Egypt: Court dissolves Parliament
Barry Rubin offers a look at recent events in an Egypt filled with turmoil:
The Egyptian Supreme Constitutional Court has just invalidated the parliamentary election there. The parliament, 75 percent of whose members were Islamists, is being dissolved. The military junta has taken over total authority. The presidential election is still scheduled for a few dozen hours from now.
In short, everything is confused and everything is a mess. All calculations are thrown to the wind. What this appears to be is a new military coup.
And some people thought our Supreme Court overreached in 2000!
The military has long been the power behind the proverbial throne (the presidency, that is) in Egypt, and the military has never been keen on Islamist rule. Rubin points out that this type of court decision has a precedent, in Algeria:
In 1991 the Islamic Salvation Front was on the verge of gaining victory. Before the second round of voting could be held, the army staged a coup to stop the election. The resulting war lasted more than a decade ”” in some respects, it’s still continuing today. Cost in lives? About 150,000 ”” 200,000 in a country whose population was about one-third that of contemporary Egypt. You do the math.
That doesn’t mean Egypt will be the same, but this is something to be taken seriously.
The “Egyptian spring” was always going to come down to a showdown between the Islamists and the military. It didn’t take a giant amount of insight to know that, although Rubin believes this caught the Obama administration by surprise. Obama will have to make a decision, though, and the choices all seem bad. Rubin writes:
…[W]e are likely to have the strange situation of an American president fighting to put into power an anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic political force that is opposed to all U.S. interests, because ”” after all ”” they did win the election.
That would be strange, that is, with any other president but Obama. With Obama, supporting “an anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic political forces that is opposed to all U.S. interests” would be business as usual.
if you go back to before obama was elected, i said the response to the attempt to put a one country line i the sand would be huge and lead to bad conflict and war if the task was not completed. it wasnt completed, so the fence posts ended up waffling, and now the response i said back then is formed up enough that i can refer to it.
the peace treaties with Israel are being dismantled in a way that legitimizes their end.
the natural response to the attempt to close off the transport line would be to make the line wide, open, and un-closeable..
which is exactly what all this stuff is doing…
With regreat, dgr, you are wrong. Especially when it comes to the word, “waffling.”
“Elections have consequences,” the president responded, “and Eric, I won.” ~ January 23, 2009
There are only THREE WAYS to break a peace treaty, one two of them are overt and negative.
One: A country openly announces and ends a treaty giving reason. war is not necessarily necessary, but tends to go with it. [this is what the peace activists, Hamas and others are declaring should be done. open announcement that it be ended]
Two: Ignore it and invade or attack. ie, if war goes with option 1, this is the option of acting without informing the world prior to that. [this is the way the soviets did in the Baltic, with Poland, etc… ]
Three: New regime that chooses not to continue prior engagements. that is, new regime steps in, declares the agreements of the last are not valid as they didn’t agree to them, and so on… and that’s it.
this last one is the most socially acceptable one that insures that the entity doing it does not appear like an evil bad entity (for ending the peace treaty)
Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria…
so, its like tick tack toe
We tried to make a line of turkey, iraq, iran, afghanistan, pakistan, india
To stop weapons, and such from traversing from russia, ajerbaijan/georgia (recently invaded so they cant be closed now), iran, then either through turkey, iraq, UAE…
the countermove would be to remove the direct obstical… israel…
then there is a two country wide path from russia to africa..
How big is Africa? It’s fair to say that Africa is probably bigger than you think, even if you know it covers approximately 30,221,000 sq km (11,699,000 sq mi).
http://0.tqn.com/d/goafrica/1/0/b/Q/true-size-of-africa.jpg
If you combine the USA, China, India, Europe and Japan – they all fit into the continent of Africa.
how rich is it in material? after all, raw materials is the best thing a soviet state can work with!!!
Russia and China get nuclear materials from there, diamonds, gold, gemstones, raw materials, etc.
the prevention of africa from entering the market inflates the materials that russia and china mine and sell.
so the whole thing is to keep africans down (constant conflict and games from advisors), steal their country and materials (impovrished starving people tend to sell low), prevent competition (they cant invent or make), and so on
and note, prior to the improved racial conciousness, they were doing better… so these policies hurt them…
just read:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html
if it wasnt for israel sitting there astride the door with nuclear arms, all of the middle east and africa, pakistan, and such fall into the lap of russia and its control.
so to think that they are going to sit this out when the prize is a continent richer and larger than all your competitors combined, and populated by people you could wipe out faster than hitler did germany… IF israel and the US and UK werent so goody goody and prevented it one way or another (till now)
if turky and pakistan are fence posts
then whose side are they with, US or Russia?
shall i point out how they switch sides?
switching sides and such is waffling..
The term “to waffle” denotes indecision about particular subjects; “waffling” can also mean changing one’s mind frequently
now… go to a place like stratfor, and do some research, and see whether turkey is with US, or with russia, and which years…
then when we seemed to be winning, they moved to our sphere again..
then when we cooled down and it was clear we wont finish, they moved again
so, in 2009, stratfor was talking Turkey and Russia on the Rise
Russia is moving aggressively to extend its influence throughout the former Soviet empire, while Turkey is rousing itself from 90 years of post-Ottoman isolation.
which two years later you can read:
Resetting U.S.-Turkish Relations:
Charting a New Way Forward
http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1089&context=jss
you can go back to 1947…
the Truman Doctrine..
The doctrine enunciated American intentions to guarantee the security of Turkey and Greece, and resulted in large scale U.S. military and economic support.
A mutual interest in containing Soviet expansion provided the foundation of U.S.—Turkish relations for the next four decades.
things cooled a lot after the 1974 Cypriot coup d’état, where they invaded and took some land
then: During the 1980s, relations between Turkey and the United States gradually recovered the closeness of earlier years
with the end of the cold war, which side to follow became undertain… so when the persian gulf war happened, they sided with us
and then got closer
The United States’ use of Turkish military installations during the bombing of Iraq in 1991 led to antiwar demonstrations in several cities, and sporadic attacks on United States facilities continued in 1992 and 1993. Nevertheless, among Turkey’s political elite, a consensus had emerged by January 1995 that Turkey’s security depended on remaining a strategic ally of the United States.
with iraq war that cooled, and with obama its frigid… despite his not using the word genocide…
so tell me where am wrong… maybe i can fix it, maybe the bubble will pop… lets see… 🙂
“That would be strange, that is, with any other president but Obama. With Obama, supporting “an anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic political forces that is opposed to all U.S. interests” would be business as usual.”
Nicely put, but that statement skips what is really important in this and the last election. And that is
Obama is sexy.
What a tragic epitaph for a great nation.
actually, neo, delete the last post putting up the information on spheres of influence and lets wait for Van der Leuen to make a case for his assertion, and back it up…
Baiting me to a long post is not nice, is it?
[neither is putting grain out to hunt deer, but such people are how they are]
Others don’t deserve to sit there hanging, so i answered, when he should have made a case
Also. If he wants short posts, then he has to do some of the work. short assertions with nothing tend to cause proof to be given, and the proof he (knowingly) complains is too long and boring.
Setting fires and calling the fire department is not nice either
To meet him as an equal, and follow this debate method, would be to say he was wrong, and not say more… then we can go back and forth till he sticks his tongue out and gives a raspberry… as that is the level of such discourse…
so the last word to this behavior is from aristotle:
“Since the things we do determine the character of life, no blessed person can become unhappy. For he will never do those things which are hateful and petty.”
“Never give in, never give in, never; never; never; never – in nothing, great or small, large or petty – never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense” Winston Churchill
“lets wait for Van der Leuen to make a case for his assertion, and back it up…”
That would be easy if it indeed were necessary, but in this specific case your waffling is so obvious it would be redundant to engage it. I mean you do have to offer some proof to back up your assertions.
Pingback:UPDATE: neo-neocon » Blog Archive » Egypt: Court dissolves Parliament « Regional Wars!
vanderleun, your admitting you lost the debate and after the fact your wacking away with false methods and things to pretend your smart.
your three major forms of NON argument are
1) Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man)
2) Needling
3) Burden Of Proof
and my favorite silly constant that comes from lessers trying to win with NOTHING…
Argument By Question: asking your opponent a question which does not have a snappy answer. (Or anyway, no snappy answer that the audience has the background to understand.) Your opponent has a choice: he can look weak or he can look long-winded.
note that you dont make them long winded, just look like it…
but you forget, the people here know these games, and dont like them. your just making yourself look like some OWS leftist whose edumacation failed them.
once thats established, real debate dies, and all you have left is a quiver of bs games, which you use to try to hide from others that you lost the debate by not even entering a position.
ie. you defaulted then tried to make it look like you didnt by playing games
i am learning not be be baited by dishonest poseurs who have nothing better to do but enter races they cant run, and get pissy and cheat to show how clever they are
which is why you didn’t get the response you were hoping at, and could not get the pleasure you were denied the last time you attacked viciously
a surly vindictive person who wastes time, and plays head games trying to make a tiny coalition to then manipulate things. perhaps you forgot Huxley… he did that same thing all the time… remember him?
your debate style is like hitting someone with cotton candy and expecting them to fall..
surprise… they dont fall, and you look silly wacking away with nothings..
In 3-Words: GO, EGYPTIAN ARMY!!!
I’d sensitively suggest that this time you quietly and anonymously execute the Islamist Sewage instead of jailing them. Zawahiri, after all, spent several post-Sadat assassination years in a Cairo prison, yet lived to bring down the WTC on 9-11-2001. KILL the Dark Age Butchers and scatter their ashes in the Red Sea.
An interesting dilemma. linked here: http://bobagard.blogspot.com/2012/06/will-he-support-islamists-or-military.html