Egypt "proves" that a government with a monopoly of force will abuse its power,

[TPaine7]

ignore the constitution, and rule by decree:

The Egyptian military has rejected the demands of pro-democracy protesters for a swift transfer of power to a civilian administration, saying it intends to rule by martial law until elections are held.

The army's announcement, which included the suspending of the constitution, was a further rebuff to some pro-democracy activists after troops were sent to clear demonstrators from Cairo's Tahrir Square, the centre of the protests that brought down Hosni Mubarak. "We do not want any protesters to sit in the square after today," said the head of the military police, Mohamed Ibrahim Moustafa Ali. Many agreed to leave but a hardcore refused, saying they would remain until the army took a series of steps toward democratic reform including installing a civilian-led government and abolishing the repressive state of emergency.

The ruling military council said it intends to retain power for six months or longer while elections are scheduled and will rule by decree. It suspended the constitution and said a committee will draw up amendments that will be put to a referendum. It also dissolved the widely discredited parliament, elected in a tainted ballot last year.

In a sign that the army will only tolerate a limited challenge to its power, it is expected to issue a communique on Monday saying that it will crack down on those creating "chaos and disorder" as well as effectively banning strikes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/13/egypt-military-rejects-swift-power-handover

Of course I do not believe that a single uprising in a single country proves anything about uprisings in general--hence the quotes around "proves."

However, those who believe Egypt is the proof of how uprisings work universally, what does this prove?

..........

I wish the heroic Egyptian people full success.

[jpak]

1. Unarmed Egyptian protesters overthrew their government - no private gun ownership required

yup

[LAGC]

2. It remains to be seen how much democracy the Egyptian military will allow.

Note: it is the military (with all the guns) deciding what future course Egypt will take.

[jpak]

4. Gun-less civilians overthrew the largest government in the Arab world without guns

is that redundant enough for you?

[PavePusher]

5. It doesn't seem to be particularly changed yet.

I'm not ready to draw any conclusions until things shake out.

An absence of data is not a strong ground to extrapolate from.

[LAGC]

6. Sympathetic military (with guns) forced Mubarak out of office.

Could have just as easily been another Tianenmen Square massacre if the military was more loyal to Mubarak and wasn't as sympathetic to the protesters.

[RSillsbee]

9. I think you meant to say

The Egyptian Army overthrew the largest government in the Arab world with a boatload of guns.

I'd say the situation of the people is now worse

[rl6214]

17. How much overthrow was it really

When a military dictator was replaced with marshall law?

[spin]

12. If so, why did the uprising in Iran fail?

Let's hope Iranian citizens will eventually be able to overthrow their tyrannical government. Unfortunately, unlike Egypt, the Iranian government pays little attention to the opinion of other nations and is willing to slaughter its own citizens if necessary.

[rl6214]

16. Unarmed Egyptian protesters overthrew one government

and got an equally oppressive military power in it's place. Isn't that where Mubarak came from?

Let's see how this works out. Is Mubarak pulling the strings of the military?

[lawodevolution]

20. The protesters did not overthrow their government

they were slaughtered though, 300 of them in a 3 week period. Now guess who takes power. The people with the guns. In a society where the good law abiding people own most of the guns (USA), the same good law abiding people would take control of the country. In the situation in egypt, who knowns if the people with the guns who now run the country are good because gun control gave mubarak control of who got to possess guns while anyone who possessed guns illegally were potential criminals, but I predict a military dictatorship coming soon to egypt.

[cleanhippie]

24. No, they didn't.

The Army did, and now they are in charge.

[lawodevolution]

19. looks like the military is running the show, they also have the guns, duhhhh

They didn't overthrow their government, at no point was it the decision of the protesters to remove mubarak, he decided to leave for some reason, which may have to do with international pressure and his own military.

[cleanhippie]

23. No, they didn't

The Army did, with lots and lots of guns.

[one-eyed fat man]

26. Do you remember how Mubarek got his job?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8637635634221819002#

[YllwFvr]

27. hmm awful convenient...

dontcha think?

[one-eyed fat man]

28. Anwar Sadat was assassinated by dissidents in Egypt's army

Mubarak was an Air Force General and Vice President, and survived the assassination to seize power. For over thirty years this arrangement was agreeable to both Mubarak and the military.

After three weeks of public unrest, the military made it known that perhaps Mubarak should now choose to retire. Doubtless he reluctantly agreed when the military intimated that they were in the initial stages of planning a big parade.

So one military strongman fades away in a bloodless coup by the military in response to the clamoring crowds in Liberation Square. Parliament is dissolved and now the Egyptians wait and see what the military junta will do next.

They might gain democracy or it might turn out like after the Shah left Iran. Or it may just go back more or less like it was with a new General as President. Anyone's guess at this point.

[TPaine7]

3. So no one who believes that Egypt is a "proof" case wants to weigh in?

At least no one who argues above the 5yo mental level?

[egressingsparrowdrop]

8. And oh yeah...

...all governments will abuse their power. From top to bottom.

Hire friends, line pockets, fuc$ employees.

A "monopoly of force" or not is irrelevant. Saddam abused his power, and his populace had piles of weapons.

The idea that an armed populace can keep it's government in check is 5yo mental level thinking. If the populace decides a revolution is needed, then the presence of arms only determines how many or how few will be slaughtered in the course of that revolution.

In my opinion a population engaged in revolution certainly has more chance of success when it doesn't use the threat of gun play. Ask for the removal of a dictator as you're pointing a gun and you've given that dictator the excuse he needs to respond with a gun. Ask for the removal of a dictator peacefully and sure, that dictator could crack down violently on you...but in so doing he loses much and has likely sealed his fate.

[TPaine7]

10. "In my opinion..."

You're entitled to your opinion, of course. And at least you're honest about your source.

Unfortunately, you insist on basing your opinions on single situations:

A "monopoly of force" or not is irrelevant. Saddam abused his power, and his populace had piles of weapons.

Well that proves it. Sigh.

That's part of the OPs' point--simple analyses like these are invalid. Saddam had a sizable portion of the population on his side, and the situation was different than Egypt in many ways. And that was one country and one situation. YOu can't extrapolate from that to a universal rule like many on this site have done.

The idea that an armed populace can keep it's government in check is 5yo mental level thinking. If the populace decides a revolution is needed, then the presence of arms only determines how many or how few will be slaughtered in the course of that revolution.

If you say so. Your opinion, I take it? You might as well go around making one liners followed by "yup."

5yo indeed.

No one insulted you, but now you've show yourself to be a more verbose version of the yupmeister.

[egressingsparrowdrop]

18. How ironic

you cry about being insulted, yet you are the most insulting poster I've seen on this forum. Makes sense, in my opinion.

The whole point of this thread was what...to finger wag at people who have been claiming Egypt "proves" something, when in your opinion no single event can prove anything?

Real good.

[cleanhippie]

25. Uh, its not ironic. Here, let me help.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irony


If you are going to use big words, you really should know what they mean.

[rrneck]

13. Dictators tend to use guns with no excuse at all.

That's why they're so unpleasant.

[egressingsparrowdrop]

7. Too bad all those protesters didn't have them some guns right now, huh?

They could shoot them some Egyptian soldiers, who have been so tyrannical throughout this whole ordeal!
:sarcasm:

Seriously, what was the point of this post? Absolute power corrupts absolutely? Think I heard that one in grade five.

The military is the authority in Egypt right now, like it or not.

You're just sore because the revolution succeeded without the use of guns, so now you're trying to act as if the military is being the uber-bad guy now and gee golly, if only the protesters had them some guns.

Governments, democratic ones, all over the world ban strikes and suspend constitutional rights during times of crisis. This is, for all the joy in the street over Mubarek's departure, a very tenuous, crisis-like time.

We have to have faith that the military, which has shown a high-regard for the protesters, which was mutual, will rule in the interim fairly and properly.

No amount of guns in the hands of the populace will make that more or less likely.

[RSillsbee]

11. What makes you think "the revolution has succeeded"?

The people have lost parlimentary representation and their constitution which means the law is what ever the highest ranking military guy on scene says it is

[rrneck]

14. Both appearing in this post:

"Seriously, what was the point of this post? Absolute power corrupts absolutely? Think I heard that one in grade five."

"We have to have faith that the military, which has shown a high-regard for the protesters, which was mutual, will rule in the interim fairly and properly."

The king is dead. Long live the king.

:rofl:

[Euromutt]

30. Or in the words of The Who, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." (n/t)

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lawodevolution]

29. Pathetic

"We have to have faith that the military, which has shown a high-regard for the protesters, which was mutual, will rule in the interim fairly and properly. "

That's just pathetic, now they have to have faith in the military. At every point along they way the protesters had no control and no power and always depend on others (who have guns). I'd rather ensure my freedom and democracy myself from dictatorship and not have to depend on the goodwill of others. That is what the 2A is for.

Another thing the 2A is for is so you don't have to depend on the good will of the men breaking into your house when your daughter is home. The gun would allow her to take the option of rape away from the badguys and allow her to decide without any doubt that no one will be raping her. If you want to set yourself and family up so that you have to depend on the good will of a home invader, that's your choice.

[On the Road]

15. delete

[lawodevolution]

22. You forgot to mention the tremendous amount of violence and the 300 dead

The problem with the anti-gun side is they think we own guns because we want to use them against other people. This is very far from the truth. I was raised with guns and I was taught that guns were not for shooting people (unless you absolutely had to in order to defend yourself). The most successful use of a gun in self defense is when you show the gun and the bad guy runs away. The anti-gun side is teaching their children that guns are evil and only for killing, so they are in effect teaching their children to kill with guns. When someone who has been told that guns are only for killing buys their first gun, what do you think they want to do with it?

A successful revolution by an armed citizenry is when the government gives up and the military obeys what the people want without much violence. In egypt the level of violence was blinding, can you imagine that in the small area of the protests 300 people were killed in 3 weeks (a faster rate than the war in Afghanistan if you add in US soldiers, bad guys and civilians) and yet people on here are trying to say that the revolution was successful and non-violent. That's a joke. It was not successful in any way. The people still depend on someone else to determine their future. That's pathetic and sad. The violence and rate of death was typical of a country that bans guns. Yemen, which is the second most armed civilian population on earth, had similar protests and zero deaths so far.