Nalod wrote:
Mubarak Gone!

simrud wrote:What does it mean "The People"?

beginning to make sense?

orangeblobman wrote:Revolution only changes the shape of the oppressor, the fact that you are oppressed remains.

RIght. I mean has anyone ever heard of a benevolent military dictatorship?

'Collective consciouness' is not trending towards 'greater positivity'. People are the same century to century.

Markji wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:

orangeblobman wrote:Revolution only changes the shape of the oppressor, the fact that you are oppressed remains.

RIght. I mean has anyone ever heard of a benevolent military dictatorship?

The Egyptian Army played the key pivotal role with the ouster of Mubarak just by their stance of neutality. They didn't attack or disperse the crowds of protesters; they disbanded the gov't controlled police; they stepped in and stopped the violence when the Pro-Gov't thugs and police attacked the protesters; and generally maintained peace and order in the country during this entire transformation. It is quite remarkable that there was only 1 day of real violence (when the pro-gov't thugs attacked) but otherwise, it was very peaceful.

Contrast this with Iran after their 2009 elections when millions of people demonstrated and tried to overthrow Ahmadinejad. They were brutally set upon by the pro-Gov't thugs, police, and right-wing militia. The army didn't even show up to do anything. And the Iranian people were slaughtered; arrested; and the demonstrations failed.

What will happen next in Egypt is anybody's guess. I expect the military to stay in power; keep the country united and orderly; provide some reforms; keep the Islamic radicals from creating disturbances; and move towards elections.

Collective Consciousness in the world is changing towards greater positivity and against abusiveness. Change is spreading to many countries with oppressive dictators.

Markji wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:Yeha, I tihnk the military will stay in power. But military regimes don't have a good record and end up being dictatorships all the same. I hope they move to elections but that seems very optimistic. For now, maybe necessarily? the constitution has been suspended and they are the sole power.

'Collective consciouness' is not trending towards 'greater positivity'. People are the same century to century.

Markji wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:

orangeblobman wrote:Revolution only changes the shape of the oppressor, the fact that you are oppressed remains.

RIght. I mean has anyone ever heard of a benevolent military dictatorship?

The Egyptian Army played the key pivotal role with the ouster of Mubarak just by their stance of neutality. They didn't attack or disperse the crowds of protesters; they disbanded the gov't controlled police; they stepped in and stopped the violence when the Pro-Gov't thugs and police attacked the protesters; and generally maintained peace and order in the country during this entire transformation. It is quite remarkable that there was only 1 day of real violence (when the pro-gov't thugs attacked) but otherwise, it was very peaceful.

Contrast this with Iran after their 2009 elections when millions of people demonstrated and tried to overthrow Ahmadinejad. They were brutally set upon by the pro-Gov't thugs, police, and right-wing militia. The army didn't even show up to do anything. And the Iranian people were slaughtered; arrested; and the demonstrations failed.

What will happen next in Egypt is anybody's guess. I expect the military to stay in power; keep the country united and orderly; provide some reforms; keep the Islamic radicals from creating disturbances; and move towards elections.

Collective Consciousness in the world is changing towards greater positivity and against abusiveness. Change is spreading to many countries with oppressive dictators.

I agree that most military regimes are dictatorships. Thta doesn't mean that they have to be "bad". When the military takes over a gov't the reason is usually to restore order. And then give the country a new start. Dictators arise in any system of gov't, including democracies. It really boils down to if the leaders are sincere in wanting to bring a better life to the people. And also who controls the finances.

Collective Consciousness has improved - people are getting better - maybe not shown everywhere, but there is greater positivity, less crime in the U.S.; great scientific and technological advances; and no major world wars...and the Knicks are above .500.

Military is much better than Islamists.
They may be not the most progressive force but at least they are not trying to drag the society back info Middle Ages.

Its never free.

I wish this was not the case.

1.) Stop treating Islamic fundamentalism as a bogyman and allowing it to drive American foreign policy. American paranoia about Islamism has done as much damage as Muslim fundamentalism itself.

In Somalia, it led the U.S. to wink at a 2006 Ethiopian invasion that was catastrophic for Somalis and resulted in more Islamic extremism there. And in Egypt, our foreboding about Islamism paralyzed us and put us on the wrong side of history.

We tie ourselves in knots when we act as if democracy is good for the United States and Israel but not for the Arab world. For far too long, we’ve treated the Arab world as just an oil field.

Too many Americans bought into a lazy stereotype that Arab countries were inhospitable for democracy, or that the beneficiaries of popular rule would be extremists like Osama bin Laden. Tunisians and Egyptians have shattered that stereotype, and the biggest loser will be Al Qaeda. We don’t know what lies ahead for Egypt — and there is a considerable risk that those in power will attempt to preserve Mubarakism without Mr. Mubarak — but already Egyptians have demonstrated the power of nonviolence in a way that undermines the entire extremist narrative. It will be fascinating to see whether more Palestinians embrace mass nonviolent protests in the West Bank as a strategy to confront illegal Israeli settlements and land grabs.

Nalod wrote:

PresIke wrote:

Nalod wrote:
Im for him stepping down but a mob calling for a removal is not via their constitution and if they are to be a democracy they have to do it by the book.

Otherwise they are just a mob making it up as they go along.

They need to have limit terms. No more than 25 years!

nalod,

this is a rather outlandish comment. you are write as if the people of egypt actually believe in their constitution.

i guess you think jefferson, adams, payne, etc. should have taken up their grievances with the english parliment and the king within the system to "ammend" english laws too.

are you going to call them a mob too?

a constitution is not gospel if it is injust. the u.s. has often only made some major amendments to its constitution/major government program changes when there was legit fear of outright rebellion by the masses.

i believe the idea is to create a brand new one by some i have heard interviewed on the street.

My term limit figure was a joke!

Fine, write a new one or amend. If its unjust then change it legally. Is there a process for it? OR chant and close country down until you get a new one?

Im saying in principle a democracy has to behave like one. Certainly Mubarak got to go.

We were not a country when we "Spun off" from England back in the day.

Im saying that you set a precidence now or live with it over and over.

IF they don't believe in their constitution then will have to amend and adhere.

Gotta start somewhere.

i definitely got that the last part was a joke.

i just find it a bit paternalistic for one to ask the people there to have expected any kind of legit results for change via the existing system.

and it appears folks do not believe in the constitution now that parliment has been dissolved, and the military have delcared that major changes to the constitution will come in either the form of amendments or a total re-write.

my bigger issue with you comment was calling the demonstrators a mob.

large scale political action to make change often involves being on the street. but the demonstrators, as nick kristof points to in his last piece for the times, used NON-VIOLENCE as the dominant form of expression of their disgust with the regime. most of the violence was being perpetrated upon them, and is how they won so much support, and changed perception amongst some about what a revolution would look like in the arab world, which i believe all too many assumed would be violent and led by islamists.

yes, people can die using non-violence, as did those who followed mlk and ghandi, but the power of their willingness to put their lives at risk is perhaps more profound than any suicide bomber can ever hope to gain if they want people to side with their cause. it also allowed for the crippling of a society not via a large scale explosion, but by influencing more people to BELIEVE in the cause and actually take part, since more people are willing to non-violently demonstrate with a large group than blow themselves up.

i believe we may be seeing the beginning of the end of some long term beliefs about the arab world, as well as other nations who have used intimidation, repression, torture, and thuggery to control their people's desire for liberation.