Egyptians: This Revolution Was a Curse

[cindy25]

most revolutions (French , Russian) are followed shortly by another revolution that leads to one person rule. but not always; The Philippines in 1986, Eastern Europe in the late 80s successfully transformed to democracy.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

This is what happens when you are only against something...

What happens when you get rid of the thing you are against? What would happen if the FED was eliminated tomorrow? People don't believe in liberty... people don't believe in sound currency... people don't believe in competition... people don't believe in free markets...

People do believe in central planning and a new central planner would come in and replace it. People who are only against something have no answers because if the thing they are against is eliminated they have no clue what to do next.

It is the people who are for something that have that answers and inspiration...

[HOLLYWOOD]

over 7000 military tribunals for the peace demonstrators in Egypt... now in prison

Obama gave Egypt an additional $2 Billion of our tax money

IMF Gives Egypt $3 Billion with 20% of the IMF "LOANED" budget from the US... add another $600 Million from US taxpayers to Egypt.

$2.6 Billion US taxpayer AID to Egypt for the CIA/CFR/Mi6/etc orchestrated Arab Spring... which is probably an additional Billion in US Black OPS funds.

[nobody's_hero]

most revolutions (French , Russian) are followed shortly by another revolution that leads to one person rule. but not always; The Philippines in 1986, Eastern Europe in the late 80s successfully transformed to democracy.

I wouldn't exactly call that 'success', but otherwise . . .

@live-free-or-die:

Good points.

[FrankRep]

Update: June 13, 2011

New Egypt? 7,000 civilians jailed since Mubarak fell
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/06/1...civilians.html

[FrankRep]

Still a Curse!


Egypt constitutional vote: 'Things are definitely worse than under the old regime'
As Egyptians vote on whether to adopt the new constitution, Richard Spencer talks to those promoting the new rules - and those fearful of what is to come.


Telegraph.co.uk
22 Dec 2012

[Zippyjuan]

The revolution is the easy part. It unites all of the groups who didn't like the former government. The hard part is to then get those often very different groups to agree on what should be done afterwards. No matter what happens, some group or groups will always be disappointed with the results. Does that make it a "failure"? We weren't there to recall but our own revolution had simliar problems and there were people who wished we had stayed part of Britain (or France or whatever country controlled their state). Some too would have preferred to be individual states- instead of United States.

[osan]

Question.

I keep hearing the phrase, "Arab Spring". Is this the CIA code name for these sponsored "revolutions"?

No idea. A more pointed question in my mind is who, exactly, is funding these little parties that are unfolding oh-so-coincidentally, and what might the topography be of the control structures? Who is ultimately inciting these uprisings and how are the messages set into action? Anyone suggesting that these have been organic movements is either an idiot or is working for "them". Things simply do not work like this in the wild, so to speak.

[osan]

The revolution is the easy part. It unites all of the groups who didn't like the former government. The hard part is to then get those often very different groups to agree on what should be done afterwards. No matter what happens, some group or groups will always be disappointed with the results. Does that make it a "failure"? We weren't there to recall but our own revolution had simliar problems and there were people who wished we had stayed part of Britain (or France or whatever country controlled their state). Some too would have preferred to be individual states- instead of United States.

Almost universally "yes", because invariably the dominant group uses force to impose its scheme upon those not interested in it. The only possibly legitimate case for such imposition is where the minority group seeks a circumstance where someone's rights are by necessity violated. In such cases the only legitimate response is to disallow such institutional violation, but that is never the case. The usual scenario involves the dominant group imposing equally egregious restrictions upon the minority. As history shows us, nearly every revolution wherein a perceived tyrant is ousted results in supplanting the old regime with a new tyrant of a superficially different cloth. Our history is lousy with such examples. The bottom line is that empire is a ghastly curse upon the race of men and that there is no variation on the basic theme that is either just or morally legitimate because empire is by its very nature destructive of human freedom. Freedom and empire are utterly antithetical and violently antagonistic. Where the one exists, the other cannot. They are mutually exclusive and repulsive opposites. The best condition which can be achieved under empire is a state of pretty slavery. Sadly, the great majority of people are more than willing to accept this under the misapprehension that it is the same thing as freedom.

[FreeHampshire]

This is the problem with Progressive and Neo-Conservative foreign policy. The very idea that some savage from the Middle East can be 'civilized' and conform to our absurd beliefs concerning democracy and secularism is preposterous. A realistic stance would be to displace Mubarak, whose fall was inevitable, and install yet another dictator that would work in favor of Western interests. An ideal situation would be to have Egypt as an outright colony of a Western power, and all dissent would be met with a sudden bullet to the skull. A superior option than creating some sort of banana republic where the Muzzie brotherhood could keep electing savage, lowly dessert-dwellers one after another.