Trying to get caught up reading these, but as I do, one in particular caught my eye...

"The Egyptian people don't know waht they want."

Really, Fasces?

Because I'm no expert in Arabic and yet I could've SWORN that they've been chanting "illegitamite" and otehr such sayings for 12 days now, all of which can be translated into the following quite simply, really:

"GET THE FUCK OUT OF POWER, MUBARAK, WE ALL WANT YOU GONE."

How is that not knowing what you want? Even if you want to say that they aren't united who should take his place, they haven't all been rallying for someone to take his place, not yet, they've all said, "Get the fuck out, Mubarak!" and THAT sounds like they know pretty well what they want...

@Fasces: Now as for the economy, i'm sure relying on foreign aid does not infact help Egypt's economic growth.

IF this wealth was used to invest in Egypt, ie in social programs OR local micro-finance which would give the people the power to build their own businesses, OR even in national projects (to build schools, water supply, transport and communication links) then it could benefit the whole country and economy (to the point where they no longer mainly rely upon, as facses puts it 'the canal and tourism')

On the other hand if the income is mainly concentrated in the hands of a few corrupt individuals who have the military and political support to control the masses, they have no incentive to invest in such a program. Their wealth may not be that of some Saudi princes, but relative to the locals they surely feel very rich and have no reason to be unhappy with the limit of their riches.

Until there is reason for them to listen to the masses (via free elections) i see no reason to assume this is not the case.

I find your proof to be rather lacking and simplified.

@obi: ' "The Egyptian people don't know waht they want."

Really, Fasces?'

yes, Fasces is a fascist, and believe the people don't know what they want, or that a benevolent dictator is the best form of government on the basis that popular opinion is often stupidly tyrannical and dangerous.

That said, i don't know of any war where 'the people' have backed it.

Extremists the world over have demonstrated that they are minor disgruntled individuals.

Governments have the power to force a nation to war, but people can only engage in terrorism. It has often been shown that the first thing a government does when it wants to invade somewhere is build popular support through propaganda and fear-mongering. (as even now there is fear-mongering over the possible rise of the Muslim Brotherhood)

Though the Muslim brotherhood may indeed prefer war with Israel, the people do not. The people are not fighting war of aggression against their own country, they are simply protesting. They are standing in the street and chanting. They are exercising the power.

The people never go to war, only those with a monopoly on power can do so. While the fanatic terrorists the world over may sometimes win their cause, they rarely do so by armed rebellion.

The US revolution was not won by people power, it was won by generals like Washington organising armed forces. The Vietnamese who beat French, Chinese and then American forces did not do so in invasion of those places, they did so defending their own homes.

This notable exceptions are where war came to them!

** sorry, in my example of multi-variable decision making, i should have said 1.2 litres for 2.9€ versus 3.9 pints for 3.4$** (pints/$ and ltrs/€ are two simple ratios but are hard to compare directly)

WOW, another correction, i suggested that the Muslim might have taken advantage of the chaos to free their political prisoners, but straight from a witness who was there it seems that the 'prisoners' who were freed were done so at he behest of the interior minister along with a withdrawal of security forces to discredit the protesters:

'It appeared that not much later, the government decided to pull all security forces from the country (except from Tahrir Square, where they had started firing live ammunition at protesters, as i later found out) and call the army. I also found out later that Habib El-Adly, the interior minister at that time, decided to release a *beep* of prisoners. The country was left exposed for like half a day, and, inevitably, that's when hell broke loose - stores, supermarkets, city centres, even banks got attacked, robbed, burned by criminals or opportunists. The Egyptian TV and government made it look like it was us protesters who did that, but the sad truth is that at the time they were going around robbing in empty streets, we were getting shot in Tahrir square; which was in Downtown,where there is close to nothing to rob.'

Alos, Fasces, according to CNN Mubarak has privatized public works projects and education and has privatized them under the umbrella of his own government WITHOUT paying any of his workers for months AND has made education go from free to $700 American.

So, tell me how the people NOT reeiving poayment and thus NOT being able to buy food with prices inflating as it is and NOT being able to send their children to a school that was free and now costs an outrageous sum--and it's a public school, not a private one, so no excuses for it being a private school and thus expensive, public schooling is a basic RIGHT in ANY free society, as is knowledge--and generally NOT listening to calls for him to change these policies even as Egyptians slip into povery is both "free" AND good for Egypt?

And I mean "good for Egypt" as the PEOPLE of Egypt, Fasces...you seem to think authoratarian leader+unhappy-but-controlled-populace=strong state.

The problem with that thinking?

Like it or not the people ARE the state! You cannot divorce one from the other and cannot call "Egypt" free and powerful when EGYPTIANS are suffering to such a great degree they can't buy food or receive an education!

The EGYPTIANS=Egypt.
Mubarak's regime=/=Egpyt.

lmao get outta town fasces

^
There, we can all have a rally about that, a pretend rally to show Fasces what the people can do!

DOWN WITH FASCES...AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ARGUMENTS... :p

Fasces349, your replies to my questions were bereft of any supporting information that I could use to understand the factual basis of your assertions.

For the questions I posed to you, I would like you to kindly *explain* the facts behind what you believe *with* evidence to support them, rather than repeating your beliefs and making empty assertions.

I'm asking for information, not rhetoric.

The thing is, the Egyptian people know exactly what they want: an end to Mubarak's rule.

You could make the argument that they don't know what they NEED, but they surely know what they want. That would be the better pro-fascist argument.

A kid wants to eat candy 24/7 and stay up til 2 am. That's not what he needs, but it is what he wants. A benevolent dictatorship, like a parent, will ensure that the people who are in their structure receive as much of what they need as can be provided (hopefully 100%), and a little of what they want as an occasional reward. In this case, there's pretty strong evidence that Mubarak was not giving them everything they needed, not even fulfilling that goal to the best of his ability.

Guys, Fasces is like 16. A lot of us at that point espoused stupid shit that we later learned was a bit much. This kid reminds me a bit of "ConservativeMan", in that he's read more political theory than he's able to digest.

Also, I think you guys scared him off, because he's been online, but hasn't replied. Just don't beat him any more than you have to, yeah?

No way, he's more like TMW, the lack of evidence, etc.

@Orathaic, glad somebody read my link.

@ largeham

I'm just too lazy to find evidence. If I'm not arguing on something that is entirely personal opinion.

But, I digress. On this whole Egypt thing, I think the US should stay out of it. We don't need to offer our opinion on every happening in every country. We are not world referees. Let the Egyptians figure out their own damn problems.

And, I will say something. Fasces is worse than me.

I am quite amazed that this thread is the only poltically-charged thread on the first page of the Forum.

YAY! I have maintained my position of argueing against all the non-believers and being out numbered at least 5-1. My internet trolling is a success once again. :)

Now as to answer your questions legitimately:
"that is a logical fallacy. If the people want change they may be willing to support whatever group is able to achieve it."
Already answered this. There were 3 parties not 2.

"Thus people are willing to compromise their long-term goal (a free, democratic Egypt) for their short-term gain (the removal of one dictator) "
people only think in the short term. Its the main flaw in democracy. They don't have the capacity to know what actually matters most in the long term.

"However there is little evidence that the 'popular support' is actually behind the brotherhood, they had nothing to do with organizing these protests (though they may have taken advantage of them to break political leaders out of prison... i don't know, i'm guessed there) "
All the leaders are currently in prison. But they Brotherhood will be running in the next election.

"However anyone with a pro-Mubarak, pro-Israel, pro-American, bias is likely to say that these protests will end in an Islamic state which hates freedom etc... "
I am not pro-Israel. I am not pro-American. So why am I pro-Mubarak. Because, like it or not, he knows that the only way Egypt will remain at the economic power it currently posses, despite the lack of resources the nation has at here disposal, is with allies with powers like America and Israel. Mubarak is a smart man who has kept Egypt as an economic power within Africa despite the political and economic conditions in modern Africa. That is the one reason that I support him.

Nor did I say that this will end in an Islamic state which hates freedom. What I did say was popular support is behind a party that wants Israel wiped off the map, I don't see that as a bad thing given Israel's history, but what I do see it as is a terrible choice for the economy in Egypt. The current administration in Egypt sees that, the people do not.

"I do not believe this to be the case, but i do believe that they have a right to organize as a political entity, and that refusing them this right will simply result in militant action instead (as it did in Ireland with Sinn Fein/IRA, Spain with ETA, and Turkey with the PKK)"
??? What does this have to do with Egypt?

"fasces still didnt give any evidence in response to scagga... he just stated more "facts" from his own head"
Its something funny. I read the newspaper, not online news.

"Really, Fasces?

Because I'm no expert in Arabic and yet I could've SWORN that they've been chanting "illegitamite" and otehr such sayings for 12 days now, all of which can be translated into the following quite simply, really:

"GET THE FUCK OUT OF POWER, MUBARAK, WE ALL WANT YOU GONE.""
Thats actually my point, they think they want Mubarak out of power, but really they don't.

"@Fasces: Now as for the economy, i'm sure relying on foreign aid does not infact help Egypt's economic growth.

IF this wealth was used to invest in Egypt, ie in social programs OR local micro-finance which would give the people the power to build their own businesses, OR even in national projects (to build schools, water supply, transport and communication links) then it could benefit the whole country and economy (to the point where they no longer mainly rely upon, as facses puts it 'the canal and tourism')

On the other hand if the income is mainly concentrated in the hands of a few corrupt individuals who have the military and political support to control the masses, they have no incentive to invest in such a program. Their wealth may not be that of some Saudi princes, but relative to the locals they surely feel very rich and have no reason to be unhappy with the limit of their riches.

Until there is reason for them to listen to the masses (via free elections) i see no reason to assume this is not the case.

I find your proof to be rather lacking and simplified."
But in order to maintain that power, they have to sometimes listen to the people. There power is not absolute and they will only stay in power as long as they have enough support to prevent a revolution. In the eyes of the more intelligent dictators who didn't have their power overwhelm them into insanity (which is most of them), they realize that the more powerful the people are, the more powerful the country can become, and therefore the more powerful they can become. I realize that this can be misinterpreted, In no way do I support people taking over government and gaining power, by power I simply mean the better the economic situation of the mean person in the country. Not that the people deserve any real political power.

"yes, Fasces is a fascist, and believe the people don't know what they want, or that a benevolent dictator is the best form of government on the basis that popular opinion is often stupidly tyrannical and dangerous."
I don't recall saying that. I said that popular opinion is idiotic and suicidal.

"That said, i don't know of any war where 'the people' have backed it."
Iraq war had support at the time...
The Israel-Palestine war has both sides wanting to kill the enemy.
Almost every war in history has had popular support from one of the sides.

"Extremists the world over have demonstrated that they are minor disgruntled individuals."
yet they control with popular support many countries in the past and present.

"The US revolution was not won by people power, it was won by generals like Washington organising armed forces."
So Washington's track record of 2-7 in terms of battles (or something like that) he fought in led to him becoming a good general?

"Alos, Fasces, according to CNN Mubarak has privatized public works projects and education and has privatized them under the umbrella of his own government WITHOUT paying any of his workers for months AND has made education go from free to $700 American."
I am suppose to see this as a bad thing? Education shouldn't be free, and if he is privatizing the industry, then it should be the corporations, not the government paying the salaries.

"So, tell me how the people NOT reeiving poayment and thus NOT being able to buy food with prices inflating as it is and NOT being able to send their children to a school that was free and now costs an outrageous sum--and it's a public school, not a private one, so no excuses for it being a private school and thus expensive, public schooling is a basic RIGHT in ANY free society, as is knowledge--and generally NOT listening to calls for him to change these policies even as Egyptians slip into povery is both "free" AND good for Egypt?"
The economy in Africa has been crap all this time (With a negative GDP growth in every country for the last 3 years of in many cases more then 20% a year), Mubarak had to do it for the sake of protecting the economic stability of the country (which as a result of his economics has maintained its position as being the second economic power in Africa) and his bank account. I still support Mubarak due to the lack of any convincing argument against him. He is a dictator, I admit that, but I don't see it as a bad thing.

"And I mean "good for Egypt" as the PEOPLE of Egypt, Fasces...you seem to think authoratarian leader+unhappy-but-controlled-populace=strong state"
The correct equation is:
(Authoratarian leader + stable nation)*GDP=strong state. Using that equation, Egypt is the most powerful nation in Africa.
I never said the unhappy people is a plus, but genuinely a over happy person today=a misrable person tomorrow. That is the equation I am trying to prevent.

"Like it or not the people ARE the state! You cannot divorce one from the other and cannot call "Egypt" free and powerful when EGYPTIANS are suffering to such a great degree they can't buy food or receive an education!"
Unemployed don't deserve food or education.

"The EGYPTIANS=Egypt.
Mubarak's regime=/=Egpyt."
In the short term:
A Happy Egyptian=a happy Egypt
In the long term:
A stable Egypt under someone like Mubaraks rules= a happy Egypt.
As the people seem to only think about the short term they focus on the first equation over the second, I think the second should be the priority.

"Fasces349, your replies to my questions were bereft of any supporting information that I could use to understand the factual basis of your assertions.

For the questions I posed to you, I would like you to kindly *explain* the facts behind what you believe *with* evidence to support them, rather than repeating your beliefs and making empty assertions.

I'm asking for information, not rhetoric."
Read a reliable news source. I don't look at online news, I watch and read newspapers. Thats were I got my info from.

will post the answeres to the next few people later, my laptop is practically dead.

"The thing is, the Egyptian people know exactly what they want: an end to Mubarak's rule.

You could make the argument that they don't know what they NEED, but they surely know what they want. That would be the better pro-fascist argument.

A kid wants to eat candy 24/7 and stay up til 2 am. That's not what he needs, but it is what he wants. A benevolent dictatorship, like a parent, will ensure that the people who are in their structure receive as much of what they need as can be provided (hopefully 100%), and a little of what they want as an occasional reward. In this case, there's pretty strong evidence that Mubarak was not giving them everything they needed, not even fulfilling that goal to the best of his ability.The thing is, the Egyptian people know exactly what they want: an end to Mubarak's rule.

You could make the argument that they don't know what they NEED, but they surely know what they want. That would be the better pro-fascist argument.

A kid wants to eat candy 24/7 and stay up til 2 am. That's not what he needs, but it is what he wants. A benevolent dictatorship, like a parent, will ensure that the people who are in their structure receive as much of what they need as can be provided (hopefully 100%), and a little of what they want as an occasional reward. In this case, there's pretty strong evidence that Mubarak was not giving them everything they needed, not even fulfilling that goal to the best of his ability."
What you need=what you want. If you need it you must want it.
As for him not giving them what they need. I don't see it as wrong to starve a population that doesn't deserve food. It wasn't (entirely) Mubarak's fault that prices sky rocketed and wages fell, and so we can't blame him.

"Guys, Fasces is like 16"
Wrong, I am 16!

"A lot of us at that point espoused stupid shit that we later learned was a bit much. This kid reminds me a bit of "ConservativeMan", in that he's read more political theory than he's able to digest."
Other way round, you can't digest what you read.

"Also, I think you guys scared him off, because he's been online, but hasn't replied. Just don't beat him any more than you have to, yeah?"
Ever heard of a live game? I think it is reasonable to be online while not responding to political debate when playing a live game.

"No way, he's more like TMW, the lack of evidence, etc."
TMW???

"And, I will say something. Fasces is worse than me."
I don't know you. but what I do know is I am a fair man (or should I say boy), cruel but fair. (stealing one of the better diplomatic quotes from Civ IV)

It's wrong to starve a population that doesn't "deserve" food if you expect them to not rebel. We're not talking morally wrong any more, we're talking intelligently wrong.

tl;dr.

"It's wrong to starve a population that doesn't "deserve" food if you expect them to not rebel. We're not talking morally wrong any more, we're talking intelligently wrong."
Thats true, but he did control the food prices, so it wasn't him starving them, but the global prices starving them.

@Jack: until you bring a reasonable point to the table I will be ignoring your posts.

Fasces, you spout opinion as fact, make very little sense, and have an exaggerated opinion of your own cleverness.

I'm content to sit back and laugh at your attempts. Its cheap political theater. If you were half as clever as you apparently think you are, you'd be twice as clever as you seem to be.

I find your political ideas repugnant, your methods of argumentation extremely amateurish, and your attitude hilariously ignorant. I mean, I don't even have to bother going to go laugh at the Westboro people. I've got my cheap laughs right here on Webdiplomacy. :)

"Fasces, you spout opinion as fact, make very little sense, and have an exaggerated opinion of your own cleverness."
If I spouted them as fact I wouldn't be arguing, I would be stating what I know.

"I'm content to sit back and laugh at your attempts. Its cheap political theater. If you were half as clever as you apparently think you are, you'd be twice as clever as you seem to be."
It would be much easier to say 4 times as smart as you actually are. I am Autistic and Dyslexic. I have problems communicating my ideas which is frustrating, but they are up here and they are correct.

"I find your political ideas repugnant, your methods of argumentation extremely amateurish, and your attitude hilariously ignorant."
I agree with point #2 but not points 1 and 3.

I am fully aware that I just said that I would not respond, but you just laid a direct attack on me rather then posting anything relevant to what we are talking about. I just wanted to defend myself.

TMW, you're back! IT's nice to see you again :).

"GET THE FUCK OUT OF POWER, MUBARAK, WE ALL WANT YOU GONE.""
Thats actually my point, they think they want Mubarak out of power, but really they don't.

I don't see how that works. What do you mean they think they want Mubarak out of power? Please enlighten us on what the Egyptian people really want, oh enlightened benevolent dictator.

Ina large part Egypt has been kept alive by US aid. Just because GDP is high does not mean the economy is doing well. GDP doesn't measure equity, with 20% of Egyptians under the poverty line and unemployment just under 10% and inflation at 12.8%.

As for your 'a benevolent dictatorship is like a parent, telling the people/children what they need over what they want', how would a dictator know that the country needs better than the people. Many dictators/absolute monarchs knew little of went on in their country. Nicholas II was one of very few tsars to actually take an interest in the varied Russian ethnic groups, while were Hitler omniscient he would have known the problems with using slave labour to create munitions. And what's to say that a dictator wouldn't abuse his power to make sure he retains it. Name me a list of dictators/absolute monarchs in the 20th and 21st century that have actually helped their nation (I don't want arbitrary figures about GDP), and how many of them did it on little amount of foreign aid.

Also I don't buy you being dyslexic, you seem to be able to string words together very well.

'Unemployed don't deserve food or education. '

What?

So, the government doesn't create a beneficial economic situation for its people, leaving them unemployed, and they also shouldn't make sure food is available, *or* an education. Talk about a cycle of poverty.

You're pathetic Fasces.

"I don't see how that works. What do you mean they think they want Mubarak out of power? Please enlighten us on what the Egyptian people really want, oh enlightened benevolent dictator."
The don't like Mubarak, anyone can tell that, however they don't have a reason to dislike him, their problems are not because of the faults of him, but because of the faults of the continent. He is, as you say in the next paragraph, keeping the Egyptian economy alive, and when he steps down, watch American aid falter.

"Ina large part Egypt has been kept alive by US aid. Just because GDP is high does not mean the economy is doing well. GDP doesn't measure equity, with 20% of Egyptians under the poverty line and unemployment just under 10% and inflation at 12.8%."
Brings me back to my hypothetical situation, a majority of the Muslims in Egypt want a war with Israel. If Mubarak did that, America might even declare war on Egypt let along continue to send aid. What Mubarak has done is kept the interested of the country, not the interests of the people.

"Also I don't buy you being dyslexic, you seem to be able to string words together very well."
Try saying that to my english teacher. Also to one of my earlier posts (different thread) someone said that they hoped English isn't my first language (which it is) due to all the grammar mistakes in it. You should tell that to him to.
I type all my messages in a word document before posting them, which is what catches most of my mistakes. I know I am dyslexic because I live with dyslexia. However dyslexics are teople poo (old joke), we can still read and write, we just have a hard time doing so and can misread things really REALLY easily.

Side question: How can anyone support right wing economics when it lets so many people suffer time and time again?

GDP is a measure of material wealth no? Would you not agree that something like the Gross National Happiness is a better indicator of how well a nation is doing? Given that is an index that relates to quality of life and the human development index. Or something like the happy planet index which tries to take long term sustainable growth of stability and the like into effect.

If you you look at that egypt is down there behind 4 other countries is Africa, and tied with most of the rest of africa in terms of essential services.

GDP =! Quality of Life

If the citizens of a country have a low quality of life but lots of money what is the worth in that, the strength of a nation is it's people. If they are sick, starving and uneducated then the nation as a whole is sick.

Once again just so it might get answered. Someone care to explain to me how you can support right wing economic theory? (I'm fairly centralist in economic policy though I tend to lean left. Particularly when it comes to the idea of where power should be corporations v. government.)

QUESTION

If the people have lots of money but a low quality of life, whose fault is it?