I was thinking about that this morning. To do it, Egypt needed -- and the US would need -- the complicity of the big ISP companies. Apparently no trouble for Mubarak, and I doubt it'd be any trouble for an American executive order either. I have been looking but can't find a fleshed-out argument on why we should have a kill-switch. Supposedly it'd be some kind of counter-measure to a cyber-attack. I'm not sure what kind of cyber-attack it would have to be to justify bringing the system down. In any case, I wonder how realistic it would be for the US to employ a kill-switch for a cyber-attack or to squash dissent. We probably have a lot more commerce relying on internet communications than Egypt or Iran does. What would it do to our economy to take down whole ISPs? How desperate would the president have to be to make the order?
Having no religious beliefs has little relationship with the ability of a man to deal with the people and the complex compromises of effective government or providing competent service to the people, but, you've never seen one elected.
I agree. There is too much optimism in this thread and elsewhere. I'm getting dozens of Facebook group invites from professors who are cheering for a successful coup d'état in Egypt, Yemen, and other Arab nations. Do people not remember la Terreur under Robespierre, or the 1905/1917 Feb Revolutions, or Angola under Savimbi? The story is the same: initial beliefs of peace, freedom, and equality mutate into chaos, anarchy or extreme authoritarianism, and misery. It reminds me of the people I worked with in the State Department when we invaded Iraq, and their dangerous optimism of establishing a working democracy in a land without a strong foundation of unity, liberalism, and education. We studied modern Iraq and Egypt extensively in undergrad (big dogs of the Middle East), and although the two are very different, the common theme since the 1930s has been failure to provide social justice and ignoring or not controlling the creation of parallel societies under religion. I don't think anything ultimately will happen other than the military stepping in and Mubarak's son, Gamal, being the successor in the next elections. But in the small chance the government is overthrown with a large involvement by Islamist groups, things could get bad very fast. Modern Egypt isn't ready for democracy, but this is a chance for the Obama admin to steer it in a direction in which the conditions are right for that to happen. However, care must be given that the Arab media doesn't rightfully/wrongfully portray it as typical American meddling. Rather, homegrown-grassroots initiatives that tackle uneducation, inequality, unemployment, and extremist Islam are the key for Egypt and the rest of the Middle East's future.
I don't know if Egypt is ready for a democracy or if current events will lead to a theocractic Egypt but lets not discount them completely. El Baradei is a very important figure in this and its doubtful that he would implement or go along with a theocractic government. While as Bigtexxx noted a lot of Egyptians are poor and religiously conservative there are many educated, westernized and even secular Egyptians. From what I have been hearing they are a big part of this protests and Egypt while repressive isn't on the level of the Iran in the 1970's with the Shah's secret police lurking on every corner. Egyptians have been able to travel and study abroad relatively freely and the vast amount of tourism and trade has exposed many Egyptians to outside ideas. Its too early to tell but it is very possible that out of this the Egyptians could form a moderate relatively secular government along the lines of Turkey or a moderate Islamic government along the lines of Malaysia.
As has been tweeted by one Egyptian, "The government can take away my freedom, but if they take away my internet p*rn, they're going down." I don't see why there would be worries over the US shutting down the entire net here. If it didn't do it for a very, VERY good reason ( like, I can't even think of one to justify that action right now), a huge chunk of America would be in the streets. They'll never do that. ............ There's nothing stopping an atheist from running an office, he just won't win. But that's because people are stupid, not from legal state-sanctioned discrimination. That's a problem that exists within all forms of government and all forms of societies, and will probably be a problem for our entire existence here. I mean, what political reform could you enact to fix this problem?
gah.....then there's Obama's response. Obama only spoke to Mubarak for the first time TODAY after Mubarak's speech. Pathetic. What rock is he living under?
Egypt is the second largest destination for US foreign aid. Obama should have spoken to the guy. Give me a break.
Shame on Obama. Shame on the American government. Shame, just total complete shame. Egypt won't be the same anymore, with or without Mubarak at the top, but America has lost the trust of 50-60 million Egyptians today. Follow twitter to see what middle class Egyptians think of America now. Shame.
While I think Obama has been a failure on this issue, I'm not sure it was the tipping point for Egyptians' opinions on the US. That was a lost cause long ago.
What did you want? Serious question. Did you want the POTUS to fly to Cairo and join a street protest?
Obama, like any president would, has a schedule and this situation literally started to catch fire a few hours ago. Until then, high level diplomat talks were sufficient.
I totally disagree. It is, IMO, the tipping point from skepticism to complete distrust. Shame on them.
No kidding. Another point may have been that Hosni Mubarak could have been a tad busy. Another could have been simply waiting to see what the man was going to tell his people. Not what they wanted to hear, I suspect.
From the BBC: ----- US President Barack Obama said he had spoken to Mr Mubarak for about half-an-hour following his televised speech. He said he had told Mr Mubarak to respect the rights of the Egyptian people and refrain from using violence against peaceful protesters - but he said the protesters also had a responsibility to express themselves peacefully. Mr Obama urged the Egyptian leader to take "concrete steps that advance the rights of the Egyptian people" and deliver on the promises of reform in his address. "Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away," said Mr Obama. The BBC's Paul Adams in Washington said there is no immediate suggestion that the White House is cutting its ties with its long-time ally Mr Mubarak. But it is clearly giving him the chance to turn the unrest into what Mr Obama described as "a moment of promise", says our correspondent. Earlier, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Washington would review its aid to Egypt based on events in the coming days. ------ I understand that bigtex (by the way, brah, it's not "source," but recipient you mean) would take any chance to slam Obama, but what did Mathloom want or expect? The darkly funny part is Hosni saying "I fired the government! ... And I will appoint a new one on Saturday."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...acking-for-rebel-leaders-behind-uprising.html Egypt protests: America's secret backing for rebel leaders behind uprising The American government secretly backed leading figures behind the Egyptian uprising who have been planning “regime change” for the past three years, The Daily Telegraph has learned. ...
I expect him to read off his flash cards that he wants to see democracy prevail or I want him to not say anything at all. I'm just in total disgust right now, can't really have a meaningful conversation. Sorry.
