The Politics Thread

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Perfectly and concisely put LK.

[Bruce Rioja]

Whatever they charge its too much!

Really? Looks beautiful.

The sea is beautiful there. The beaches, can also be beautiful. After that it is one huge building site/rubbish tip.

Like Blackpool, but you get hassled by drug pushers a lot more. And everyone, but everyone is trying to sell you something.

El Gouna. From £18 a night just now

Have you been?

[BWFC_Insane]

Whatever they charge its too much!

Really? Looks beautiful.

The sea is beautiful there. The beaches, can also be beautiful. After that it is one huge building site/rubbish tip.

Like Blackpool, but you get hassled by drug pushers a lot more. And everyone, but everyone is trying to sell you something.

El Gouna. From £18 a night just now

Have you been?

No but a friend swears by it goes twice a year.

Meant to be good for diving, not my thing but.....

[Prufrock]

Again, a coup d'etat is, in general understanding, a movement from a certain section of the officer corp to affect political change, usually to their own ends. In Egypt, it is part of a wider movement for eventual reinstatement, or indeed the founding of, democracy. It did not start with the military. Moreover, you're also confusing context and chronology. This is in effect a continuation of what was popularly known as The Arab Spring. It would be very easy, for the purposes of this argument, to simply state that a democratically elected government was removed. That would be a poor interpretation of events. Monty's comparison with Hitler is a very valid one, the democratically elected government, particularly one man, over reached their democratic powers by in effect reinstating dictatorship. Call it a revolution, an uprising, even civil war, it isn't a coup d'etat in any classical sense. The military have merely taken sides, as in many other revolutionary movements over history.

So whether or not it is a coup is a subjective decision, made afterwards, and based on whether or not we like who won? My point is that 'military coup' is not by definition perjorative. There may have been popular support, but there was no civilian command. The military took a unilateral decision to take power. They were taking power for their own ends, even if those ends are a noble wish to see a stable democracy.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Again, a coup d'etat is, in general understanding, a movement from a certain section of the officer corp to affect political change, usually to their own ends. In Egypt, it is part of a wider movement for eventual reinstatement, or indeed the founding of, democracy. It did not start with the military. Moreover, you're also confusing context and chronology. This is in effect a continuation of what was popularly known as The Arab Spring. It would be very easy, for the purposes of this argument, to simply state that a democratically elected government was removed. That would be a poor interpretation of events. Monty's comparison with Hitler is a very valid one, the democratically elected government, particularly one man, over reached their democratic powers by in effect reinstating dictatorship. Call it a revolution, an uprising, even civil war, it isn't a coup d'etat in any classical sense. The military have merely taken sides, as in many other revolutionary movements over history.

So whether or not it is a coup is a subjective decision, made afterwards, and based on whether or not we like who won? My point is that 'military coup' is not by definition perjorative. There may have been popular support, but there was no civilian command. The military took a unilateral decision to take power. They were taking power for their own ends, even if those ends are a noble wish to see a stable democracy.

Technically a coup places the people who do the overthrowing in power - so No it is not a coup.

The other contentious point is, if it was a coup (which we'll briefly conceed for the point of argument), then the previous Arab Spring revolution was also a coup, but the people (press, certain sections of society, etc) who are concerned/determined/outraged that this one is a coup are blindsided to that fact, which on balance is very annoying.
And as basically you are saying that you don't care that it's a coup, and are prepared to accept that the Arab Spring Revolution was also a coup, well fine, go ahead and think that. (But remember, technically it ain't).

[thebish]

hmmmm.... to suggest that the military are somehow NOT in power is wobbly ground, I think - they may have a puppet non-military figure for the photocalls - but, let's be honest here - for good or for ill - the military ARE in power in Egypt.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

hmmmm.... to suggest that the military are somehow NOT in power is wobbly ground, I think - they may have a puppet non-military figure for the photocalls - but, let's be honest here - for good or for ill - the military ARE in power in Egypt.

If that's what you think, fine. Just remember then that they were as equally in power after the Arab Spring Revolution and nobody was calling that a coup. Nobody, anywhere. So if that wasn't this isn't, but if this is, so was that.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

hmmmm.... to suggest that the military are somehow NOT in power is wobbly ground, I think - they may have a puppet non-military figure for the photocalls - but, let's be honest here - for good or for ill - the military ARE in power in Egypt.

The council mostly consists of members of the judiciary. This is because they are independent - hardly puppets.
One of the reasons for the overthrow of Morsi was because he was threatening to dismantle the judiciary. I'm sure, as a person of moral rectitude, you can see the danger to society when an independent arm of the state is abandoned. So it's a little hard to see why you think they are puppets. Unless of course you think the Supreme Court in the US for example are mere puppets of a military-industrial complex.

[thebish]

hmmmm.... to suggest that the military are somehow NOT in power is wobbly ground, I think - they may have a puppet non-military figure for the photocalls - but, let's be honest here - for good or for ill - the military ARE in power in Egypt.

If that's what you think, fine. Just remember then that they were as equally in power after the Arab Spring Revolution and nobody was calling that a coup. Nobody, anywhere. So if that wasn't this isn't, but if this is, so was that.

I'm quite happy calling both a coup - makes no odds to me - you can label them good coups bad coups indifferent coups or benevolent coups (not that I think this one is) - but it's clearly a coup.

do you REALLY not think the military is an any sense "in power" right now?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

hmmmm.... to suggest that the military are somehow NOT in power is wobbly ground, I think - they may have a puppet non-military figure for the photocalls - but, let's be honest here - for good or for ill - the military ARE in power in Egypt.

If that's what you think, fine. Just remember then that they were as equally in power after the Arab Spring Revolution and nobody was calling that a coup. Nobody, anywhere. So if that wasn't this isn't, but if this is, so was that.

I'm quite happy calling both a coup - makes no odds to me - you can label them good coups bad coups indifferent coups or benevolent coups (not that I think this one is) - but it's clearly a coup.

do you REALLY not think the military is an any sense "in power" right now?

The interim council is in power. The army are on the streets - as they were when Ted Heath was Prime Minister, was anybody saying then that the generals had taken over?

[thebish]

hmmmm.... to suggest that the military are somehow NOT in power is wobbly ground, I think - they may have a puppet non-military figure for the photocalls - but, let's be honest here - for good or for ill - the military ARE in power in Egypt.

If that's what you think, fine. Just remember then that they were as equally in power after the Arab Spring Revolution and nobody was calling that a coup. Nobody, anywhere. So if that wasn't this isn't, but if this is, so was that.

I'm quite happy calling both a coup - makes no odds to me - you can label them good coups bad coups indifferent coups or benevolent coups (not that I think this one is) - but it's clearly a coup.

do you REALLY not think the military is an any sense "in power" right now?

The interim council is in power. The army are on the streets - as they were when Ted Heath was Prime Minister, was anybody saying then that the generals had taken over?

are you seriously comparing Ted's Heath's prime-ministership with the situation in Egypt? Ted Heath was elected!!

the army has put the current batch in the council room and are keeping them there - as soon as the army doesn't like what they do - they will disappear - that is where the power lies... the panel of judges will not pursue any policies the army don't like - such as releasing the imprisoned Muslim Brotherhood leaders on trumped up charges - or releasing president morsi.

who has put this council of judges in power? the people? (no!) - the army! (yes!) for good or for ill, that's where the power lies. (you know this)

[Lost Leopard Spot]

hmmmm.... to suggest that the military are somehow NOT in power is wobbly ground, I think - they may have a puppet non-military figure for the photocalls - but, let's be honest here - for good or for ill - the military ARE in power in Egypt.

If that's what you think, fine. Just remember then that they were as equally in power after the Arab Spring Revolution and nobody was calling that a coup. Nobody, anywhere. So if that wasn't this isn't, but if this is, so was that.

I'm quite happy calling both a coup - makes no odds to me - you can label them good coups bad coups indifferent coups or benevolent coups (not that I think this one is) - but it's clearly a coup.

do you REALLY not think the military is an any sense "in power" right now?

The interim council is in power. The army are on the streets - as they were when Ted Heath was Prime Minister, was anybody saying then that the generals had taken over?

are you seriously comparing Ted's Heath's prime-ministership with the situation in Egypt? Ted Heath was elected!!

the army has put the current batch in the council room and are keeping them there - as soon as the army doesn't like what they do - they will disappear - that is where the power lies... the panel of judges will not pursue any policies the army don't like - such as releasing the imprisoned Muslim Brotherhood leaders on trumped up charges - or releasing president morsi.

who has put this council of judges in power? the people? (no!) - the army! (yes!) for good or for ill, that's where the power lies. (you know this)

The army moved because the people demanded it. The army are of the people too, they aren't some invading force from Mars.
And you entirely ignored my point about the judiciary - which is startling.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

What a bizarre discussion.

Like Pru I'm not sure the word 'coup' is necessarily pejorative. I don't see why if the German army had overthrown Hitler in 1938 and put the judges in charge it wouldn't have been a 'coup'. Is there really a 'technical' definition?

I haven't got a bloody clue what's going on in Egypt, but I do have a question - has the army's involvement been exactly the same this time round as it was in the previous 'change of administration'.

[thebish]

The army moved because the people demanded it. The army are of the people too, they aren't some invading force from Mars.
And you entirely ignored my point about the judiciary - which is startling.

the army moved because it was in their interests. what did i need to respond to about the judiciary?

how did the army discern what "the people" wanted? can you be specific? you keep saying it as if there was some kind of measurable way of determining the view of a nation - like (say) an election...

[TANGODANCER]

Be nice to differentiate "the army" away from "the army chiefs of staff and their pet politicians who appoint them" Your common soldier ranks, right up to anybody below said chiefs of staff, do as they are told. That's what they get paid for. No serving soldier decides policy.

Egypt (Jerusalem) provided a classic example painted on a wall in 1917. A slogan read: "British go home". Underneath a soldier had written "Just give us half a xxxxxxx chance mate!"

[Lost Leopard Spot]

The army moved because the people demanded it. The army are of the people too, they aren't some invading force from Mars.
And you entirely ignored my point about the judiciary - which is startling.

the army moved because it was in their interests. what did i need to respond to about the judiciary?

how did the army discern what "the people" wanted? can you be specific? you keep saying it as if there was some kind of measurable way of determining the view of a nation - like (say) an election...

And I keep on coming back to the same point... What occurred in the 'Revolution' is the same as happened in the 'Deposition'.
Millions on the streets may not have the same legitimacy as an 'election' but it's a powerful tool of the oppressed.

Being elected is not a legitimate path to becoming a dictator.
I'm sorry that Morsi was overthrown as he was, but I'm equally as sorry that the douchebag didn't compromise on his path to power by actually doing the things he promised the people rather than the things that he said he wouldn't do but went ahead and did them anyway.

And Pencilbiter, when semantics play a part in the emotion of a debate it is hardly bizarre to give a definition, I don't feel.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Anyway, Egypt, the army, coups, the fate of World Peace, can all bugger off - I'm for the wilderness.. tatty bye.

[thebish]

And I keep on coming back to the same point... What occurred in the 'Revolution' is the same as happened in the 'Deposition'.
Millions on the streets may not have the same legitimacy as an 'election' but it's a powerful tool of the oppressed.

hmmm... but are you not even the tiniest bit nervous when the military can use street-protest to legitimise the overthrow of a government elected in a free and fair national election..

how many on the streets does it take to properly gauge what "the people" want?

also - as soon as the independent judiciary BECOME the government - sponsored by the army - then they cease to be the independent judiciary!! who are they independent from if they ARE the government?

[William the White]

The army moved because the people demanded it. The army are of the people too, they aren't some invading force from Mars.
And you entirely ignored my point about the judiciary - which is startling.

the army moved because it was in their interests. what did i need to respond to about the judiciary?

how did the army discern what "the people" wanted? can you be specific? you keep saying it as if there was some kind of measurable way of determining the view of a nation - like (say) an election...

And I keep on coming back to the same point... What occurred in the 'Revolution' is the same as happened in the 'Deposition'.
Millions on the streets may not have the same legitimacy as an 'election' but it's a powerful tool of the oppressed.

Being elected is not a legitimate path to becoming a dictator.
I'm sorry that Morsi was overthrown as he was, but I'm equally as sorry that the douchebag didn't compromise on his path to power by actually doing the things he promised the people rather than the things that he said he wouldn't do but went ahead and did them anyway.

And Pencilbiter, when semantics play a part in the emotion of a debate it is hardly bizarre to give a definition, I don't feel.

It isn't. The masses in the streets - both secular and Islamic - led the way for the overthrow of Mubarak. The army's refusal to crack down on them meant the fall of Mubarak was inevitable. The result was an election which revealed with crystal clarity the almost exact divide between Islamic parties and secular ones. These - the only fair elections in Egypt's history produced a 51% majority - mostly from the countryside - for the Moslem Brotherhood. A British Party obtaining an absolute majority like this is pretty much unknown.

The elected government has now been overthrown by a military coup welcomed by many from supporters of the secular parties, though I note that some of the left intelligentsia are now retreating from their original celebrations as the bloodshed spreads.

We'll see how quickly, and at what cost, Egypt returns to democratic practices. It is clear, though, that there can be no genuine democracy without the participation of the Moslem Brotherhood.

Which of Morsi's policies do you think justify his being overthrown by military violence?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

In other news.... the third and final part of my mate's series on the financial system is now up if anyone has been following.

http://leftwinghamster.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... -3_15.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;