Egypt: New government will be appointed

[Skilero]

For some a basic rundown: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hosni...ry?id=12785851
President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt has announced he will resign the current government in Egypt, not giving any indications as to whether or not he will resign. He said he will continue to propose social and economic reforms for Egypt to restore the nation.

There are several problems with this, however:

1. Egypt is already allies with the United States, and this relationship will be strained due to fact number 2.
2. The funding for much of these riots is from the Muslim Brotherhood, and extremist islamic group that would, most certainly, work with countries like Iran and Iraq much more after the demonstrations are successful (if they are, of course).
3. Israel, an ally of the U.S., is being pushed back further from their position of safety in the Middle East.
4. President Barack Obama has voiced his opinion on the matter, stating:

"Violence is not the answer in solving these problems in Egypt. The government has to be careful about not resorting to violence. The people on the streets have to be careful about not resorting to violence."

Other statements made by United States representatives before the announcement by the Egyptian President show that there was a large amount of misinformation and/or lack of information on the protests (as the protests were not peaceful at the time Sec. of State Hillary Clinton urged the Egyptian government not to implement "unnecessary blocks on communication on social networking sites", or when Robert Gibbs voiced a similar opinion by saying via twitter: "Very concerned about violence in Egypt - government must respect the rights of Egyptian people & turn on social networking and internet").

No statements have been made by the United States since the announcement the Egyptain government under Hosni Mubarak will be dissolved.

This shows a lack of responsiveness if you ask me.

Any opinions on the story?

UPDATE:

President Obama's recent announcement said:

"The Egyptain government should avoid using violence against peaceful protestors."

Among other things.

Without much of a stance on the issue. Obviously, from President Obama's address and the absence of address from other U.S. representatives, the government in America is lacking in information on the matter.

[Eris]

If you look at the background of the protests, you'll find the Egyptians have plenty of reasons to riot.

But bloody revolution is never pretty, and generally a hit and miss affair. Sometimes it works for the better, sometimes it works for the worse. In this case, the Egyptian was pretty rotten to begin with (it's been under martial law since the '70s), so hopefully things will take a turn for the democratic (even if there obviously are going to be forces tugging in the opposite direction).

2. The funding for much of these riots is from the Muslim Brotherhood, and extremist islamic group that would, most certainly, work with countries like Iran and Iraq much more after the demonstrations are successful (if they are, of course).

How rioting possibly require funding? All you need is angry people and improvised weapons.

[Skylar1]

Switching up the government apparently isn't satisfying the protesters, and is probably making them more angry.

Things only seem to heating up since communication has now been shut down in the country for 24 hours.

[Anoleis]

How rioting possibly require funding? All you need is angry people and improvised weapons.

Funding is to provide resources, usually in form of money (Financing), or other values such as effort or time (sweat equity), for a project, a person, a business or any other private or public institutions.
link

Just thought I'd point that out.

[Eris]

Switching up the government apparently isn't satisfying the protesters, and is probably making them more angry.

Seems like a stalling tactic, with a whiff of desperation in the air.

Just thought I'd point that out.

So by "funded by islamic extremists" he means "some of the tens of thousands of people engaged in rioting are islamic extremists"? Seems a bit of a stretch. It's like saying Christmas shopping is funded by pedophiles.

[Skilero]

If you look at the background of the protests, you'll find the Egyptians have plenty of reasons to riot.

But bloody revolution is never pretty, and generally a hit and miss affair. Sometimes it works for the better, sometimes it works for the worse. In this case, the Egyptian was pretty rotten to begin with (it's been under martial law since the '70s), so hopefully things will take a turn for the democratic (even if there obviously are going to be forces tugging in the opposite direction).



How rioting possibly require funding? All you need is angry people and improvised weapons.

You could tell me how rioting requires funding. Most all of my news sources are telling me they are being funded by this Islamist extremist group. At the same time, this riot is fueled by mostly muslims (who are more likely to deal with muslim nations--nations that just so happen to have not-so-great relationships with some of the more peaceful countries out there). Don't believe me on that one? Simple answer: Find women in the riots. Not too many, eh?

And while we can hope democracy takes a hold onto the new government in Egypt, you can be the judge of it all by answering one question:
Who has more influence in Egypt (to the people): democratic nations or muslim nations?

What's more is that the funding the U.S. gives Egypt ($150 billion/year) won't make a difference to the majority of Egyptain people in forming their new government because of the fact that the Muslim nations can supply more than that.

This'll lead to bidding wars for treaties and strengthening relations with the new country, ambassadors running in and out of the new Egypt, and/or an entirely new war created for Egypt's resources.

The crusaders took over, and there's nothing saying they won't again.

[Anoleis]

So by "funded by islamic extremists" he means "some of the tens of thousands of people engaged in rioting are islamic extremists"? Seems a bit of a stretch. It's like saying Christmas shopping is funded by pedophiles.

I don't believe he said anything of the sort. No where in his comment did he say that everyone rioting was an extremist. I was simply showing you that funding does not have to be by money.

And while we can hope democracy takes a hold onto the new government in Egypt, you can be the judge of it all by answering one question:
Who has more influence in Egypt (to the people): democratic nations or muslim nations?

Muslim nations can't be democratic?

[Eris]

You could tell me how rioting requires funding. Most all of my news sources are telling me they are being funded by this Islamist extremist group. At the same time, this riot is fueled by mostly muslims (who are more likely to deal with muslim nations--nations that just so happen to have not-so-great relationships with some of the more peaceful countries out there). Don't believe me on that one? Simple answer: Find women in the riots. Not too many, eh?

Well, since the primary religion in Egypt is Islam, it shouldn't be unexpected to find Muslims there. But that is a religion, and not an ideology. It is also a major religion in Turkey, which is democratic and west-friendly.

And while we can hope democracy takes a hold onto the new government in Egypt, you can be the judge of it all by answering one question:
Who has more influence in Egypt (to the people): democratic nations or muslim nations?

That is a false dichotomywiki.

What's more is that the funding the U.S. gives Egypt ($150 billion/year) won't make a difference to the majority of Egyptain people in forming their new government because of the fact that the Muslim nations can supply more than that.

Egypt is an undemocratic police state complete with arbitrary censorship and no human rights as it is. I hardly think very much of that money has been reaching the people.

[Skilero]

I don't believe he said anything of the sort. No where in his comment did he say that everyone rioting was an extremist. I was simply showing you that funding does not have to be by money.


Muslim nations can't be democratic?

While most Muslim nations are fine allies and aren't a danger to the United States, several of them (the ones the people in Egypt would prefer) are very dangerous and threatening to the international community ( i.e. are unsafe for a country to be associated with). At the same time, Egypt leaving the U.S. for a dangerous country would be a major shift in alliance between them.

[Eris]

While most Muslim nations are fine allies and aren't a danger to the United States, several of them (the ones the people in Egypt would prefer) are very dangerous and threatening to the international community ( i.e. are unsafe for a country to be associated with). At the same time, Egypt leaving the U.S. for a dangerous country would be a major shift in alliance between them.

You can't be friends with everyone. And Egypt is non-nuclear, so it's no actual threat to a nuclear state.

[Skilero]

While most Muslim nations are fine allies and aren't a danger to the United States, several of them (the ones the people in Egypt would prefer) are very dangerous and threatening to the international community ( i.e. are unsafe for a country to be associated with). At the same time, Egypt leaving the U.S. for a dangerous country would be a major shift in alliance between them.

That is a false dichotomywiki.

Make that question "If you were to split up the countries' influence (in percentages) what would they probably turn out to be?" It was poorly constructed because I was in a hurry and was trying to tune in to all of my sources to post up-to-date feed.

I'd say 70% goes to muslim nations, and 30% goes to the states.

You could tell me how rioting requires funding. Most all of my news sources are telling me they are being funded by this Islamist extremist group. At the same time, this riot is fueled by mostly muslims (who are more likely to deal with muslim nations--nations that just so happen to have not-so-great relationships with some of the more peaceful countries out there). Don't believe me on that one? Simple answer: Find women in the riots. Not too many, eh?

Well, since the primary religion in Egypt is Islam, it shouldn't be unexpected to find Muslims there. But that is a religion, and not an ideology. It is also a major religion in Turkey, which is democratic and west-friendly.

I misidentified a number of dangerous countries who fall under the category of Muslim nations with other countries with established and safe countries. Try "dangerous countries" like Iran.

What's more is that the funding the U.S. gives Egypt ($150 billion/year) won't make a difference to the majority of Egyptain people in forming their new government because of the fact that the Muslim nations can supply more than that.

Egypt is an undemocratic police state complete with arbitrary censorship and no human rights as it is. I hardly think very much of that money has been reaching the people.

I was saying that the new government, one that presumably will attempt at not allowing a disregard of human rights such as that, won't need to care because the numbers will be influencing their decisions and $150b is too low a number. This and a myriad of other factors will influence their decisions when building a new government.

While most Muslim nations are fine allies and aren't a danger to the United States, several of them (the ones the people in Egypt would prefer) are very dangerous and threatening to the international community ( i.e. are unsafe for a country to be associated with). At the same time, Egypt leaving the U.S. for a dangerous country would be a major shift in alliance between them.

You can't be friends with everyone. And Egypt is non-nuclear, so it's no actual threat to a nuclear state.

That's what I'm trying to say. They are non-nuclear, and are also safe because of their nuetrality with the United States. But if they get close to countries with the same ideals and form alliances with them (ideals being religion (which many muslims feel very strong about), which is where my original phrasing stems from) who are nuclear, we may see the day they are no longer non-nuclear. And what's to say they even have to be nuclear to be dangerous?

Basically, influence is key when a new government is being formed. What we're doing is trying to predict who will have more influence to Egypt. I think we can both agree that countries like Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan aren't as nice as the United States.

Also, I keep mentioning the United States because they have a big hand in this. But in the end, the U.S. can mean all of the peaceful countries of the world.

FACTCHECK: I said the United States supplies 150 billion dollars to Egypt a year. I was wrong when I said that. As it turns out, Egypt receives 1.5 billion dollars a year from Egypt. This is for the worse, as I had thought the situation had more of a chance than this...

[Anuket]

I pity those who are stuck in between these riots, I hope things will get better for them. As for Egypt, it's sad to know such a thing to happen to them. I've always wanted to go there, mainly for the ancient stuff and from what I hear their hospitality. Revolution may be their last resort, but let's just hope it wouldn't be too messy. Then again who are we kidding?