News What is the Power of Unity and Nonviolent Resistance?

[czelaya]

If you see a big, bad American boogey man behind every problem in your life, it makes it very easy to simply throw up your hands and say, "Woe is me, there is nothing that can be done to change my situation!"

Good thing the Egyptians didn't take that attitude.

OK. You're making so many generalities with that statement I wouldn't even know where to begin.

No one is looking for the US bogey man.

The US gave the Egyptian government more than 30 billion dollars (tax payer’s money) over the course of Mubarak's presidency. Not for the good of the people but for the rights for transportation of oil via the Suez Canal. Mubarak allocated a majority of the monies to the military which doesn't bolster an economy. When did the US ever put sanctions against Egypt because Mubarak was causing havoc with the economy and his people's freedoms? The US didn't care because it only cared about stability to the region soley for US interest. Not for the good of Egypt's people.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/29/us-egypt-usa-aid-idUSTRE70S0IN20110129

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5309.htm

Simply put, the US government doesn't need to intervene in the politics or governments in other countries because it always gives way to blowback.

The following sums this up quite nicely:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12780

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfLeTUaanuA&feature=feedu

Hasn't Iran and especially Afghanistan already proven that foriegn intervention always leads to future problems? The CIA , at one time, employed Osama Bin Laden during the Soviet-Afghanistan campaign. Look where that foreign diplomacy got the US.

 

[lisab]

OK. You're making so many generalities with that statement I wouldn't even know where to begin.

No one is looking for the US bogey man.

The US gave the Egyptian government more than 30 billion dollars (tax payer’s money) over the course of Mubarak's presidency. Not for the good of the people but for the rights for transportation of oil via the Suez Canal. Mubarak allocated a majority of the monies to the military which doesn't bolster an economy. When did the US ever put sanctions against Egypt because Mubarak was causing havoc with the economy and his people's freedoms? The US didn't care because it only cared about stability to the region soley for US interest. Not for the good of Egypt's people.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/29/us-egypt-usa-aid-idUSTRE70S0IN20110129

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5309.htm

Simply put, the US government doesn't need to intervene in the politics or governments in other countries because it always gives way to blowback.

The following sums this up quite nicely:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12780

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfLeTUaanuA&feature=feedu

Hasn't Iran and especially Afghanistan already proven that foriegn intervention always leads to future problems? The CIA , at one time, employed Osama Bin Laden during the Soviet-Afghanistan campaign. Look where that foreign diplomacy got the US.

Nations have interests, not friends. It's not something I like but it's a fact of life.

I'm well aware of the consequences of needing oil as a lifeline. Most of the world also needs it to keep their economies going. All the things you list (and much, much more) are done primarily to keep the oil flowing, and many people, maybe even you, benefit from that, too.

Like most Americans I *really* don't want to depend on oil anymore. I'd love to get to a point where I can read about something that happens on the other side of the world and think, "That's horrible, but it's not my problem." We'll only be able to get there if we aren't dependent on oil.

Aside from oil, the Suez is important to trade in general. Keeping it open is critical.

There is widespread warmth and good wishes from the American people to the Egyptians. I'm impressed at their courage and restraint.

 

[rootX]

The president, Mubarak, was closely related to the military. And, now military took over. I don't see any big change.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

And they didn't have or need guns.

It would seem that MB was either unwilling, or in my view far more likely, unable to compel his troops to fire on the crowds while the demonstrations remained peaceful. The bond between the Egyptian military, and the people, is a strong one. This is why MB kept trying to provoke the crowds into violence. Last night when he failed to resign after leaking information that he would, he took his last shot. He probably hoped to anger the crowds to the point of attacking the palace, at which time it would have been a massacre, but the protesters stood firm in their dedication to a peaceful protest.

It is clear that such relatively bloodless revolutions [relatively bloodless so far, and with all due respect to those Egyptians who did give their lives] are rare in history. As of today, this may be the most bloodless revolution in history. While it would be wonderful to think that the world is so changed by the age of information that all future revolutions will be similarly bloodless, as we saw in Iran recently, that assumption would be incredibly naive. Remember also Tiananmen Square.

As Paul Wolfowitz said tonight on Piers Morgan’s show: “If a regime is sufficiently brutal, this sort of People’s power isn’t possible.”

 

[Evo]

It would seem that MB was either unwilling, or in my view far more likely, unable to compel his troops to fire on the crowds while the demonstrations remained peaceful

If the country allowed guns, I'll bet this would have failed and maybe 20,000-50,000 civilians dead and wounded. The reason it worked is because they don't have guns, so a massacre didn't occur. If the civilians had guns, they would have fired on the military and they military would have had to fire back.

Guns are a lose/lose scenario.

This proves that no guns is the best way.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Either we accept that a democracy is a better thing than a dictatorship, no matter how pretty or unsavory the results turn out, or we stop all the BS about spreading freedom and democracy around the world.

No doubt. Either you believe in freedom and democracy, or you don't.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If the country allowed guns, I'll bet this would have failed and maybe 20,000-50,000 civilians dead and wounded. The reason it worked is because they don't have guns, so a massacre didn't occur. If the civilians had guns, they would have fired on the military and they military would have had to fire back.

Guns are a lose/lose scenario.

This proves that no guns is the best way.

Please don't derail this into a gun thread, which you will then lock

 

[Evo]

Please don't derail this into a gun thread, which you will then lock

Just making my point with a real life scenario.

 

[JaredJames]

Just making my point with a real life scenario.

A damn good point.

The mere presence would mean security forces are going to be more on edge.

One shot, accidental or otherwise could spark a massacre.

Personally, I think the best way to protest is as peacefully as possible. That way it's difficult to justify any action taken against you.

Just because they have firearms and you don't, I'd say gives you an advantage. For them to fire on an unarmed crowd - for something insignificant - would mean devastating press the world over.

Think Ghandi and his peaceful protests. The British attacked and they looked like right pr*cks - eventually losing. (There's another example for you evo.)

 

[Proton Soup]

Just making my point with a real life scenario.

no, he makes a point. it has been a pattern.

 

[rootX]

It would seem that MB was either unwilling, or in my view far more likely, unable to compel his troops to fire on the crowds while the demonstrations remained peaceful. The bond between the Egyptian military, and the people, is a strong one. This is why MB kept trying to provoke the crowds into violence. Last night when he failed to resign after leaking information that he would, he took his last shot. He probably hoped to anger the crowds to the point of attacking the palace, at which time it would have been a massacre, but the protesters stood firm in their dedication to a peaceful protest.

It is clear that such relatively bloodless revolutions [relatively bloodless so far, and with all due respect to those Egyptians who did give their lives] are rare in history. As of today, this may be the most bloodless revolution in history. While it would be wonderful to think that the world is so changed by the age of information that all future revolutions will be similarly bloodless, as we saw in Iran recently, that assumption would be incredibly naive. Remember also Tiananmen Square.

As Paul Wolfowitz said tonight on Piers Morgan’s show: “If a regime is sufficiently brutal, this sort of People’s power isn’t possible.”

Then this might not be a revolution. People decided to blame government for their problems (like in any other country) and it just happened that the president decided to step down and passed authority to someone similar. I think Egypt received bit high media attention.

 

[lisab]

A damn good point.

The mere presence would mean security forces are going to be more on edge.

One shot, accidental or otherwise could spark a massacre.

Personally, I think the best way to protest is as peacefully as possible. That way it's difficult to justify any action taken against you.

Just because they have firearms and you don't, I'd say gives you an advantage. For them to fire on an unarmed crowd - for something insignificant - would mean devastating press the world over.

Think Ghandi and his peaceful protests. The British attacked and they looked like right pr*cks - eventually losing. (There's another example for you evo.)

Ghandi's tactics worked because the Brits are basically decent, IMO.

 

[JaredJames]

Ghandi's tactics worked because the Brits are basically decent, IMO.

Didn't stop us beating seven shades of sh*t out of them at first though!

 

[Evo]

no, he makes a point. it has been a pattern.

Only when guns were widely used.

My point is proven, when guns aren't used, things can be accomplished without violence and large tolls of dead and wounded.

A peaceful revolution can only be accomplished in a society that has no guns, such as Egypt.

 

[Proton Soup]

Only when guns were widely used.

My point is proven, when guns aren't used, things can be accomplished without violence and large tolls of dead and wounded.

A peaceful revolution can only be accomplished in a society that has no guns, such as Egypt.

there were plenty of guns. the army kept things from getting out of hand.

your point is unproven.


p.s. - anyone know what this means?:

You have selected 1 post that is not part of this thread. Quote this post as well, or deselect this post.

 

[JaredJames]

there were plenty of guns. the army kept things from getting out of hand.

your point is unproven.

Guns are illegal in Egypt. Carrying them would have meant you'd get arrested - especially during such a heightened time. Someone earlier mentioned the president was looking for any reason to get the military to fight back, well this would have been perfect.

 

[Evo]

there were plenty of guns. the army kept things from getting out of hand.

I haven't heard of civilians carrying large numbers of guns, can you post the article? Gun ownership is somewhat rare in Egypt.

Non-violent revolutions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-violent_revolution#List_of_nonviolent_revolutions_by_era

 

[Proton Soup]

I haven't heard of civilians carrying large numbers of guns, can you post the article?

Non-violent revolutions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-violent_revolution#List_of_nonviolent_revolutions_by_era

they had an armed guard that protected them from being mowed down by Mubarak.

 

[Evo]

they had an armed guard that protected them from being mowed down by Mubarak.

So, like I said, the populace wasn't armed, which prevented mass killings and allowed a peaceful movement to depose their president.

 

[mathwonk]

Evo, have you seen the movie Gandhi, or read the history of the Indian independence movement? The British massacred peaceful Indians in at least one infamous instance. I agree they seem very decent now, at least compared to the US and many others, but history is long and they were not always so. The "tower" was not a vacation spot, and the American revolution had some provocation. It is overly simplistic to attribute the success of Gandhi's movement to the gentleness of the British army. Even the famous Winston Churchill was not a great fan of the near saint Gandhi.

Google Amritsar, or Jallianwala Bagh, or look here:

http://www.travelpod.com/travel-photo/om_sweet_om/india-2003/1064852340/india-2003_322.jpg/tpod.html

 

[Proton Soup]

So, like I said, the populace wasn't armed, which prevented mass killings and allowed a peaceful movement to depose their president.

only because they were fortunate to have the army on their side and not against them. if, on the other hand, they decide for some reason that they wish to assume power for themselves (which i think you were worried about just recently), then any attempt to reassert themselves might not turn out so well.

do you really think civilians killing with guns even holds a candle to governments killing with guns?

 

[Evo]

only because they were fortunate to have the army on their side and not against them.

The Egyptian army wouldn't fire on an unarmed populace, that's the difference between Egypt where the army feels they are part of the civilian populace and the US. If the Army had been fired on, that would have forced the Army to retaliate.

do you really think civilians killing with guns even holds a candle to governments killing with guns?

In a crowded square, armed civilians attacking an armed military, probably casualties of 20,000 to 50,000, easily. And most likely the people would have not been able to unseat Mubarek. If it had become a massacre by an armed populace, all hell would have broken out, IMO.

 

[Proton Soup]

The Egyptian army wouldn't fire on an unarmed populace, that's the difference between Egypt where the army feels they are part of the civilian populace and the US.

not a comforting thought.

 

[TheodoreLogan]

Maybe we should pool our money together and hand out a whole bunch of copies of 'Braveheart'. That ending really gets me going...
"FFFRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMmmmmmm..." All he had to do was kiss the ring...but he wouldn't do it...

 

[JaredJames]

Maybe we should pool our money together and hand out a whole bunch of copies of 'Braveheart'. That ending really gets me going...
"FFFRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMmmmmmm..." All he had to do was kiss the ring...but he wouldn't do it...

If I remember correctly, didn't that film end with an two armies fighting to the death?

Yes, that's exactly what we want here...

 

[Proton Soup]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgw_zfLLvh8

 

[Char. Limit]

You people are talking about guns too much. Let's look forward to what will hopefully be a bright future in Egyptian democracy!

 

[arildno]

Pakistan, until a couple years ago, was under a military dictatorship for about a decade. And another one before that in the 80s, and still another one back in the 60s. It's not clear to me how you see Pakistan as an Ochlocracy. There have probably been about as many Presidents that came to power via military coups as there weren't.

And Bangladeshi politics is an strange beast (I wouldn't call it typical of most anything really): how many people would imagine that the country that you say is characterized by harsh repression of women has been politically dominated by two parties, both of which are led by women? Bangladesh hasn't had a male head of state since the new Constitution was implemented twenty years ago. That's hardly typical of any state with a dominant (90%) Muslim population.

Irrelevant.
NOW they have elections, and those are followed.
Thus, all there is to be said about "democracy" has been said, right?
We could also add wonderful Indonesia, which is also one of these new-fangled "democracies", with a merely regrettably upsurge in sectarian violence against religious minorities (last week, to the frenzied screams of "Allahu Akbar", three Ahmadis were brutally murdered..).
Not to mention the hopeless position of post-Saddam Assyrian Christians..

We have no reason to expect anything different to evolve in Egypt, if given "democracy".

 

[Char. Limit]

We have a whole thread for the politics of Egypt. Can't we leave the politics out of this one?

 

[turbo]

We have a whole thread for the politics of Egypt. Can't we leave the politics out of this one?

Thank you.