Look on the right The Mubarak school of Engineering, what would we do without our president Mubarak", "There on the right is another Statute of Thutmose III, he liked to put statues up everywhere claiming how great he was", "The Mubarak bus depot, apparently he makes sure that they all run to schedule", "Another statue of Thutmose III, actually that is of Hatshepsut but after she died he claimed most of them for himself", "The Aswan monument of Friendship between Egypt and Soviet Union, this one still has Sadat's name on it."

[Silver seren]

I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. I'm one of the ones that has been working extensively on that article and I know that all of the parts you quoted are references, since I found the references for them. If you want the article to be more pro-Mubarak, then I would advise that you make the media be more pro-Mubarak as well. I mean, if they were all like Nile TV, i'm sure we'd be getting completely accurate, factual, and non-biased reporting, huh?

[dogbiscuit]

Two years ago I spent a week in Egypt so I think I can say I'm an expert on the subject.

Anyway, the guide we had continually pointed out buildings and landmarks as "The Mubarak Soldiers Hospital - what a wonderful man our President Mubarak is, he gives us everything, it says so on all the buildings", "Look on the right The Mubarak school of Engineering, what would we do without our president Mubarak", "There on the right is another Statute of Thutmose III, he liked to put statues up everywhere claiming how great he was", "The Mubarak bus depot, apparently he makes sure that they all run to schedule", "Another statue of Thutmose III, actually that is of Hatshepsut but after she died he claimed most of them for himself", "The Aswan monument of Friendship between Egypt and Soviet Union, this one still has Sadat's name on it."

Morocco next. I was there for two weeks in 1984 so am even more of an expert than you Even though I was innocent young thing back then, it was clear that it was a nation of people watching their backs, terrified of offending against the King, and very poor.

[lilburne]

Two years ago I spent a week in Egypt so I think I can say I'm an expert on the subject.

Anyway, the guide we had continually pointed out buildings and landmarks as "The Mubarak Soldiers Hospital - what a wonderful man our President Mubarak is, he gives us everything, it says so on all the buildings", "Look on the right The Mubarak school of Engineering, what would we do without our president Mubarak", "There on the right is another Statute of Thutmose III, he liked to put statues up everywhere claiming how great he was", "The Mubarak bus depot, apparently he makes sure that they all run to schedule", "Another statue of Thutmose III, actually that is of Hatshepsut but after she died he claimed most of them for himself", "The Aswan monument of Friendship between Egypt and Soviet Union, this one still has Sadat's name on it."

Morocco next. I was there for two weeks in 1984 so am even more of an expert than you Even though I was innocent young thing back then, it was clear that it was a nation of people watching their backs, terrified of offending against the King, and very poor.

Ah Morocco, 1968, school trip age 12, 2 days in Casablanca, one of the 6th form scored a weight of hashish, the rest of the trip was pretty laid back. Back again twice in 75, second time my companion got busted going back through Algeciras, cost about £400 to get him back, interesting times. A lot of young guys trying to get out to Europe and bemoaning that no one was going to give them a passport or visa. Then in September 1990 different atmosphere altogether with Thatcher talking up a war. Going back through Algeciras there was a huge line of Moroccan being turned back by Spanish Immigration. Rather roughly I might add, a lot of unnecessary shoving, pushing, and shouting at them.

This post has been edited by lilburne: Fri 4th February 2011, 12:45am

[It's the blimp, Frank]

I was surprised by the apparent size of the pro-Mubarak contingent yesterday. The media are representing them as paid by Mubarak, or supporters of his party.

Does this remind anyone of the invasion of Panama? I remember that the US Government and press were very much on the same page about that, that the US had the right to summarily dismiss a head of state from another country. Except for John Wayne, who spoke out against it, to his credit.

[Silver seren]

Except that the US was originally completely backing Mubarak back when this began. It was only after the protesters gained ground and the US came under international criticism that they switched their stance. Even then, only to, "you should allow a peaceful transition".

As to your question, yeah, you're right. The US really shouldn't have the power to tell another country's leader to resign, but it does, mainly because we're the ones that have facilitated Mubarak's reign. It's a sad situation, though I do think it would be better for everyone if Mubarak was gone, so as long as this goes in the right direction.

[Milton Roe]

As to your question, yeah, you're right. The US really shouldn't have the power to tell another country's leader to resign, but it does, mainly because we're the ones that have facilitated Mubarak's reign.

Yah think? ONE THIRD of US total foreign aid goes to just two countries: Israel and Egypt. Israel because of AIPAC, and Egypt (more specifically Mubarack & Co) as a bribe to keep kissing up to Israel.

http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/politics/us-foreign-aid.htm

So I guess we feel entitled, seeing as how we paid for it.

[Silver seren]

We pay Egypt 1 billion per year just for them to continue developing their weapons program.

[Milton Roe]

We pay Egypt 1 billion per year just for them to continue developing their weapons program.

Sure. A program carefully crafted to be inferior to Israel's, but superior to anything that comes out of Syria, Iran, Sudan or anything Hezbollah can get hold of. Since 1979, Egypt has been the #1 US flunky in the middle east. Israel pretends, but they know that there's really no credible way the US can cut THEIR money. The oil rich Arab states may lip service to the US in some cases, but they have too much oil to be really on the leash and the dole. Egypt is stuck. Of course the government of Egypt and the people of Egypt are two different things, since not a whole lot of that US aid filters down to the people in Egypt that need it most. It's not like the peasants there are the folks building those weapons systems.

[NuclearWarfare]

I haven't read the Wikipedia article, but my memory of the New York Times article/Al Jazeera live blog on the matter today seems to tell me that there were just several hundred Mubarak supporters at best, as opposed to tens of times that for the anti-Mubarak protesters. Is that correct?

[Silver seren]

Um...well, at least during the March of Millions on Wednesday, there was between 1 and 2 million anti-government protesters, according to the sources.

I'm not sure how many pro-Mubarak people there were though. At least a couple thousand, I would expect. I think I heard something around 25,000.

[Cla68]

When I was in the US Air Force, there were some Egyptian Air Force officers at some of the training schools I went to. They were very congenial and easy to talk to. I got the impression that the possibility of a more hard-line Islamic government taking power in their country made them uncomfortable, but they could live with it if they had to.

I was watching some of the video of the Cairo protests while I was exercising in the gym yesterday. I wondered why those guys who rode the horses through the crowd were pulled off their mounts and treated rather roughly by the crowd. Now I understand what was going on. It looked like one of the horses got beat up by the crowd also, so I guess the crowd was rather angry.

[Silver seren]

Well, considering that those guys on horseback, the pro-Mubarak people, had swords and molotov cocktails and were attacking the anti-government protesters that made up the crowd...I think they had reason to be angry.

[A Horse With No Name]

Does this remind anyone of the invasion of Panama? I remember that the US Government and press were very much on the same page about that, that the US had the right to summarily dismiss a head of state from another country. Except for John Wayne, who spoke out against it, to his credit.

Are you mixing up the return of the Panama Canal to the Panamanian government (which was in the 1970s under President Carter) with the invasion of Panama to oust Noriega (which took place under the first Bush presidency, long after John Wayne passed away)?

[Kwork]

As to your question, yeah, you're right. The US really shouldn't have the power to tell another country's leader to resign, but it does, mainly because we're the ones that have facilitated Mubarak's reign.

Yah think? ONE THIRD of US total foreign aid goes to just two countries: Israel and Egypt. Israel because of AIPAC, and Egypt (more specifically Mubarack & Co) as a bribe to keep kissing up to Israel.

http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/politics/us-foreign-aid.htm

So I guess we feel entitled, seeing as how we paid for it.

As far as I know none of that money, all of it for Egyptian and Israeli military aid, actually leaves the United States. It goes from US tax collections directly to US arms manufactures. In the case of the Saudi arms purchases, the money takes a more roundabout route: from US motorists at the gas pump - to Saudi Arabia - to US arms manufactures. Either way the money ends up in the same pockets. You might want to refer to Eisenhower's 'Farewell address', and his earlier 'Cross of iron' speech. I think both can be found on youtube.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Does this remind anyone of the invasion of Panama? I remember that the US Government and press were very much on the same page about that, that the US had the right to summarily dismiss a head of state from another country. Except for John Wayne, who spoke out against it, to his credit.

Are you mixing up the return of the Panama Canal to the Panamanian government (which was in the 1970s under President Carter) with the invasion of Panama to oust Noriega (which took place under the first Bush presidency, long after John Wayne passed away)?

Could be.

[Milton Roe]

As to your question, yeah, you're right. The US really shouldn't have the power to tell another country's leader to resign, but it does, mainly because we're the ones that have facilitated Mubarak's reign.

Yah think? ONE THIRD of US total foreign aid goes to just two countries: Israel and Egypt. Israel because of AIPAC, and Egypt (more specifically Mubarack & Co) as a bribe to keep kissing up to Israel.

http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/politics/us-foreign-aid.htm

So I guess we feel entitled, seeing as how we paid for it.

As far as I know none of that money, all of it for Egyptian and Israeli military aid, actually leaves the United States. It goes from US tax collections directly to US arms manufactures. In the case of the Saudi arms purchases, the money takes a more roundabout route: from US motorists at the gas pump - to Saudi Arabia - to US arms manufactures. Either way the money ends up in the same pockets. You might want to refer to Eisenhower's 'Farewell address', and his earlier 'Cross of iron' speech. I think both can be found on youtube.

You can blame the military-industrial complex and the military lobby in the US for 55% of the tax money we have spend on Egypt, but no more.

Of course, most of the money for Egypt military aid never leaves the US these days, but the US also provides Egypt with a lot of economic aid. Perhaps you'll believe figures from The Jewish Virtual Library (they are similar to those elsewhere). http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...l/egyptaid.html

Military and economic aid to Egypt were about equal from 1948 to 1997.

Since then, military aid to Egypt has been running a constant 1.3 billion a year (this is all US tax money going to US weapons manufacturers), while economic aid is now down to about 0.5 billion a year (this is NOT spent on weapons, but other stuff like food). Add it all up as you get (as of 2006) a grand total of 29 billion in economic aid, 34 billion in military aid (weapons), and 37 million (a pitance) in military training funds. So 55% of the tax money we've spent on Egypt total has been for weapons, but currently it's now running higher, at 72% of the 1.8 billion we give them every year.

Egypt needs the non-military aid in part because its population has nearly tripled (factor of 2.9) in the last 50 years, from 1960 when it was able to feed itself (it no longer can, and some of the food exports come from the US). Perhaps you can blame the farm-lobby in the US for that. Compare with population growth of 1.7 in China and 2.0 in the U.S. over that same time, both of which now feed themselves. Egypt has little arable land and little family planning. And they continue to be very low tech compared to the US and Israel.

Israel gets its entire 2 billion a year in military aid, but that's really a "fake" figure as it counts only the weapons the US taxpayer pays for and ships to Israel. An uncountable amount of wealth is transferred to Israel in the form of information on jointly-developed weapons projects with the US, where Israel gets access to all the classified information ("technology transfer) essentially as a free add-on for what they put into joint development of the weapons system (that is, they get the info from the US contribution also, for nothing). That doesn't happen much, with Egypt.

Israel was caught not long ago selling such information to China. Whether or not it's going to get full access to F-22 Raptor systems as a result, is being debated. My guess is that ultimately it will. The US never says no to Israel for long.

[Peter Damian]

I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. I'm one of the ones that has been working extensively on that article and I know that all of the parts you quoted are references, since I found the references for them. If you want the article to be more pro-Mubarak, then I would advise that you make the media be more pro-Mubarak as well. I mean, if they were all like Nile TV, i'm sure we'd be getting completely accurate, factual, and non-biased reporting, huh?

I have no axe to grind. But

1. I remember how the Western media was so full of glee when the evil Shah of Iran was deposed, look what happened. I remember when the Soviet Union fell in the 1990s, and the Western media was presenting it as though every single Russian hated communism and democracy would soon prevail and rays of sunlight would fall upon the world. It was the end of history. And look what happened. The truth is always more complex, and darker, and difficult. The Wikipedia article (like the media coverage) is so obviously one-sided, and oblivious to any more complex and difficult truth, that I am suspicious.

2. On the millions of references, well, look at any war in history. Each side had millions of reliable sources proving that rightness and justice was on their side. Reliable sources in a context like this means nothing. You may be repeating propaganda.

3. History tells us that the truth, if any truth can be discovered, is only evident some time after the event. To the English, the second world war primarily took place on the Western front. History shows where the real battle (in terms of scale and casualties) was in a different place. Wars should be covered by the news media, not encyclopedias.

4. I am even more suspicious when I see the majority of edits by a handful of editors. I am not seeing ‘crowdsourcing’.

5. What little I gleaned of the situation in Egypt suggests the truth is a little more complex. See the article by Maged Botros http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12017462 written before the crisis. Botros is a Professor of Public Administration at Helwan University, Egypt http://www.sed.man.ac.uk/research/cod/about/staff. He points out that Egyptian voters value the stability the NDP ensures in a turbulent region. He gives at least superficially plausible reasons that in the recent elections the nomination process was fair.

6. The Coptic church http://www.copticassembly.com/showart.php?main_id=4191 is certainly unambiguous about its fear of Mubarak’s regime being displaced. A coptic editor pointed this out on one of the Wikipedia articles but has, predictably, been blocked.

I am simply pointing out that the truth may be more complex than the media and the Wikipedia article are pointing out.

[Sarcasticidealist]

I am simply pointing out that the truth may be more complex than the media and the Wikipedia article are pointing out.

You're very likely right (it usually is). But in this case, the western media and Al-Jazeera are reporting substantially the same story, which gives me a great deal of confidence that it's approximately right.

I don't think there's much doubt that the people wanting Mubarak gone have right on their side for that limited objective. Once he's gone, though, there's a strong possibility that he'll be replaced by something worse from the perspective of U.S. interests, and a non-trivial possibility of his being replaced by something as bad or worse from the perspective of the Egyptian people. But from the perspective of the Egyptian people, the first possibility is presumably of no interest, and the second...well, it's probably a tough sell to them that they should continue being oppressed because of the possibility that some unspecified future regime would be as or more oppressive.

Edit: My signature is probably even more apt than usual in this case.

This post has been edited by Sarcasticidealist: Fri 4th February 2011, 7:24pm