Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 45

Thread: Former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has been released from prison

  1. #31
    Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    11-30-13 @ 07:05 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,293

    Re: Former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has been released from prison

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    When will we finally admit that that culture, that religion, that part of the world, is not capable of democracy?

    A peaceful dictator is about all we can hope for.
    I don't know that you are 100% correct. But I'm pretty sure of it.
    "“If we don’t deepen our ports all along the Gulf — places like Charleston, South Carolina; or Savannah, Georgia; or Jacksonville, Florida…” -Obama

  2. #32
    Advisor Nynaeve Meara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Malkier
    Last Seen
    11-05-13 @ 04:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    325

    Re: Former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has been released from prison

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Nothing in Article 84 prohibits Parliament from doing so. The only prohibition is limited to the nomination of the Speaker, who assumes acting President responsibilities, for the Presidency. That's fact.
    I completely disagree, there is nothing that grants the power of appointing a Presidential Nominee via the Congress, it wasn't agreed on by the political parties at the time other than who was in their Parliament. I'd be no different than if Rand Paul was appointed President by the Congress and then an election was held to "confirm" his appointment without any one else stepping forward (IE not fair representation of the political parties). It doesn't matter how many of the people "voted" for someone if he is the only one running due to how fast people appointed a President.


    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    I disagree. In my opinion, setting aside U.S. (not to mention, Soviet) activities in the area during the Cold War, one can't automatically make that assumption. Structural factors (historical experience, demographics/sectarian rivalries, culture, institutional setting, among many other internal variables) shape the environment. The environment has not been hospitable to democracy (liberal Western-style representative governance). The kinds of governments that have arisen or evolved are no accident. Even without a U.S. or Soviet role in the region during the Cold War, one probably would not have seen sustained democratic governance.
    We have never left that region alone in the past 100+ years. There hasn't been a time period where we did not interfere with their daily if not weekly operations. If you can name a time frame I'd be happy to take a look at that period of history(Specifically of Egypt anyway).

    The one time they were left to their own devices they had a republic type government; IE Roman/Greek rule

    Funny how has been over 2000 yrs and the western world still somehow thinks they need to control the rest of the "developing" countries for their "own good".
    "I can't abide women who poke their noses into other people's business."
    “Men are strange. I think it has something to do with the hair on their chins.”

  3. #33
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has been released from prison

    Quote Originally Posted by Nynaeve Meara View Post
    I completely disagree, there is nothing that grants the power of appointing a Presidential Nominee via the Congress, it wasn't agreed on by the political parties at the time other than who was in their Parliament. I'd be no different than if Rand Paul was appointed President by the Congress and then an election was held to "confirm" his appointment without any one else stepping forward (IE not fair representation of the political parties). It doesn't matter how many of the people "voted" for someone if he is the only one running due to how fast people appointed a President.
    Nynaeve,

    I looked into the matter in even greater detail. Technically, Mubarak was nominated by the National Democratic Party (NDP). The NDP was established in 1976 (National Democratic Party – Egypt's Transition). Parliament approved that nomination unanimously. No news accounts speak of any other nominations. The unanimity of support for the Mubarak nomination also indicates that all of Egypt's political parties rallied around then Vice President Mubarak.

    Here's what Article 76 of the Constitution states:

    The President shall be elected by direct, public, secret ballot. For an applicant to be accepted as a candidate to presidency, he shall be supported by at least 250 elected members of the People’s Assembly, the Shura Council and local popular councils on governorate level, provided that those shall include at least 65 members of the People’s Assembly, 25 of the Shura Council and ten of every local council in at least 14 governorates.

    The number of members of the People’s Assembly, the Shura Council and local popular councils on governorate level supporting candidature shall be raised in pro rata to any increase in the number of any of these councils. In all cases, support may not be given to more than one candidate.

    Procedures related to this process shall be regulated by the law.

    Political parties, founded at least five consecutive years before the starting date of candidature and have been operating uninterruptedly for this period, and whose members have obtained at least 3% of the elected members of both the People’s Assembly and the Shura Council in the latest election or an equivalent percentage of such total in one of the two assemblies, may each nominate for presidency a member of their respective higher board, according to their own by-laws, provided he has been a member of such board for at least one consecutive year.


    The October 7, 1981 edition of The Washington Post reported, "Mubarak was... immediately nominated by the ruling National Democratic Party as its presidential candidate." (David B. Ottaway, "Sadat Assassinated at Military Show," The Washington Post, October 7, 1981.

    Parliament unanimously approved that nomination. That gave Mubarak support far in excess of the Article 76 floor.

    We have never left that region alone in the past 100+ years. There hasn't been a time period where we did not interfere with their daily if not weekly operations. If you can name a time frame I'd be happy to take a look at that period of history(Specifically of Egypt anyway).
    I referenced the Cold War era simply because you referenced the 1950s. My point about structural factors does not change.

    The one time they were left to their own devices they had a republic type government; IE Roman/Greek rule
    Even that form of government did not resemble today's western-style democracies. Moreover, that example is so far back in the historic experience that it has little impact on the structural dynamics that today shape Egypt and the region as a whole.

    Funny how has been over 2000 yrs and the western world still somehow thinks they need to control the rest of the "developing" countries for their "own good".
    That's an oversimplification. Yes, the British cited a "civilizing mission," among other arguments during the colonial era. However, one was dealing with many other factors, i.e., the balance of power, mercantilism, etc.

    All nations act to protect their interests. Where major interests are involved and where they have sufficient power (individually or through alliances), they will intervene to safeguard those interests. The Mideast, on account of its oil, is an area where many outside nations have a major interest as it relates to the free passage of oil through the Persian Gulf. Hence, if a hostile actor, let's say Iran in a hypothetical scenario, tried to block shipments of oil through the Persian Gulf, the U.S., among other great powers, would almost certainly use military force to smash the blockade. Failure to do so would allow Iran, in this hypothetical situation, to inflict enormous harm on a global basis. No rational nation in a capacity to act would willingly subject itself to such harm.
    Last edited by donsutherland1; 08-23-13 at 03:13 PM.

  4. #34
    Advisor Nynaeve Meara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Malkier
    Last Seen
    11-05-13 @ 04:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    325

    Re: Former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has been released from prison

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Nynaeve,

    I looked into the matter in even greater detail. Technically, Mubarak was nominated by the National Democratic Party (NDP). The NDP was established in 1976 (National Democratic Party – Egypt's Transition). Parliament approved that nomination unanimously. No news accounts speak of any other nominations. The unanimity of support for the Mubarak nomination also indicates that all of Egypt's political parties rallied around then Vice President Mubarak.

    Here's what Article 76 of the Constitution states:

    The President shall be elected by direct, public, secret ballot. For an applicant to be accepted as a candidate to presidency, he shall be supported by at least 250 elected members of the People’s Assembly, the Shura Council and local popular councils on governorate level, provided that those shall include at least 65 members of the People’s Assembly, 25 of the Shura Council and ten of every local council in at least 14 governorates.

    The number of members of the People’s Assembly, the Shura Council and local popular councils on governorate level supporting candidature shall be raised in pro rata to any increase in the number of any of these councils. In all cases, support may not be given to more than one candidate.

    Procedures related to this process shall be regulated by the law.

    Political parties, founded at least five consecutive years before the starting date of candidature and have been operating uninterruptedly for this period, and whose members have obtained at least 3% of the elected members of both the People’s Assembly and the Shura Council in the latest election or an equivalent percentage of such total in one of the two assemblies, may each nominate for presidency a member of their respective higher board, according to their own by-laws, provided he has been a member of such board for at least one consecutive year.


    The October 7, 1981 edition of The Washington Post reported, "Mubarak was... immediately nominated by the ruling National Democratic Party as its presidential candidate." (David B. Ottaway, "Sadat Assassinated at Military Show," The Washington Post, October 7, 1981.

    Parliament unanimously approved that nomination. That gave Mubarak support far in excess of the Article 76 floor.
    Of course they did, they were bribed to do so with the 200B+ in aid. That is what I'm opposing to, we have no idea who else may have stepped forward had we not bribed their government with "military aid". The entire election of Mubarak was a joke and rigged from the beginning.

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    I referenced the Cold War era simply because you referenced the 1950s. My point about structural factors does not change.
    Cold War era not withstanding it doesn't excuse us from playing "civilization" in the Middle East, using people as our "experiment" to see if a dictator works. Clearly as history has shown us over and over, I'd think we'd know better. Apparently freedom only means freedom for those who meet our approval. Imagine if Great Britain had decided to influence our elections during the 1800s instead of letting us choose for ourselves?

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Even that form of government did not resemble today's western-style democracies. Moreover, that example is so far back in the historic experience that it has little impact on the structural dynamics that today shape Egypt and the region as a whole.
    No it didn't, but it was still closer to a republic than what we have today. Regression is not in the best idea of a nation.

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    That's an oversimplification. Yes, the British cited a "civilizing mission," among other arguments during the colonial era. However, one was dealing with many other factors, i.e., the balance of power, mercantilism, etc.

    All nations act to protect their interests. Where major interests are involved and where they have sufficient power (individually or through alliances), they will intervene to safeguard those interests. The Mideast, on account of its oil, is an area where many outside nations have a major interest as it relates to the free passage of oil through the Persian Gulf. Hence, if a hostile actor, let's say Iran in a hypothetical scenario, tried to block shipments of oil through the Persian Gulf, the U.S., among other great powers, would almost certainly use military force to smash the blockade. Failure to do so would allow Iran, in this hypothetical situation, to inflict enormous harm on a global basis. No rational nation in a capacity to act would willingly subject itself to such harm.
    So basically, screw the other countries and lets do what we want, where we want, when we want? Never mind the fact we were left alone to develop or fail on our own for nearly 150+ yrs, we don't get to do the same for other countries now?
    "I can't abide women who poke their noses into other people's business."
    “Men are strange. I think it has something to do with the hair on their chins.”

  5. #35
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has been released from prison

    Quote Originally Posted by Nynaeve Meara View Post
    Of course they did, they were bribed to do so with the 200B+ in aid. That is what I'm opposing to, we have no idea who else may have stepped forward had we not bribed their government with "military aid". The entire election of Mubarak was a joke and rigged from the beginning.
    Mubarak was Vice Chairman of the NDP and Vice President. President Sadat was the NDP's Chairman at the time of his assassination. Mubarak was the logical NDP nominee, both in terms of his position within the NDP and his position in office.

    Apparently freedom only means freedom for those who meet our approval. Imagine if Great Britain had decided to influence our elections during the 1800s instead of letting us choose for ourselves?
    The structural factors are not solely external. The region's political evolution is the result of internal and external factors and arguably the former are stronger. If not, the political outcome in Iraq, for example, would have become what the U.S. hoped it would (a liberal democracy).

    No it didn't, but it was still closer to a republic than what we have today. Regression is not in the best idea of a nation.
    Suffrage and political participation were greatly limited.

    So basically, screw the other countries and lets do what we want, where we want, when we want? Never mind the fact we were left alone to develop or fail on our own for nearly 150+ yrs, we don't get to do the same for other countries now?
    I'm making no such argument. I am stating that nations act to safeguard their interests. In a hypothetical case, let's say there are two countries. One of the countries lies upstream and decides do dam or divert a river for its own purposes (agriculture, energy, etc.). The downstream country relies on the river for most or all of its fresh water. The diversion or damming of the river would create extreme hardship in the downstream country. The "non-interference" principle and respect for sovereignty would suggest that the downstream country should accept the situation, even if the upstream one refuses to accommodate it. It is difficult to suggest that this is an ethical response.

    Realism would suggest that given the magnitude of the national interest involved, if the downstream country had sufficient power or could assemble an alliance with sufficient power, it would use that power to prevent the damming or diversion of the river, even if that meant war. That's the way things work. Moreover, although that outcome would violate the sovereignty of the upstream country, at least in my opinion, it would be the far more ethical choice.

    If the actions of the other country were limited to those with a minor adverse impact, the impacted country would not resort to the use of force. Notice, I focused on major interests. Peripheral interests do not rise to that level. Hence, I am not suggesting that unlimited interference takes place, much less arguing in any fashion for unlimited interference.

  6. #36
    Advisor Nynaeve Meara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Malkier
    Last Seen
    11-05-13 @ 04:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    325

    Re: Former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has been released from prison

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Mubarak was Vice Chairman of the NDP and Vice President. President Sadat was the NDP's Chairman at the time of his assassination. Mubarak was the logical NDP nominee, both in terms of his position within the NDP and his position in office.
    Doesn't change a thing since it was bribed to begin with. I don't see why you are so casual about us pulling the strings on another nation that has nothing to do with our "oil" supplies. We don't even get most of our oil from the Middle East.
    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post

    The structural factors are not solely external. The region's political evolution is the result of internal and external factors and arguably the former are stronger. If not, the political outcome in Iraq, for example, would have become what the U.S. hoped it would (a liberal democracy).
    Mostly external thanks to our interference throughout that region in the past 100 years.
    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Suffrage and political participation were greatly limited.
    More so than it is today, which is saying something. You know its bad when slaves in Egypt back in 3500BCE had more rights than current citizens do. At the whim of any country you have us supporting dictatorships and military coups.
    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    I'm making no such argument. I am stating that nations act to safeguard their interests. In a hypothetical case, let's say there are two countries. One of the countries lies upstream and decides do dam or divert a river for its own purposes (agriculture, energy, etc.). The downstream country relies on the river for most or all of its fresh water. The diversion or damming of the river would create extreme hardship in the downstream country. The "non-interference" principle and respect for sovereignty would suggest that the downstream country should accept the situation, even if the upstream one refuses to accommodate it. It is difficult to suggest that this is an ethical response.

    Realism would suggest that given the magnitude of the national interest involved, if the downstream country had sufficient power or could assemble an alliance with sufficient power, it would use that power to prevent the damming or diversion of the river, even if that meant war. That's the way things work. Moreover, although that outcome would violate the sovereignty of the upstream country, at least in my opinion, it would be the far more ethical choice.

    If the actions of the other country were limited to those with a minor adverse impact, the impacted country would not resort to the use of force. Notice, I focused on major interests. Peripheral interests do not rise to that level. Hence, I am not suggesting that unlimited interference takes place, much less arguing in any fashion for unlimited interference.
    You are right, lets bomb the crap out of the upstream country till it can't build the dam instead. That's a smart choice.
    "I can't abide women who poke their noses into other people's business."
    “Men are strange. I think it has something to do with the hair on their chins.”

  7. #37
    Dungeon Master
    Hooter Babe

    DiAnna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,701
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has been released from prison

    Quote Originally Posted by Nynaeve Meara View Post
    We(the US) bribed their government(Egypt) when Sadat died with military "aid" to the tune of 200+B/yr to appoint him as President.

    He was not supposed to be President when Sadat was assassinated.
    Military aid to Egypt is $1.5 billion, not $200 billion. Egypt's Islamic Jihad was apparently responsible for Sadat's assassination, and Mubarek, who was also wounded, was Vice President at the time. Who did Islamic Jihad plan to put into the presidency if not the vice president, and how, exactly, is the fact that the Vice President ascended to the presidency after the assassination "proof" that the USA put him there? Isn't the point of a vice president under Egyptian law to take the office of President in case of the president's death?


    Edit: Never mind, donsutherland is providing all the answers I was seeking. You're still wrong about the annual foreign aid to Egypt, though.
    Last edited by DiAnna; 08-23-13 at 10:47 PM.

  8. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

    Re: Former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has been released from prison

    Quote Originally Posted by Higgins86 View Post
    He never should have been in prison in the first place. thanks for nothing Obama.

  9. #39
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has been released from prison

    Quote Originally Posted by DiAnna View Post
    [b]Military aid to Egypt is $1.5 billion, not $200 billion.
    You are correct. Egypt has not received $200 billion in U.S. aid. The Congressional Research Service published a report that includes aid figures. Those figures appear on p.9 (p.12 of the .pdf).

    Total aid between 1948-2011: $71.6 billion
    Annual military aid 1987-present: $1.3 billion per year

    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33003.pdf

  10. #40
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has been released from prison

    Quote Originally Posted by Nynaeve Meara View Post
    You are right, lets bomb the crap out of the upstream country till it can't build the dam instead. That's a smart choice.
    If you're the leader of the country whose people face their destruction, you do what it takes to survive. Leadership is not a mutual suicide pact. There's no nation that, if confronted with the hypothetical extreme situation I provided, would simply choose to submit and perish. No nation would put another's sovereignty and the principle of non-interference ahead of its own survival. None. The idealism that requires such a choice does not exist in any human society. If it did, aggressor nations would exploit it to its limits and the world would be a vastly worse place.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •