Was Mubarek soooooo bad...

[Vosem]

Certainly, would lose a LOT.

What, specifically, exactly, would the US lose?

You think getting involved by taking side of a hated dictator, who suddenly turned out vulnerable, while facing a popular revolt, would do U.S. position in the region any good? Worked well with Iran in 1950s, lol.

Seriously, Egypt gained something valuable in the past year: a revolutionary tradition (as opposed to the coup d'etat in the 1950s).  They've gained a roadmap for the overthrow of tyrants and they know the joy of living tyrant-free.  The Egyptian people won't surrender to Tantawi's thugs as easily as you might think.

Preceisly. Outsing Mubarak, who just few months before was appearing invisible, by popular revolt broke an important psychological bareer. And even if it won't bring much progress now, the legacy will live on. History is full of such long-term examples.

Open, avowed collaboration with Mubarak was a bad idea, but some low-level assistance was probably a good idea. Mubarak maintained a positive relationship with the United States, but whether or not the new regime will do so is still unclear -- and was even foggier in January. The last sentence is reason enough to take Mubarak's side, in my view.

The question is, whether helping Mubarak to hold on, which would very likely result in a wide, morbid bloodbath (and such thing in Egypt would mean far greater problems for an entire region and, in consequence, the U.S.), would be worth of it?

I fail to see why it would result in a wide, morbid bloodbath. If the police would control the streets of Cairo for a few months, it would simmer down. Ferenc Gyurcsany said in 2006, "you're allowed to protest in front of Parliament. Sooner or later you get bored and go home." Though admittedly that speech resulted in riots.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I hope you are aware that Lenin did not overthrew the Tsar, only Provisional Government.

I fail to see any reasonable comparision between the Bolshevik coup d'etat and Egyptian revolution.

Why is that? In both cases, a rather murky prospect overthrew an 'OK' regime; from the point of view of November 1917, Bolshevism could be better or worse, nobody was sure. The big difference is that Egypt hasn't broken out into a civil war (it still could, but that seems very unlikely).

As Comrade Cain would say, one is an apple, the other is an orange. But that means they're both spherical, yummy fruit.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Certainly, would lose a LOT.

What, specifically, exactly, would the US lose?

You think getting involved by taking side of a hated dictator, who suddenly turned out vulnerable, while facing a popular revolt, would do U.S. position in the region any good? Worked well with Iran in 1950s, lol.

Seriously, Egypt gained something valuable in the past year: a revolutionary tradition (as opposed to the coup d'etat in the 1950s).  They've gained a roadmap for the overthrow of tyrants and they know the joy of living tyrant-free.  The Egyptian people won't surrender to Tantawi's thugs as easily as you might think.

Precisely. Outsing Mubarak, who just few months before was appearing invisible, by popular revolt broke an important psychological barrier. And even if it won't bring much progress now, the legacy will live on. History is full of such long-term examples.

Open, avowed collaboration with Mubarak was a bad idea, but some low-level assistance was probably a good idea. Mubarak maintained a positive relationship with the United States, but whether or not the new regime will do so is still unclear -- and was even foggier in January. The last sentence is reason enough to take Mubarak's side, in my view.

The question is, whether helping Mubarak to hold on, which would very likely result in a wide, morbid bloodbath (and such thing in Egypt would mean far greater problems for an entire region and, in consequence, the U.S.), would be worth of it?

I fail to see why it would result in a wide, morbid bloodbath. If the police would control the streets of Cairo for a few months, it would simmer down. Ferenc Gyurcsany said in 2006, "you're allowed to protest in front of Parliament. Sooner or later you get bored and go home." Though admittedly that speech resulted in riots.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I hope you are aware that Lenin did not overthrew the Tsar, only Provisional Government.

I fail to see any reasonable comparison between the Bolshevik coup d'etat and Egyptian revolution.

Why is that? In both cases, a rather murky prospect overthrew an 'OK' regime; from the point of view of November 1917, Bolshevism could be better or worse, nobody was sure. The big difference is that Egypt hasn't broken out into a civil war (it still could, but that seems very unlikely).

As Comrade Cain would say, one is an apple, the other is an orange. But that means they're both spherical, yummy fruit.

You seem to adopt a view that every revolution is inheritely evil, because situation is always becoming worse. It's hardly true.

[The Mikado]

In short, the militantly secular military dictatorship Nasserist model of society has been one of the greatest poisons in the Middle East for the past half century, and having relics like Mubarak removed is a great sign of progress towards something new.  Frankly, even a flat-out Islamist regime is a huge step forwards compared to military rule.

[Beet]

In short, the militantly secular military dictatorship Nasserist model of society has been one of the greatest poisons in the Middle East for the past half century, and having relics like Mubarak removed is a great sign of progress towards something new.  Frankly, even a flat-out Islamist regime is a huge step forwards compared to military rule.

That makes no sense; a flat-out Islamist regime implies military rule. While I prefer liberal democracy to military rule, even if it returns Islamist parties to the majority, I would definitely prefer secular authoritarianism to Islamist authoritarianism.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Even if we assume that Obama could save Mubarak regime from collapse (and I seriously doubt he could), wouldn't the price be too high?

Just imagine that. Millions of Egyptians witnessing the United States helping their dictator hold on. What would U.S. gain by this? Certainly, would lose a LOT.

Yes, because Egyptians love "Americans" now.

I'm going to pretend I didn't notice your pointless trolling here. No one is claiming Egyptians loves the U.S. (and not without a good reason). The problem is whether any involvement on Mubarak side and, thus, even worseing these feelings, makes any good. Don't think so.

[dead0man]

Well I was just reading yesterday that the Brotherhood (and the other big "conservative" party who's name escapes me) was going to talk to Israel AND respect the treaty when they become in charge...if they are allowed to by the military.

Ok, I was wrong. link  They are exactly the asshats we thought they were.

You must be logged in to read this quote.