• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Egypt's Mubarak resigns as leader

Gotta set the bar.

More like, muddy the water. :rofl

The, "fear", and the, "you must be a Mubarack supporter", arguments are no different than the, "yooz-a-racist", argument whenever someone disagrees with Obama.
 
Identify the fallacy. What is it called?

Spewing hyperbole and rhetoric like you constantly do gets you nowhere.

Neither does making false accusations.

I don't recall any Conservative in this thread--or any other--saying that Mubarack should stay in power.
 
So fear is a reason to give up on democractic values?

Who wins elections?

The most organized group.

What group is most organized and able to get behind a single candidate?

Muslim Brotherhood.

How likely is it that they will be able to win?

Very likely.

Ergo, the Islamic State of Egypt.

Think I'm wrong, let's see in one year. Probably be a lot shorter then that. If I'm wrong, aces for Egypt, and the world. I seriously doubt I'm wrong.
 
Except it's not a fact... It is not a fact that the new government will post a threat to America.

It's not a fact that it won't pose a threat to America.

The new government will be better than the previous one by a longshot. The potential threat to America is currently nonexistent. The surpression of the Egyptian people for the last thirty years is not.

That's a matter of opinion and nothing more.
 
Damn, the fallacies keep on coming.

Mubarak and Saddam were both ruthless dictators that pillaged their own countries. The only difference Mubarak was friendly to the US. Where's the fallacy in that?

The hypocrisy of so called conservatives is getting to be unbearable.
 
Last edited:
I don't believe that the future government of Egypt will be corrupt. But there still is a threat, like it or not. I hold my freedom dear, and I'm glad for their revolution.

I am kind of surprised that apdst "Liked" this post. I suppose it was the "But there still is a threat, like it or not." part. Fair enough, I don't think anyone is saying there is not a risk. It doesn't seem like apdst is feeling the "I'm glad for their revolution" groove.

As far as the bolded part of your post goes, are you freakin kidding me? You don't think the future government of Egypt will be CORRUPT? Name me one government in the world that is not corrupt. The whole point of a Republic is to have competing political groups and checks and balances between the Legislative, Executive and Judicial powers so that the corruption is kept manageable and you don't end up with a kleptocracy. Oops, too late.
 
Last edited:
Currently, there are numerous trajectories along which Egypt could evolve. They include but are not limited to:

1. Evolution into a stable reasonably democratic state (ideal case).
2. Progress toward a reasonably democratic system of governance that fizzles over time and ultimately yields to renewed illiberal rule.
3. Military rule that evolves into a new round of illiberal rule.
4. Theocratic state (touted by some pundits, but not very likely in the near-term given the depth of secularist nationalism and also the role of the military)

Immediately, the transition will likely lead to a de-emphasis on foreign policy in Egypt. In other words, Egypt's foreign policy footprint will shrink temporarily as the country focuses on devising a framework for future elections and, more importantly, tries to lay a foundation for more democratic governance. Other regional state and non-state actors will likely vie to fill that temporary policy vacuum. There will likely be good continuity in Egypt's foreign relations. Things will remain relatively unchanged vis-a-vis the U.S. and also the Israel-Egypt peace treaty will remain intact.

Most likely, there will be elections anywhere from 6-18 months down the road, depending on how quickly a framework for transparent elections can be devised, electoral campaigns can be organized, etc. If at least some of the opposition figures such as Mohamed ElBaradei win significant political influence in the elections, one can expect a strong amount of continuity in Egypt's foreign relations. Indeed, in an op-ed published in The New York Times, Dr. ElBaradei addressed the "chaos or worse" case some have been arguing would follow in a post-Mubarak era. He wrote:

Many, particularly in the West, have bought the Mubarak regime’s fiction that a democratic Egypt will turn into chaos or a religious state, abrogate the fragile peace with Israel and become hostile to the West. But the people of Egypt — the grandmothers in veils who have dared to share Tahrir Square with army tanks, the jubilant young people who have risked their lives for their first taste of these new freedoms — are not so easily fooled.

Aside from creating a framework that produces progress toward more democratic governance--a task that will not be completed once elections are held, as democracy depends on laws and institutions, with elections being an important but not sole requirement of democratic governance--there will be some big challenges that confront Egypt's future government. None will be larger than enacting the economic reforms that will produce meaningful opportunities for Egypt's still rapidly growing and youthful population (median age is 24). Failure of that government to produce satisfactory outcomes over a few years could lead to disenchantment with the post-Mubarak system. It would be that disenchantment, more than political Islamist movements, that would pose perhaps the biggest threat to what would still be a very young democratic experience. That situation could lead to the second outcome sketched at the beginning of this message.

In the end, one should not automatically assume the worst. There is a big opportunity for a new course for Egypt. There are also risks. For now, the journey to a new political future is at its starting point.
 
Except it's not a fact... It is not a fact that the new government will post a threat to America.

It's not a fact it won't pose a threat either. Hence the reason of doubt.
 
Mubarak and Saddam were both ruthless dictators that pillaged their own countries. The only difference Mubarak was friendly to the US. Where's the fallacy in that?

That's not what you said. But, whatever, dude.
 
I am kind of surprised that apdst "Liked" this post. I suppose it was the "But there still is a threat, like it or not." part. Fair enough, I don't think anyone is saying there is not a risk. It doesn't seem like apdst is feeling the "I'm glad for their revolution" groove.

As far as the bolded part of your post goes, are you freakin kidding me? You don't think the future government of Egypt will be CORRUPT? Name me one government in the world that is not corrupt. The whole point of a Republic is to have competing political groups and checks and balances between the Legislative, Executive and Judicial powers so that the corruption is kept manageable and you don't end up with a kleptocracy. Oops, too late.

How can I put this...

I agree that Mubarack needs to be run out of town on a rail, but I'm not convinced that the Egyptians traded up.

Ya' follow?
 
That's not what you said. But, whatever, dude.

This is what I said:
Kind of like Iraq?
It's funny how some people think it's great to spend a trillion dollars and thousands of lives to remove one corrupt dictator but it's horrible when it doesn't cost us a dime and any lives to remove another.
 
Neither does making false accusations.

I don't recall any Conservative in this thread--or any other--saying that Mubarack should stay in power.

All you had to say was you did not know what fallacy I engaged in. And the reason I posted the initial fallacy in the first place was to show you what a generalization looked liked. It's amazing how you can't spot it when you engage in one. Talk about blinders.
 
Currently, there are numerous trajectories along which Egypt could evolve. They include but are not limited to:

1. Evolution into a stable reasonably democratic state (ideal case).
2. Progress toward a reasonably democratic system of governance that fizzles over time and ultimately yields to renewed illiberal rule.
3. Military rule that evolves into a new round of illiberal rule.
4. Theocratic state (touted by some pundits, but not very likely in the near-term given the depth of secularist nationalism and also the role of the military)

Immediately, the transition will likely lead to a de-emphasis on foreign policy in Egypt. In other words, Egypt's foreign policy footprint will shrink temporarily as the country focuses on devising a framework for future elections and, more importantly, tries to lay a foundation for more democratic governance. Other regional state and non-state actors will likely vie to fill that temporary policy vacuum. There will likely be good continuity in Egypt's foreign relations. Things will remain relatively unchanged vis-a-vis the U.S. and also the Israel-Egypt peace treaty will remain intact.

Most likely, there will be elections anywhere from 6-18 months down the road, depending on how quickly a framework for transparent elections can be devised, electoral campaigns can be organized, etc. If at least some of the opposition figures such as Mohamed ElBaradei win significant political influence in the elections, one can expect a strong amount of continuity in Egypt's foreign relations. Indeed, in an op-ed published in The New York Times, Dr. ElBaradei addressed the "chaos or worse" case some have been arguing would follow in a post-Mubarak era. He wrote:

Many, particularly in the West, have bought the Mubarak regime’s fiction that a democratic Egypt will turn into chaos or a religious state, abrogate the fragile peace with Israel and become hostile to the West. But the people of Egypt — the grandmothers in veils who have dared to share Tahrir Square with army tanks, the jubilant young people who have risked their lives for their first taste of these new freedoms — are not so easily fooled.

Aside from creating a framework that produces progress toward more democratic governance--a task that will not be completed once elections are held, as democracy depends on laws and institutions, with elections being an important but not sole requirement of democratic governance--there will be some big challenges that confront Egypt's future government. None will be larger than enacting the economic reforms that will produce meaningful opportunities for Egypt's still rapidly growing and youthful population (median age is 24). Failure of that government to produce satisfactory outcomes over a few years could lead to disenchantment with the post-Mubarak system. It would be that disenchantment, more than political Islamist movements, that would pose perhaps the biggest threat to what would still be a very young democratic experience. That situation could lead to the second outcome sketched at the beginning of this message.

In the end, one should not automatically assume the worst. There is a big opportunity for a new course for Egypt. There are also risks. For now, the journey to a new political future is at its starting point.

Do you think it would be possible and beneficial to make Egypt a "most favored nation" for increased economic development and trade? To help them address the economic woes. Does "most favored nation" mean anything anymore?
 
All you had to say was you did not know what fallacy I engaged in. And the reason I posted the initial fallacy in the first place was to show you what a generalization looked liked. It's amazing how you can't spot it when you engage in one. Talk about blinders.

I was being very specific in my comments.
 
Hence the fallacy.

Please, tell me I don't have to explain it.

No fallacy there. So yes try to explain, if you can. Thats what we're here for.
 
No fallacy there. So yes try to explain, if you can. Thats what we're here for.

Ok...I never said that Mubarack didn't need to get the hell out town. You claim that I did. It's either a fallacy, or a flat out lie. You choose.

I'll cum in my pants when, 1) I'm convinced that the Egyptians aren't worse off and 2) when we're not seeing just another Islamofacist government installed in the ME.
 
Last edited:
I don't see anything wrong in questioning what may and may not happen. All that has been done is you criticizing the wary and attempting to spin their argument against yours. No one that i have seen has argued for Mubarak to stay in power over democratic values.
 
Who wins elections?

The most organized group.
Fallacy. Hamas was nowhere near as organized as Fatah in the Gaza Strip and they still won parliamentary elections. The one who wins elections is the one who gets the most votes. It's pretty common sense, MrVicchio.
What group is most organized and able to get behind a single candidate?

Muslim Brotherhood.
The most organized party in Egypt is the NDP. Either way, the Muslim Brotherhood is still banned in Egypt.
 
It's not a fact that it won't pose a threat to America.
Just as it's not a fact that it will pose a threat. So the fearmongering you and a few others are doing is nothing short of laughable.

That's a matter of opinion and nothing more.
What is? The supression of the Egyptian people for the last thirty years? Yes, suspending constitutional rights is completely opinionated. :roll:
 
Fallacy. Hamas was nowhere near as organized as Fatah in the Gaza Strip and they still won parliamentary elections. The one who wins elections is the one who gets the most votes. It's pretty common sense, MrVicchio.

The most organized party in Egypt is the NDP. Either way, the Muslim Brotherhood is still banned in Egypt.

The constitution was voided by the military, so the MB isn't banned, anymore.
 
Back
Top Bottom