Arab Spring, Round 2

[Sheilbh]

I think in shelf's view of the world, and I think he'll agree with me that this is his world view, most if not all conflicts can be resolved by reasonable people from each side negotiating in good faith. So he postulates that "the other" is reasonable to sustain that world view.

Not really. I find it extremely frustrating that people seem to struggle to disagree without their opponent not just being wrong but being an awful person. I also hate the trend that you get, especially with American liberals and libertarians (Krugman and Greenwald spring to mind), of people so convinced that their views are so clearly rational that they're self-evidently right; to disagree you'd need to be a fool or a knave. I think between people there's lots of good-faith disagreements and normally there isn't a clear answer, there's a series of choices that'll be shaped by the views that cause those disagreements. That doesn't mean you should argue or believe any less passionately, because in my view the arguments good in itself. And conflict between states are driven by interests which can, entirely rationally, conflict.

I wasn't aware of the semantic difference between a conspiracy (postulate? hypothesis?) and a conspiracy theory. So apologies on that.

Who cares what most people think? There is such a thing as objective facts. And conspiracy theories are almost without exception untrue.

My point was that there are reasons conspiracies are so popular in countries like Egypt. Given the lack of a free press, the tradition of a free press and government openness I imagine very often the conspiracies are more accurate than today's report from the Presidential Palace. So conspiracy theories - which can also be true - are not just understandable but reasonable.

I think that point depends on what most people think, because that's what it's about. It may be true that these conspiracy theories wouldn't have such beliefs if only the dockers of Suez read the New York Times every day, but that's irrelevant. Objective facts aren't much use in the world unless they're allowed to circulate and perceived to be true.

if I was to believe Sheilbh, I should need to consider the local conteo that the EU is after Orban so that they could colonise us, valid. oh and colonise us for the Jews if you really go down to ground level "salt of the earth" theories

Well no. If you read my version that's the official story. The conspiracy in your case is that Fidesz may not be un-selfinterested saviours of the Magyar people

I'd also note that most of the people in this thread, I think, buy into the second wing of secular conspiracy in Egypt which is that the Muslim Brotherhood were trying to create an authoritarian theocracy. Against this we have their repeated statements, but they could be lying. But we also have their record over the last 18 months of non-coalition government. All of which indicates that either that wasn't their goal, or they were so spineless that they could never have achieved it anyway.

As to the coup I'm torn. I think Morsi has a point that he owed it to his successors not to resign. There are serious divisions in Egypt and big problems, not least the economy, which will be difficult to solve. It's going to be very difficult for any leader to deal with those issues and maintain their popularity. This is now the third government in as many years that the Egyptian street has been instrumental in toppling. It seems a dangerous precedent that this will also work for democratically elected leaders, even ones who were flailing as bad as Morsi. It's a precedent for the Army who could intervene again following the 1997 Turkish coup as a model but also for opposition parties. If you are able to gather a large enough group of people onto the streets then you can force the removal of the President? It'll be interesting, if the MB endures as a political force, to see how long it is before they try their hand at that.

The other worry, aside from the obvious Algeria '91 concerns, is that the MB are now being repressed. Their leaders are under arrest and whatever else you say about them they are the largest party in Egypt, they have won two elections and if they're not allowed to participate then you'd have to worry that many members will find the more extreme groups a more tempting choice.

Finally I'm not convinced that the military are up to it. The SCAF was a disaster in every sense, until they were forced out by the Egyptian street.

On the other hand the early signs are that the military have learned some lessons. From what I understand they're talking about taking a back seat in the next phase until new elections. They're also engaging with the opposition forces which is good. Reportedly they've appointed El Baradei (liberals) Prime Minister, a Supreme Court judge (Mubarak-continuity) President and have even brought the Salafist parties into the government. That broad attempt at a national coalition was missing in the last transition and in the MB government. So maybe this is a rare chance for Egypt to try again and get the transition right this time.

The other positive is the Egyptian street, which I always thought was unlikely to return meekly to an authoritarian regime. They know their power and Morsi won around 52% of the vote against a Mubarak-era PM. He never had a huge mandate and it's clear from this (but also from polling beforehand) that he lost it.

If they get to re-do transition and to do it right then it'll be positive. The MB surprised everyone with how poor they were in government. It would've been three awful years for Egyptians but I suspect that had Morsi served out his term and the MB's incompetence, over-reaching and failure been allowed to continue that may have been better in the long-term.

Edit: Incidentally this is yet another time when I think Presidential systems are disastrous and the Egyptians could do far worse than contact whoever's Farouk's heir.

[jimmy olsen]

We could divert the Nile. This would solve many problems.

Blow up the dam?

That would be genocide on an unprecedented scale. 

Only in the loosest sense of the word.

Not sure what you mean by this?

Destroying the Aswan dam would kill like 90% of Egyptians wouldn't it?

[Ed Anger]

Acceptable losses

[Tonitrus]

We could divert the Nile. This would solve many problems.

Blow up the dam?

That would be genocide on an unprecedented scale. 

Only in the loosest sense of the word.

Not sure what you mean by this?

Destroying the Aswan dam would kill like 90% of Egyptians wouldn't it?

No.

[Razgovory]

We could divert the Nile. This would solve many problems.

Blow up the dam?

That would be genocide on an unprecedented scale. 

Only in the loosest sense of the word.

Not sure what you mean by this?

Destroying the Aswan dam would kill like 90% of Egyptians wouldn't it?

No, that's absurd.

[jimmy olsen]

We could divert the Nile. This would solve many problems.

Blow up the dam?

That would be genocide on an unprecedented scale. 

Only in the loosest sense of the word.

Not sure what you mean by this?

Destroying the Aswan dam would kill like 90% of Egyptians wouldn't it?

No, that's absurd.

90% of the population lives in the flood plain of the Nile, what do you think's going to happen to them if Lak Nasser is released by the destruction of the Dam?

[Maximus]

They get on a ferry.

[Tonitrus]

We could divert the Nile. This would solve many problems.

Blow up the dam?

That would be genocide on an unprecedented scale. 

Only in the loosest sense of the word.

Not sure what you mean by this?

Destroying the Aswan dam would kill like 90% of Egyptians wouldn't it?

No, that's absurd.

90% of the population lives in the flood plain of the Nile, what do you think's going to happen to them if Lak Nasser is released by the destruction of the Dam?

Move out of the way.

But 75 million deaths?

[Razgovory]

90% of the population lives in the flood plain of the Nile, what do you think's going to happen to them if Lak Nasser is released by the destruction of the Dam?

That doesn't mean it's going to wash every last one of them out to sea. Simply living in the flood plain doesn't mean your house goes under water when the river is high even if a dam breaks.  And a lot of major cities predate the lake, so it's unlikely they will be washed away.

[Neil]

They get on a ferry.

You're heartless.  No wonder Tuna left Languish.

[jimmy olsen]

90% of the population lives in the flood plain of the Nile, what do you think's going to happen to them if Lak Nasser is released by the destruction of the Dam?

That doesn't mean it's going to wash every last one of them out to sea. Simply living in the flood plain doesn't mean your house goes under water when the river is high even if a dam breaks.  And a lot of major cities predate the lake, so it's unlikely they will be washed away.

This is not a natural flood, it just can't be compared. This is 132 cubic kilometers of water being released.

[Viking]

I think in shelf's view of the world, and I think he'll agree with me that this is his world view, most if not all conflicts can be resolved by reasonable people from each side negotiating in good faith. So he postulates that "the other" is reasonable to sustain that world view.

Not really. I find it extremely frustrating that people seem to struggle to disagree without their opponent not just being wrong but being an awful person. I also hate the trend that you get, especially with American liberals and libertarians (Krugman and Greenwald spring to mind), of people so convinced that their views are so clearly rational that they're self-evidently right; to disagree you'd need to be a fool or a knave. I think between people there's lots of good-faith disagreements and normally there isn't a clear answer, there's a series of choices that'll be shaped by the views that cause those disagreements. That doesn't mean you should argue or believe any less passionately, because in my view the arguments good in itself. And conflict between states are driven by interests which can, entirely rationally, conflict.

I wasn't aware of the semantic difference between a conspiracy (postulate? hypothesis?) and a conspiracy theory. So apologies on that.

Way to go there not dealing with what I said, just bitching about how I supposedly think you are a bad person for disagreeing with me.

A Conspiracy is a group of people conspiring together to do something. A Conspiracy theory is an explanation of facts that asserts (usually without evidence) that a conspiracy is the best explanation. Yes there is a big difference between using the word conspiracy as a noun and using it as an adjective. Perhaps you should not assert the non-relevance of the distinction while you remain ignorant of this distinction.

[Admiral Yi]

Now boys.

[Razgovory]

90% of the population lives in the flood plain of the Nile, what do you think's going to happen to them if Lak Nasser is released by the destruction of the Dam?

That doesn't mean it's going to wash every last one of them out to sea. Simply living in the flood plain doesn't mean your house goes under water when the river is high even if a dam breaks.  And a lot of major cities predate the lake, so it's unlikely they will be washed away.

This is not a natural flood, it just can't be compared. This is 132 cubic kilometers of water being released.

Even an unnatural flood isn't going to wipe out 90% of the populace unless it's caused by a comet or something.   And 152 cubic Kilometers of water won't be all released at once and the dam is pretty far down south.  Also, you are an idiot.  I wasn't going to say that, but you keep on with this.  You are a goddamn idiot.

[11B4V]

90% of the population lives in the flood plain of the Nile, what do you think's going to happen to them if Lak Nasser is released by the destruction of the Dam?

That doesn't mean it's going to wash every last one of them out to sea. Simply living in the flood plain doesn't mean your house goes under water when the river is high even if a dam breaks.  And a lot of major cities predate the lake, so it's unlikely they will be washed away.

This is not a natural flood, it just can't be compared. This is 132 cubic kilometers of water being released.

Even an unnatural flood isn't going to wipe out 90% of the populace unless it's caused by a comet or something.   And 152 cubic Kilometers of water won't be all released at once and the dam is pretty far down south.  Also, you are an idiot.  I wasn't going to say that, but you keep on with this.  You are a goddamn idiot.

Tim, the benefit would be finally they would take a bath.