Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yep, cavalry charge.

dogma wrote:


Yep, cavalry charge.

They have camels too.

I have been to Cairo (Family vacation). I hope that they dont attack the artifacts there. The police were the real problem weren't they? They attacked everyone? Military presence was actually welcomed.

They've already attacked the museum IIRC.

What are a bunch of horses being ridden by civilians doing in a city? hmmmm. Last I checked, not many urban dwellers have an easy time owning a horse.

If you're interested in a first-hand account a friend of mine just got evacuated from Cairo. His accounts are pretty good and offer a little more insight than the common crap you'll get on the news.

http://professionalscoundrel.wordpress.com/2011/02/02/the-days-of-rage-13/

I'm left wondering what happens if Mubarak keeps power? Particularly in terms of his relationship with the US. Do they all just pretend this didn't happen?

dogma wrote:Well, Bernard Lewis would, but he is basically the Victor Davis Hanson of the Middle East.

That is to say, he knows his history, but he draws very stupid conclusions from that knowledge.

Oh there's certainly a few around, which is why I added 'half reasonable' in front of 'expert'. I should note there's plenty of entirely unreasonable scholars who blame everything on Western interference as well, which I guess is the problem with any academic field so closely tied to modern politics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:We've done some things with the whole Middle-Eastern area, but most of them involved giving weapons or training.

For example we sold weapons to both Iraq and Iran, when the Shah was removed our mechanics tore the systems out of the F-14's we had sold them. We gave the Taliban stinger missiles so they could shoot down Hind's.

You also put the Shah in power in the first place. Before then Iran had something of young but developing democracy, but they nationalised oil that the US and UK wanted, so that was the end of that.

Selling the stingers wasn't a mistake, if you ask me. Leaving the local population without any support after the war, with a young and militant population, that was probably the bigger mistake.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yeenoghu wrote:I heard the U.S. provides approximately 1/3 of the military budget there. I wonder who we can bill for that when people start talking about why the national debt is so high.

When it comes to Egypt you basically bought their loyalty with military aid, which was hugely important to Israeli stability. Exactly why the US spends so much on protecting Israel when Israel is entirely capable of looking after themselves, and basically gives you nothing in return is one of the great mysteries of US history.

Change is great, but they kind of just thrust this on the rest of the world at a time of their chosing with a 'damn the consequences' attitude. No country that big and crucially located can ignore that the world is watching. A stable and predictable government there, no matter how bad, is better than an unstable rule of anarchy.

First up, revolutions just happen. They are unpredictable, and rely on enough people saying the government is so bad that damn the consequences, we're going to see change. It produced a lot of the democracies you see around the world, including your own.

Second up, are you saying that Egypt is too important for them to decide what happens in their own country? The US is also very big and important, do you think it would be right for any other nation to say 'sorry, you're too big and important to have another chaotic change of government, so we're going to pick your government for you? It's their country, like it or lump, it's their decision.

Incidentally, why should the U.S. not support a regime on account that it uses torture? All regimes use torture, some just invent other words for it. A policeman in Chicago recently got a whopping 4 year sentence because he was found to have used electrodes to get false confessions from people, would that mean the federal governments should disown chicago?

I would say 'we imprison government employees that we find torturing people' and 'we tell government employees to torture people' are pretty much exact opposites.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yeenoghu wrote:They'll be given a reason to give a damn what the west wants if the suez canal becomes an issue won't they?

If you can summon the political will for an invasion, and doing so is easier than remaining on friendly terms with the new government, then sure.

I really doubt that such a thing will happen, unless we're looking at a year or more of ongoing instability with no movement to new political factions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yeenoghu wrote:Does anyone in the U.S. get to make that decision? I didn't want to pay for Iraq or Afghanistan either but I am.

Both relied on popular support. No government would surrender power to go to into a really unpopular war.

I'm not saying it's likely but what if the gameshow winner new guy decides to be "progressive" and all pro-Egypt and starts messing with the way things were to make a bigger buck off of it for his country? That canal is pretty crucial, if not the most crucial reason to care what Egypt ends up like after this, at least as far as international trade and economy is concerned.

The most likely result is Egypt will get more out of the canal, while some trade will be redirected. The US and France tried to stop an Egyptian government from asserting greater control over the canal once before. It ended in the complete humiliation of the UK and France.

Economics and shipping concerns everybody though, no matter what stories you believe or how you pronounce "god". Of course if you're an archaeologist or something you might care about the fate of Egyptian politics allowing people to see the sites or not, but mostly it's that canal that puts Egypt on the map of "places to worry about the fate of" from what I can tell.

Sure, but very few people like the idea of sending their troops off to war over economic concerns. So instead they dress the issues up with 'so and so is a very bad man who tortures people' and 'so and so is building WMDs'. Then people inclined to believe such silliness believe it, and they argue with the people who don't believe it.

But it'd be pretty hard to make up that kind of stuff about a new democratic Egypt. And any other possible government would be entirely dependant on the US to gain power, so would be very unlikely to start acting up, at least not at first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Most of their economy is derived from internal consumption, and trade with the Arab world.

Huh. I read that and thought 'surely tourism would be very important' so I looked it up. Tourism in Egypt is about 2.5% of GDP, which is pretty damn small. I mean, it's still more than ten billion dollars as a straight cash injection into the economy and that's nice and all, but it's about standard for world tourism. I never would have guessed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yeenoghu wrote:Why? charging for the fact of their location on the map? The nations they would be effecting can pretty well blow them off the map if they really want to get possessive about it. I wonder if declaring the canal as International Waters for the greater posterity of the whole world could be an option on the table.

Because stability has more important elements for the world than keeping the same governments in power. The precedent that a nation owning a resource is not allowed to use it as it sees fit, less bigger countries will swoop in and make them use it another way is very dangerous. How can business plan when deals it makes with a government over, say, iron resources, might be nullified because another country disapproves?

I'm left wondering what happens if Mubarak keeps power? Particularly in terms of his relationship with the US. Do they all just pretend this didn't happen?

That would be disastrous politically for Obama and highly damaging for international interests. My bet is a preliminary round of sanctions and the cutting of aid. Mubarak can't keep the military in line without our funds, especially not in a situation a great many of them probably feel very uneasy about.

At around 1:35 in dogma's youtube video, I'm pretty sure I saw a few tanks just...sitting there doing nothing. Thoughts people?

halonachos wrote:The pro-Mubarak crowd is fighting the anti-Mubarak crowd.

It will not end until they are fighting with sticks and rocks. Oh wait they skipped the guns and artillery part-excellent...

Clearly the Egyptians need a hero. They need...ROBOPHAROAH!!!

So let it be written, so let it be done."




Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:


Yep, cavalry charge.

You know your Revolution is made of WIN when you can get camels and horses on CNN...

No they need this guy

http://en.rian.ru/world/20110203/162433368.html

Egypt's banned Muslim Brotherhood movement has unveiled its plans to scrap a peace treaty with Israel if it comes to power, a deputy leader said in the interview with NHK TV.

Rashad al-Bayoumi said the peace treaty with Israel will be abolished after a provisional government is formed by the movement and other Egypt's opposition parties.

"After President Mubarak steps down and a provisional government is formed, there is a need to dissolve the peace treaty with Israel," al-Bayoumi said.

Egypt was the first Arab country to officially recognize Israel and sign a peace agreement with the Israeli government in 1979. It is also a major mediator of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The Muslim Brotherhood has recently come to light amid mass anti-government protests in Egypt. Some media voiced concerns that the banned Islamic movement could eventually take power in the riot-hit Arab country.

The deeply conservative Islamic movement, which wants to move Egypt from secularism and return to the rules of the Quran, failed to win a single seat in the 2010 Egyptian parliamentary election.

The Muslim Brotherhood joined the anti-government protests in Egypt last week. The unrest, seen by many analysts as a major threat to repressive governments in the region, has already claimed the lives of at least 300 people and injured several thousand.

TOKYO, February 3 (RIA Novosti)

We must all hope for a gory repression of the democracy movement.

Kilkrazy wrote:We must all hope for a gory repression of the democracy movement.

I read that as a Gore repression...

Latest news, Al Gore has spotted Manbearpig...in Egypt!

IAmTheWalrus wrote:If you're interested in a first-hand account a friend of mine just got evacuated from Cairo. His accounts are pretty good and offer a little more insight than the common crap you'll get on the news.

http://professionalscoundrel.wordpress.com/2011/02/02/the-days-of-rage-13/

So in other words not a reliable source. They've been showing Anderson Cooper being punched in the head on the news. I mean they punched Anderson Cooper in the head, if that isn't enough for a justification of going to war I don't know what is. I'm personally getting ready to join just to avenge Mr. Cooper; I have my sunscreen, bottles of water, and a really, really big stick.

As far as the army just sitting there and not doing anything its supposed to be due to the fact that they want to be neutral in all of this. They don't want to join either side because both sides are composed of Egyptian citizens and they really don't want to shoot their own people. Now the plain clothes police on the other hand are being total hellions for a bottle of Viagra and some loose change apparently.

halonachos wrote:
...
...

As far as the army just sitting there and not doing anything its supposed to be due to the fact that they want to be neutral in all of this. They don't want to join either side because both sides are composed of Egyptian citizens and they really don't want to shoot their own people. Now the plain clothes police on the other hand are being total hellions for a bottle of Viagra and some loose change apparently.

Cutting off the Internet also cut off the flow of cheap Viagra.

I guess so, geeze imagine being paid in bottles of erectile dysfunction pills.

What I want to know is why the hell is Viagra in so much demand over there that they would be willing to be paid with it.

sebster wrote:The most likely result is Egypt will get more out of the canal, while some trade will be redirected. The US and France tried to stop an Egyptian government from asserting greater control over the canal once before. It ended in the complete humiliation of the UK and France.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that because America threatened to kill the British and French currencies and economies unless they withdrew?

Basically yes, the Suez Crisis proved that Britain and France couldn't act independently with the US opposing them. However, I'm willing to bet that Suez Crisis Round 2 with the US on board would go much much better for the Western Powers. It should be no problem to get Israel on board given that the Muslim Brotherhood has flat out said they'll cancel the peace treaty if they get in power.

ChrisWWII wrote:Basically yes, the Suez Crisis proved that Britain and France couldn't act independently with the US opposing them. However, I'm willing to bet that Suez Crisis Round 2 with the US on board would go much much better for the Western Powers. It should be no problem to get Israel on board given that the Muslim Brotherhood has flat out said they'll cancel the peace treaty if they get in power.

The Israeli's would level them if it appeared they had become a threat to Israel. They'd never have a chance to consolidate power.

All too true. All too true. Hopefully it won't come to that.

Frazzled wrote:http://en.rian.ru/world/20110203/162433368.html

Egypt's banned Muslim Brotherhood movement has unveiled its plans to scrap a peace treaty with Israel if it comes to power, a deputy leader said in the interview with NHK TV.

Rashad al-Bayoumi said the peace treaty with Israel will be abolished after a provisional government is formed by the movement and other Egypt's opposition parties.

"After President Mubarak steps down and a provisional government is formed, there is a need to dissolve the peace treaty with Israel," al-Bayoumi said.

Egypt was the first Arab country to officially recognize Israel and sign a peace agreement with the Israeli government in 1979. It is also a major mediator of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The Muslim Brotherhood has recently come to light amid mass anti-government protests in Egypt. Some media voiced concerns that the banned Islamic movement could eventually take power in the riot-hit Arab country.

The deeply conservative Islamic movement, which wants to move Egypt from secularism and return to the rules of the Quran, failed to win a single seat in the 2010 Egyptian parliamentary election.

The Muslim Brotherhood joined the anti-government protests in Egypt last week. The unrest, seen by many analysts as a major threat to repressive governments in the region, has already claimed the lives of at least 300 people and injured several thousand.

TOKYO, February 3 (RIA Novosti)

There we go, that articles actually about someone with some authority! I knew you had it in you! This isn't particularly surprising, the MB aren't fans of israel and the peace accord between the two states has never been particularly popular within the populace. Not that it matters, the military wouldn't prosecute a war against israel, they are well aware of the fact that their ability to win is tenuous, and we would intervene with the sizable military force we already have on their doorstep. It's mostly rhetoric and sabre rattling by a hardline party that isn't hugely popular within egypt as anything other then an alternative to mubarak.

Lighten up lads, I just saw a guy on the news whipping people, and he was sat on a camel!

It was one of the funniest things ive seen, and makes the whole thing worthwhile.

Rioters attacked Anderson Cooper. Unless I am mistaken about my International Treaties, and I probably am, I believe that means we are now at war.

Well no. That doesn't really make much sense....if that were true, if I were to get beaten up/attacked over here the United States would be at war with the UK. If the Egyptian Military attacked the United States somehow, then we'd be at war. But to be honest, I'm much more concerned with the Egyptian Military doing absolutely nothing. I mean they're guard the Egyptian Museum, which is great, but beyond that...they're not doing anything. They're such a big wild card that it's kinda scary....

As I recall, they've stated that they do not want to harm any Egyptians, and this stance seems unlikely to change. Apparently Egyptians have a great deal of respect for their armed forces, and I'm pretty sure the military doesn't want to waste that political capital by supressing the rioters.

halonachos wrote:They've already attacked the museum IIRC.

The Cairo museum was EDIT: apparently looted minorly.

ChrisWWII wrote:Well no. That doesn't really make much sense...

Perhaps if you read it again and thought about it for a minute it might make more sense.


Just in case:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote: or worse, an Islamic government...

Good to see tolerance levels at maximum strength!

I have nothing against religious governments. I just don't agree in them forcing everyone to abide by the same religion's laws. Especially when those are pretty extreme such as stoning. (see: Iran) Look at how much danger people will be in if the Muslim Brotherhood gets into power and they are growing stronger in this.

Mr Hyena wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote: or worse, an Islamic government...

Good to see tolerance levels at maximum strength!

I have nothing against religious governments. I just don't agree in them forcing everyone to abide by the same religion's laws. Especially when those are pretty extreme such as stoning. (see: Iran) Look at how much danger people will be in if the Muslim Brotherhood gets into power and they are growing stronger in this.

Yep, as opposed to non religious secular governments like the one that is falling which didn't stone people! They only jailed thousands yearly for political crimes, committed torture, denied people working rights, embezzled bilions, forced out freedom of speech or political freedom, oh and murdered opposition leaders.

So much better to be secular.

sebster wrote:I should note there's plenty of entirely unreasonable scholars who blame everything on Western interference as well, which I guess is the problem with any academic field so closely tied to modern politics.

I have at various times in my life had a strong desire to assault Edward Said.

sebster wrote:
When it comes to Egypt you basically bought their loyalty with military aid, which was hugely important to Israeli stability. Exactly why the US spends so much on protecting Israel when Israel is entirely capable of looking after themselves, and basically gives you nothing in return is one of the great mysteries of US history.

One thing to note is that your average Egyptian isn't very fond of Israel. The peace was brokered, and maintained by the military. Any civilian, Egyptian government is likely to be fairly hostile to Israel.

Thankfully the military has a massive amount of political power.

sebster wrote:
Huh. I read that and thought 'surely tourism would be very important' so I looked it up. Tourism in Egypt is about 2.5% of GDP, which is pretty damn small. I mean, it's still more than ten billion dollars as a straight cash injection into the economy and that's nice and all, but it's about standard for world tourism. I never would have guessed.

Funny thing, that cavalry charge was reportedly composed of people who work on the Giza plateau that have effectively lost their jobs due to Mubarak's increasingly repressive control on Cairo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:http://en.rian.ru/world/20110203/162433368.html

Egypt's banned Muslim Brotherhood movement has unveiled its plans to scrap a peace treaty with Israel if it comes to power, a deputy leader said in the interview with NHK TV.

Rashad al-Bayoumi said the peace treaty with Israel will be abolished after a provisional government is formed by the movement and other Egypt's opposition parties.

"After President Mubarak steps down and a provisional government is formed, there is a need to dissolve the peace treaty with Israel," al-Bayoumi said.

Egypt was the first Arab country to officially recognize Israel and sign a peace agreement with the Israeli government in 1979. It is also a major mediator of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The Muslim Brotherhood has recently come to light amid mass anti-government protests in Egypt. Some media voiced concerns that the banned Islamic movement could eventually take power in the riot-hit Arab country.

The deeply conservative Islamic movement, which wants to move Egypt from secularism and return to the rules of the Quran, failed to win a single seat in the 2010 Egyptian parliamentary election.

The Muslim Brotherhood joined the anti-government protests in Egypt last week. The unrest, seen by many analysts as a major threat to repressive governments in the region, has already claimed the lives of at least 300 people and injured several thousand.

TOKYO, February 3 (RIA Novosti)

That's not surprising. As I said above, lots of Egyptians don't like Israel.

Of course, simply dissolving a peace treaty isn't tacit to an actual attack, and the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't run the military.

You really have to love how effective military dictators are at keeping the riff raff out of their power base.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Hyena wrote:
I have nothing against religious governments. I just don't agree in them forcing everyone to abide by the same religion's laws. Especially when those are pretty extreme such as stoning. (see: Iran) Look at how much danger people will be in if the Muslim Brotherhood gets into power and they are growing stronger in this.

Religious law is driven by human preferences, which is the exact same way that secular law is derived.

mattyrm wrote:Lighten up lads, I just saw a guy on the news whipping people, and he was sat on a camel!

It was one of the funniest things ive seen, and makes the whole thing worthwhile.

Matty I think that only you or another service member can say that without any attacks, you deserve it you know.


Now they're openly assaulting journalists and even human rights groups, we need to just get our people out of their. Screw the news, save their asses.