quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I can't confirm this, but apparently the Egyptian National History museum was ransacked by looters. I wonder how many Western curators are checking Ebay right now.
If you scroll down most of the way they show the "human wall" of people who linked arms to try and keep people out of the museum. Good on them, even if vandals did end up getting in there.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Generally these days I don't like to do point/counter-point with people, but I'm going to make a minor exception in this case, only because it's a matter of history.
quote:You appear to have been taught a false history. A VERY false history. For one thing, the "liberals" of nearly two centuries ago were not modern liberals, they were what today would be called libertarians. Secondly, 90% of the population nearly two centuries ago was religious in profession.
Rakeesh is more right than wrong. What do you mean by 90% of people were in religious professions? 90% of people back then were farmers. The other 10% were religious professions, and skilled and unskilled trades. Until the advent of the Industrial Revolution, America was very much an agrarian nation, which meant almost everyone was a farmer except the very few who got into a trade.
quote:BUT IT WAS RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVES WHO INTERPRETED THE BIBLE CORRECTLY, IN CONTEXT, WHO DEMOLISHED THOSE FALSE CLAIMS and laid the true foundation for the Abolitionist movement--which had its greatest strength in churches, not on the streets.
Religious history is difficult to parse, and I'll admit readily that I'm not totally up on all the specific doctrines and denominations of Second Great Awakening history and what went along with it, but I'm well above average when it comes to 19th Century American history in general. What you refer to as "religious conservatives" are more accurately described as what I'd call "Lyman Beecher" religious types. They were old-school, and were certainly not the founders of the abolitionist movement. People like Beecher's kids, Henry Ward Beecher, a prominent radical preacher known for being anti-slavery, and his sister, Harriet Beecher-Stowe, were the radicals. They wouldn't have used the term "liberal" back then because it didn't exist in the same way that it does today, and really, neither did "progressive," but if we're applying 20th century ideas and terms to the 19th century, they certainly would have fallen under that umbrella. The abolitionist movement was fueled to a great degree by religion, but by religious radicals, not conservatives. Lyman Beecher after all is partly responsible for founding Oberlin College. After he refused to allow students to discuss abolition and slavery, they left his more conservative school to found the radical Oberlin so they would be free to discuss whatever they wanted. I think you have the situation somewhat backwards.
In general, it was what you might consider "progressives" who were responsible for creating the pressure for abolitionism in America. Now, certainly there were those like the Free Soil Party who were more of a big tent organization comprised even more so of racists who wanted to limit slavery merely because they didn't want any blacks in their state at all, but the real abolitionist freedom movement was highly radical.
quote:As for what missionaries taught the Indians, again you are ignorant of history. Missionaries are the ones who teach natives to read and write, modern methods of agriculture, and other skills valuable for coping with modern society. In some primitive communities where there was no written language, missionaries created them. Missionaries established virtually all the hospitals and treatment clinics in third world countries, as well as schools and colleges and universities. They did not just try to "convert the natives." What a biased, disparaging, anti-religous thing to say! Virtually all the natives of sub-Saharan Africa were taught to read and write by missionaries, and the same is true of South and Central America, as well as all around the world. If it weren't for missionaries siding with the natives, their cultures would have been overwhelmed and subsumed, probably completely wiped out.
I think you sort of steam rolled over the real damage that missionaries did in Native American communities. Everything you described that missionaries did was part of a concerted effort to get Indians to abandon their own culture and assimilate into American culture. Going to school, for Indians, meant learning how to cook American food, dress like an American, and think like an American. It wasn't just education for the sake of education, it was about indoctrination towards assimilation. You're also ignoring the fact that by the time we're talking about, where it's mostly the Plains indians we're discussing, they weren't, by and large, farmers to begin with. They were nomadic hunter societies forced to live on reservations and forced to farm. Learning "modern farming" might have been a technological advancement, but it was yet another part of the destruction of their original culture.
You have a very interesting view of history that I haven't found much any evidence of in my own studies. Again, the religious angle isn't really my forte when it comes to 19th C American History, but I know enough about it to know you're off the mark. You're right about placing such high importance of the religious community in the north in the abolitionist struggle, but I think you're way off the mark in your characterization of that community.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: If it weren't for missionaries siding with the natives, their cultures would have been overwhelmed and subsumed, probably completely wiped out.
That as near as happened regardless of who did what. The native American population was reduced by up to 80% in the century following contact with the west. This is not about judgement, just the facts of the matter. Today North American native populations are probably similar to pre-Colombian numbers, but bear little cultural similarity to the people who once inhabited the continent. The idea that missionaries "saved" cultures is ludicrous. Nobody saved those cultures. They were destroyed, despite whatever intentions anybody may have had to the contrary. While you can say that perhaps a few of those families and communities that were spared destruction were able to adapt to living in their new circumstances, and *have* a culture because of missionaries, but that doesn't make it *their* culture. There's also a reason why the majority of native languages in the Americas are now dead, and missionaries were a part of that too.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have an Egyptian friend who is very sad that the two options he seems to have consist of: 1) supporting a thuggish, inefficient dictatorship; 2) turning into Iran.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to get into the missionaries to the Native Americans or importance of the founders in modern discourse, but I think Ron had a valid point. There's a meaningful difference between a democracy like the United States and one in which there's no freedom of the press, and no reliable information about the candidates. I have no idea what an Egyptian democracy would look like but I think it's reasonable to say that you can have a country that allows you to vote for any candidate and even counts fairly and still be shy of a real democracy.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I have an Egyptian friend who is very sad that the two options he seems to have consist of: 1) supporting a thuggish, inefficient dictatorship; 2) turning into Iran.
I'm sure glad I'm not Egyptian, but I totally sympathize with his pain. Even as an American it's impossible to really choose a side. People SHOULD have the right to protest and demonstrate against a corrupt government BUT letting those demonstrations turn violent or letting the "rule of mob" establish a government instead is also bad. I wish I could just bury my head in the sand completely sometimes!
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: By the way, Sam, I am one-eighth native American (Cherokee) myself, so don't presume to tell me to shut up about such matters. I am far better informed than you are about them.
Being part of a race doesn't magically assure you some or any valid historical knowledge about what happened with that race. You would be a perfect example of that even if you were 100% cherokee, with what you're saying so far.
quote:Secondly, 90% of the population nearly two centuries ago was religious in profession.
Source or reference anything that gives this as a factual assertion.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:For one thing, the "liberals" of nearly two centuries ago were not modern liberals, they were what today would be called libertarians. Secondly, 90% of the population nearly two centuries ago was religious in profession.
Where do I say they were, first of all? You were the one that brought that strange standard into the discussion, not me. But no, they wouldn't be called libertarians because they also had a host of other ideas which would be considered in the modern day extremely objectionable-like nearly everyone else from one and a half centuries ago.
That's just another reason why it's absurd to project in the way you're doing.
Second, I think you just made that figure up, but I don't dispute that a very overwhelming majority of the American population was religious in the mid 19th century. That's got nothing to do with your laying the abolition of slavery at religious conservative feet, though.
Because, again, that movement sprang from many sources.
quote: You are also making things up when you say I have a history of "dodging wording later." That is your mistaken interpretation. You cannot and have never been able to refute what I actually say, so you have to mischaracterize what I say, and then falsely claim victory later, despite the fact that I have answered your arguments--at least the ones that were not too silly to dignify with a response.
No, Ron. We've been over this. Recently, in fact, when you claimed my (and others') arguments were 'too silly to dignify with a response', they were in fact extremely relevant and unanswered by you. I'd offer to quote exchanges proving this, but it's been done, and recently.
But I see where the root of your argument lies: you basically go through history, find good and heroic people, and claim them as religious conservatives in some form or another, completely disregarding whatever labels they earned in their own context, which in the case of abolitionists was as a matter of factual record most emphatically not 'religious conservative', Ron.
That's a ridiculous, transparent means of cherry-picking. 'Conservative' is a relative term. It's not a number fixed against some other fixed number, and all human beings throughout history fall at some point on it. Your political and religious vanity is appealed to by this method, though, and I have little hope that it will be shaken by any kind of reasoning, or even by the kinds of standards you profess to believe in elsewhere-such as using the context of the Bible to judge itself.
It's funny how things shift for you, isn't it? Context is so important sometimes, but then over here in this discussion, well, context doesn't matter at all. Those abolitionists, they're religious conservatives, not radicals.
quote:As for what missionaries taught the Indians, again you are ignorant of history. Missionaries are the ones who teach natives to read and write, modern methods of agriculture, and other skills valuable for coping with modern society. In some primitive communities where there was no written language, missionaries created them. Missionaries established virtually all the hospitals and treatment clinics in third world countries, as well as schools and colleges and universities. They did not just try to "convert the natives." What a biased, disparaging, anti-religous thing to say! Virtually all the natives of sub-Saharan Africa were taught to read and write by missionaries, and the same is true of South and Central America, as well as all around the world. If it weren't for missionaries siding with the natives, their cultures would have been overwhelmed and subsumed, probably completely wiped out.
No, Ron. Stick to the topic at hand. We're not discussing sub-Saharan Africa or anywhere else, first of all. Second, yes, missionaries taught natives many things, but it was so very, very often conditional teaching, and quite frequently it wasn't very voluntary at all. It's not voluntary when the state compels a child's attendance, for example, or robs a nation's people of the ability to feed itself compelling them to rely on missionary charity, which is tied very closely to conversion and acceptance of foreign domination.
And for the record, I didn't say the missionaries were there just to convert, so kindly don't put words in my mouth. I only correctly identified their primary goal, and rejected your absurd assertion that there was some sort of subversive anti-government aim going on in any meaningful way by which missionaries in the 17-19th centuries would attempt to help natives stand up to the American government...rather than assimilate into it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: Not to get into the missionaries to the Native Americans or importance of the founders in modern discourse, but I think Ron had a valid point. There's a meaningful difference between a democracy like the United States and one in which there's no freedom of the press, and no reliable information about the candidates. I have no idea what an Egyptian democracy would look like but I think it's reasonable to say that you can have a country that allows you to vote for any candidate and even counts fairly and still be shy of a real democracy.
Hobbes
The issue, of course, goes far beyond one of simple legislation or current political practices. Egypt has educational and cultural issues tied up with misinformation about and fear of the west- some of that gleaned from a healthy dose of the paranoia of their neighbors. That makes actual participation in democracy, and an actual urgency to reform information delivery and transparency sort of difficult.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should say that I may have been wrong in the way I spoke of missionaries being concerned with saving/preserving cultures. There is nothing sacred about culture. It is the survival of the people themselves that matters. When members of Western Civilization come upon a people who know only a primitive lifestyle--maybe believing in animism, or worshipping devils out of fear, or even going so far as to offer human sacrifices, then we are doing that people a great favor by introducing them to a better culture, one inwhich they do not struggle with basic survival, and contend with hostile tribes, and with being old when they are 40, and dying by the time they are 50. I think missionaries would be remiss in not teaching people a better way to live at the same time they are teaching them a better way to believe about ultimate reality.
If representatives of a truly advanced, interstellar civilization were to come to our planet, with a culture where everyone lives forever, and has everything they need and want--I think we would all want someone to teach us how we could function in that culture.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I fail to see the correlation with "animism" or "worshipping devils" (i.e. "non-Christian") and any of the struggles you described. Human sacrifice I might give you, but give me one citation that this was a common aspect of Native American culture. The Dark Ages were filled with Christians who fought pointless wars with other factions (tribes) and died before they hit 50.
In other words, the Indians didn't have a relatively crappier standard of living because they were godless heathens, but rather because they hadn't undergone the technological and political arms race that Europeans had in the previous 300 years. The religious beliefs of both sides had little to do with their difference in technological sophistication. One side had medicine, guns, and agriculture (not to mention a host of communicable diseases for which they had already developed herd immunity), and the other side didn't.
Let me turn your analogy back on you. If our modern, secularized culture were to develop a time machine and invite the American settlers of the West to learn our ways, your own argument would necessarily state that it is our religious beliefs (or rather, the lack thereof) that are responsible for our greater longevity and generally happier lifestyles, rather than, say, 150 years of technological advancement.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Egyptian military released a statement earlier today saying that they would not interfere with the people's freedom of expression, nor would they stop the protests. Looks like this could go on as long as the people have the will to keep it up, or until Mubarak does something to really placate them.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I should say that I may have been wrong in the way I spoke of missionaries being concerned with saving/preserving cultures. There is nothing sacred about culture. It is the survival of the people themselves that matters. When members of Western Civilization come upon a people who know only a primitive lifestyle--maybe believing in animism, or worshipping devils out of fear, or even going so far as to offer human sacrifices, then we are doing that people a great favor by introducing them to a better culture, one inwhich they do not struggle with basic survival, and contend with hostile tribes, and with being old when they are 40, and dying by the time they are 50. I think missionaries would be remiss in not teaching people a better way to live at the same time they are teaching them a better way to believe about ultimate reality.
If representatives of a truly advanced, interstellar civilization were to come to our planet, with a culture where everyone lives forever, and has everything they need and want--I think we would all want someone to teach us how we could function in that culture.
If the survival of the people is all that really matters, and not the culture, then they were doing just fine before Europeans arrived. Warring with neighboring tribes is a problem? I think I'd take a war (if we're talking about the survival of a race) between tribes in America over World Wars that resulted in the deaths of tens of millions. Modern society has found impressive ways of wiping out other societies and races. I'm curious as to why you think a race of people are safer in modern society than they were in their "primitive" one. Then there's the fact that American attempts to integrate and assimilate Indians into our culture resulted in even more of their deaths.
None of that is even tangling with your whole 'culture is irrelevant" thing, which I take big issue with. You're curiously close to "white man's burden" paternalistic exhortations that got us into quite a bit of trouble in places like the Philippines, and that have historically not been a positive force in American society.
You and Rudyard Kipling would have been good friends.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Story about the looters who broke into the museum, and the band of youths who formed a human chain to prevent the looters from escaping with their loot.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
But I wish they'd see it as a win and start planning for elections. They basically won. El-baradei is widely considered the odds-on favorite in a free election, and he's highly favored by the protesters and opposition. Having Mubarak just leave and leaving a huge vacuum in power could be disastrous.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would be. Considering some polls suggest that the Egyptian population is just about ready to elect a totalitarian islamist regime which would end the treaty with Israel. If they did that, the US political strategy in the region, such as it ever was, could be completely routed.
The only good out here is for the people to somehow be persuaded to elect a moderate voice to make a smooth transition towards democracy. But there's no indication that they *want* to, only that they want an end to the current situation. Nothing good here, either way.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Electing el-baradei would be fine for everyone involved from what I've read, and he enjoys widespread popularity. I've also read that the Muslim Brotherhood isn't nearly as radical as they are being portrayed in Western media. Former Al Qaeda members who were in the Brotherhood left because it was too secular and too moderate for their radicalism.
I think there's a chance that this might end up not exploding into chaos. I'm worried about what flash elections that happen tomorrow would elect. Most people when asked who their favored replacement for Mubarak is have no answer. They want him gone, as you say, and figure Democracy will sort the rest out. But, when you float them specific names and ask who they support, el-baradei rises to the top.
He's not necessarily pro-United States, but he's not an enemy either, and he wouldn't antagonize Israel either. The possibility of a war between Israel and Egpyt, almost regardless of who wins an election, is incredibly slight.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the radio this morning there was some polls presented that had some pretty interesting results:
Something like 74% of Egyptians polled would prefer a Shuria compliant state and government to the one they currently have
Also, 89% approve of the death penalty for anyone that would like to convert to Christianity or Judaism.
I do not know if the polling was biased in any way, but I found it interesting.
There have also been claims that during all of this confusion in Egypt that there have been weapons being smuggled into the Gaza Strip. Again, I just heard this on the radio so I do not know if it is true or not. I'll search to see if any of the claims are substantiated.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geraine, I think at least an important point to remember about those polls is that while a large percentage of people may state their support for something, that doesn't really indicate the likelihood that it will happen- especially in a state that has not had democracy in half a century. The first thing any new government in Egypt would be looking for is allies. Siding against the Americans and against Israel would be, well, a problematic move, especially considering the support the US has been willing to offer its friends in the region.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are right Orincoro. I think the biggest fear is that the Muslim Brotherhood wants to take over and eventually set up a Caliphate. If this happened I don't know if they would really care to have the US as an ally. I don't believe for a second that will happen though.
I went to the radio stations website, and the guest that gave those polling stats was part of a Zionist organization, so that explains the polling.
I have nothing against Israel, but I do think that at times things get blown out of proportion.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa: When a certain other poster referred to "a tribal mentality" when discussing the Jews, I stepped in an in no uncertain terms told them to stop immediately.
How then can I let you say something just a terrible about the country of Egypt and its people? If you want to discuss a lack of education, or the effects of a totalitarian regime on the general populace, go right ahead. If you want to state that Egyptians by nature are inferior or uncivilized, that is unacceptable. Please stop.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Anderson Cooper and his CNN crew were set upon by supporters of embattled Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on Wednesday afternoon as demonstrations in Cairo took a violent turn a week into a nationwide pro-democracy uprising there.
.../...
"Where we are is rather precarious right now. I'm in an area where I can see what's happening in the square," he said. "But I honestly don't know when I can leave this building. I have no idea what's going to happen in the next couple of hours."
posted
This is why I wanted them to start toning things down after they got a concession from Mubarak. I actually think the news hurt things a little bit by spreading the rumor that the military might speed the exit of Mubarak if the protesters kept it up.
In the grand scheme of things, for the regions most populous country, even hundreds of thousands of protesters shouldn't be enough to speak for everyone, and you had to know there was an opposition. Though, in this case I'd be willing to be that the opposition Pro-Mubarak protesters were off-duty cops or something sent in under the guise of protesters to give it legitimacy.
So it's time to ask the question again? Will this encourage protesters or slow them down?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Though, in this case I'd be willing to be that the opposition Pro-Mubarak protesters were off-duty cops or something sent in under the guise of protesters to give it legitimacy.
I've heard allegations of that, but not any confirmation.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: Not to get into the missionaries to the Native Americans or importance of the founders in modern discourse, but I think Ron had a valid point. There's a meaningful difference between a democracy like the United States and one in which there's no freedom of the press, and no reliable information about the candidates. I have no idea what an Egyptian democracy would look like but I think it's reasonable to say that you can have a country that allows you to vote for any candidate and even counts fairly and still be shy of a real democracy.
Hobbes
The issue, of course, goes far beyond one of simple legislation or current political practices. Egypt has educational and cultural issues tied up with misinformation about and fear of the west- some of that gleaned from a healthy dose of the paranoia of their neighbors. That makes actual participation in democracy, and an actual urgency to reform information delivery and transparency sort of difficult.
Sorry I was so long in responding to this. I absolutely agree. My original post was in direct response to Ron, but I think the larger vision I draw from this is that maybe our number one goal in Egypt and in general shouldn't be to have open elections as soon as possible. Maybe other reforms have to proceed that for it to be helpful instead of hurtful. I'm thinking specifically of an increase in personal freedoms (such as freedom of the press, but general civil rights) and education. Meaning I doubt a direct transition to democracy would result in anything approaching success. However, I'm conservative enough that in general I'm not comfortable with my government messing around with the government of other countries so I'm not really advocating a specific role for the US in this. Rather talking about goals and paths to those goals.
posted
Between this and its self-imposed fallout with Turkey, Israel's world is getting smaller and much hairier.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Between this and its self-imposed fallout with Turkey, Israel's world is getting smaller and much hairier.
I don't think that's anything to be surprised about. They want what they want and are located in an area with people with extremely opposite wants. Since BOTH sides seem to be completely allergic to the word "compromise", it seems inevitable.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Two members of my church were vacationing in Egypt when the riots started, and found themselves trapped when Egypt closed the Cairo airport. We had prayer for them last week. I just saw them at church today, so they got out. The U.S. Embassy has been arranging special flights. One of the men told me that they kept themselves ready to go at a moment's notice, and when they received word from the embassy that a flight was available, they saw their chance, and jumped at it.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: I don't think that's anything to be surprised about. They want what they want and are located in an area with people with extremely opposite wants. Since BOTH sides seem to be completely allergic to the word "compromise", it seems inevitable.
Not even really all about the compromise, either. This comes at a long chain of self-inflicted image problems that were completely unnecessary and, as time goes on, will force future compromise Israel could have and wanted to avoid.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
I agree completely. I hate to see the people of Egypt suffering under a corrupt, oppressive government. But I'd hate to see them trapped in something much worse.
I feel for the women of Egypt especially. Despite the above-mentioned poll, I don't think the majority of Egyptians want Sharia law.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right, Pippin--I just wish the people of Egypt had a third choice other than the ones they have now, between a secular tyranny and a religious tyranny. Neither of those two choices will result in genuine freedom.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not afraid the people are actually going to get out the vote for that kind of thing. I'm afraid that if you gave it 20 more years, that's what you might get out of it.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the Muslim Brotherhood is more pervasive throughout all the Islamic countries, and more stealthy, than some of you are giving them credit for being.
As for Iran, remember that by many accounts the majority of the country never wanted a theocracy, and still today prefer the ways of the West. People never freely choose tyranny. Tyranny is always thrust upon them, by stratagem and stealth (as in Chilé under Allendé), or by shooting their way into power (like the Bolsheviks who overthrew the Kerensky Republic in Russia).
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: No real expert that I've seen analyze the situation thinks there's much of a chance of Egypt heading the route of an Iranian-style theocracy.
I think the fears about it are overblown.
I think the real fear is that there won't BE any sort of real popular vote on the idea. In times of uproar, thugs tend to have the upper hand. Just because one guy stops rigging the elections doesn't mean that someone else won't step in to do it another way (or even get rid of elections all together). Who do you think Egyptians would trust to be a fair arbitrator? Certainly NOT the U.S., so who?
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Most of what I've read about the Muslim Brotherhood says that they aren't nearly as radical as a lot of media sources are painting them as. The "muslim" in their name is sort of incidental. When Mubarak banned opposition groups, the one place he couldn't tamp down political organization was inside the mosques, so that's where political groups met and organized. Remember that members of actual radical groups in the Middle East LEFT the Muslim Brotherhood because it was TOO secular and TOO moderate.
DDDaysh -
Yeah, that's a legitimate fear. Most experts don't seem to hope that a genuine full-fledged democracy will flower overnight, but they also hope and think that this could be a genuine first step on that long road. I guess we won't know for sure until September rolls around, but there are a lot of positive indicators. As far as who could be trusted as a fair OUTSIDE facilitator of the election? The Swiss maybe? They've acted as a trusted go-between from Egypt to Israel and the US in the past. Maybe the Saudis, but I don't know if I would trust them from an American viewpoint.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mubarak welshes on stepping down, vows in televised address, essentially, that he is one with egypt as long as he's breathing. The protesters grow in size and fury.
There's unconfirmed reports right now of Mubarak and his family leaving cairo amid the unrest.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
