Egypt's Revolution (Poll added)

[HapSmo19]

How kindly do we think the muslim brotherhood will smile on this guy?:

[Pedronicus]

Friday, 28 January 2011
Egypt moves towards revolution

The Headquarters of the ruling Egyptian National Democratic Party is on fire. There is no more powerful icon of popular disgust with Mubarak's rule than this.

So far there has been no word from Mubarak. He has been deafening in his silence and invisibility. Is he still there? Will those countries in the West who have sustained him in power over his people, leave him in the country as a sacrifice or will they spirit him away?

And they may have to do one or the other soon because the government curfew has failed. In Cairo, Suez and Alexandria the army and its tanks are on the streets, while the protesters have set fire to cars and army vehicles.

The government has now brought the army in to try to do the job the riot police have been unable to do. But as I type an angry crowd of protesters have stopped and set fire to an army troop carrier. They are now trying to push another off the bridge in to the Nile.

All day the protesters have faced down the riot police despite their use of tear gas and stun grenades. The question is how far will the army escalate their response. Right now, for the moment at least, the answer appears to be all the way. The leaders of the Army will be watching and weighing their options.

In Cairo there are now sounds of both small arms fire and large explosions. And as the crowd closes in to the Ministry of Information they will come face to face with units of Egyptian Special forces. What those Special Forces do will determine what happens next and whether the hard liners are going to fight it out.

Make no mistake Egypt is the key to the whole region. It is the gateway between Arabia and North Africa. It has the crossings with Gaza and Israel. It has Al-Azhar University in Cairo which has been and still is one of if not the intellectual centres of radical Islamic thought. What role Wahhabism comes to have in this popular uprising will be key to the nest few weeks and Al-Azhar will be the key to that.

Egypt has been central to US foreign policy for decades as America's model for it a modern secular, democratic, business and Western oriented Arab nation. That model was always a lie since Mubarak was a familiar western supported, President for Life in all but name. That model, America's model is now on fire. Hilary Clinton has just been wheeled out to say the usual things about peaceful protest and the need for the government to play nicer with its people. The usual empty Washington blah, blah, blah. But just because the public statements are anodyne doesn't mean that America's intelligence and military aren't worried. Egypt is America's second most important ally in the Middle East after Israel. America gives Egypt about 1.5 billion dollars annually.

The question worrying Washington is whether Iran's influence will seep into any vacuum.

None of the Western Intelligence agencies has good human intelligence on the ground in Egypt and certainly not in Al-Azhar. The Americans have by far the least clue and the fewest human resources. The Israeli's have the most intelligence sources but they are at the moment not cooperating with their American colleagues they way they have done in the past. Which blinds the Americans even more than usual.

What everyone is listening out for is what the Shia are going to do. If Shia names start to come to the fore that will signal that the uprising has become part of something much wider.

The unrest has already spread from Algeria to Egypt but now to Syria as well. Today the Syrian government shut down Internet access. Israel is surrounded by Muslim unrest and regimes being rocked. Don't expect Mr Netanyahu to be a force for peace.

The riots in Egypt are intensifying as I write. The protesters are setting more police vehicles on fire and stoning the police who are shooting back.

Hovering uneasily in the background to all this is the questions which no one wants to talk about, will Israel, Iran and America let this remain a matter for Egypt and its people or will they make it a regional and strategic conflict.

So far no one has been burning flags in front of the camera's and no one has reported the crowds chanting death to America or death to Israel. So far this uprising has been about chronic poverty, massive disparity between rich and poor and a President who has been trying to position his son to succeed him in another of Egypt's 'free and fair elections'.

So far this has been about ordinary Egyptians wanting a better life for their children and some substance to the charade of Democracy we in the West have been content to pay lip service to. My worry is that America, Israel and Iran won't let it stay that way but will each contribute to making it another bloody battleground of their ideologies.

And lastly - watch out for what happens to the canal. Who will secure it and under what pretext.

[neanderpaul14]

How kindly do we think the muslim brotherhood will smile on this guy?:

I tried watching that show before, that guy is a f*cking a**hole.

[saxitoxin]

I'm sure Israel is shitting their pants right now at the prospect of someone other than Mubarak being next door and ordered Obama to get things under control. Will Obama use U.S. drones to get rid of Mubarak opponents, like he does in Pakistan, I wonder?

No, I do not write for Reuters in my spare time ...

Israel shocked by Obama's "betrayal" of Mubarak
If Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak is toppled, Israel will lose one of its very few friends in a hostile neighborhood and President Barack Obama will bear a large share of the blame, Israeli pundits said on Monday. Political commentators expressed shock at how the United States ... http://us.mobile.reuters.com/article/to ... 3720110131

[GabonX]

I'm sure Israel is shitting their pants right now at the prospect of someone other than Mubarak being next door and ordered Obama to get things under control. Will Obama use U.S. drones to get rid of Mubarak opponents, like he does in Pakistan, I wonder?

No, I do not write for Reuters in my spare time ...

Israel shocked by Obama's "betrayal" of Mubarak
If Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak is toppled, Israel will lose one of its very few friends in a hostile neighborhood and President Barack Obama will bear a large share of the blame, Israeli pundits said on Monday. Political commentators expressed shock at how the United States ... http://us.mobile.reuters.com/article/to ... 3720110131

So what's your point?

Yes, if the current government of Egypt falls it will likely be replaced by an extremist Islamic theocracy. Yes the Arab population of Egypt is likely to support the Palestinian pursuit of genocide as they've openly declared is their goal and have been actively seeking for the last 90 years.

I'm not sure why you're so giddy about this.

[saxitoxin]

I'm sure Israel is shitting their pants right now at the prospect of someone other than Mubarak being next door and ordered Obama to get things under control. Will Obama use U.S. drones to get rid of Mubarak opponents, like he does in Pakistan, I wonder?

No, I do not write for Reuters in my spare time ...

Israel shocked by Obama's "betrayal" of Mubarak
If Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak is toppled, Israel will lose one of its very few friends in a hostile neighborhood and President Barack Obama will bear a large share of the blame, Israeli pundits said on Monday. Political commentators expressed shock at how the United States ... http://us.mobile.reuters.com/article/to ... 3720110131

So what's your point?

Yes, if the current government of Egypt falls it will likely be replaced by an extremist Islamic theocracy. Yes the Arab population of Egypt is likely to support the Palestinian pursuit of genocide as they've openly declared is their goal and have been actively seeking for the last 90 years.

I'm not sure why you're so giddy about this.

I agree completely that, if Mubarak leaves, either a U.S.-handpicked successor will take-over or a theocracy will (eventually) come to power. More likely the former. (I'm sure the Egyptian General Staff has already received instructions from their CIA bosses to "lose control" of some key weapons depot near Cairo if Mo Baradai takes over; in a civil war you can at least gamble someone other than Mo will end up the winner, and maybe that someone will be an ally.)

But, even if a new Egyptian theocracy does enthrone itself it's not - in the long term - a sustainable situation to have the direction of movement of a hundred million people in a dozen different countries weighed or restrained by how it might impact Zionism. That's a paralyzing state-of-affairs.

If the perpetuity of Israel's existence is tied to the U.S. it may be time for them to come up with a Plan B. A State that can't exist of its own devices isn't a State.

[Ray Rider]

If the perpetuity of Israel's existence is tied to the U.S. it may be time for them to come up with a Plan B. A State that can't exist of its own devices isn't a State.

What about other States which are in a similar situation, such as South Korea, Taiwan, etc? There are (and always have been) some nations which avoid invasion mainly due to their allies, but I fail to see how that disqualifies them from statehood. It would be prudent for each to devise a "plan B" as you say, but if nothing else works atm, then they have no choice but to continue with the status quo.

[saxitoxin]

If the perpetuity of Israel's existence is tied to the U.S. it may be time for them to come up with a Plan B. A State that can't exist of its own devices isn't a State.

What about other States which are in a similar situation, such as South Korea, Taiwan, etc? There are (and always have been) some nations which avoid invasion mainly due to their allies, but I fail to see how that disqualifies them from statehood. It would be prudent for each to devise a "plan B" as you say, but if nothing else works atm, then they have no choice but to continue with the status quo.

Perhaps the ROK and Taiwan will need to learn to live in a world that isn't their ideal one.

[patches70]

If the perpetuity of Israel's existence is tied to the U.S. it may be time for them to come up with a Plan B. A State that can't exist of its own devices isn't a State.

What about other States which are in a similar situation, such as South Korea, Taiwan, etc? There are (and always have been) some nations which avoid invasion mainly due to their allies, but I fail to see how that disqualifies them from statehood. It would be prudent for each to devise a "plan B" as you say, but if nothing else works atm, then they have no choice but to continue with the status quo.

The gist of the quote- "A State that can't exist of its own devices isn't a State" is founded in Machiavelli's "The Prince".

You would have to read Machiavelli's reasoning to understand what it means and why he makes that argument. It is a valid argument.

[ben79]

hopefully the army will kick in and kill some people and the world could get rid of muslim extremists, but personnaly i think the revolution will start to slow down and people will go back to watching tv... a couple of days, they still have problems in tunisia and '' the revolution '' have won .....

[Ray Rider]

If the perpetuity of Israel's existence is tied to the U.S. it may be time for them to come up with a Plan B. A State that can't exist of its own devices isn't a State.

What about other States which are in a similar situation, such as South Korea, Taiwan, etc? There are (and always have been) some nations which avoid invasion mainly due to their allies, but I fail to see how that disqualifies them from statehood. It would be prudent for each to devise a "plan B" as you say, but if nothing else works atm, then they have no choice but to continue with the status quo.

The gist of the quote- "A State that can't exist of its own devices isn't a State" is founded in Machiavelli's "The Prince".

You would have to read Machiavelli's reasoning to understand what it means and why he makes that argument. It is a valid argument.

I skim-read The Prince a couple years ago, but maybe I'll have to go back and read it more thoroughly. hmmm...

[KingOfGods]

hopefully the army will kick in and kill some people and the world could get rid of muslim extremists, but personnaly i think the revolution will start to slow down and people will go back to watching tv... a couple of days, they still have problems in tunisia and '' the revolution '' have won .....

These people are such extremists

[ben79]

hopefully the army will kick in and kill some people and the world could get rid of muslim extremists, but personnaly i think the revolution will start to slow down and people will go back to watching tv... a couple of days, they still have problems in tunisia and '' the revolution '' have won .....

These people are such extremists

then the army should just go and kill the president and his followers, less time wasted for nothing, less waste of money ... then more money for food etc .. simple
anarchy is probably the best political thing that could happen to a country ( and for those who are about to say bad things about anarchy just go and take a dictionnary and read about anarchy )

oh and who gives a f*ck about egypt anyway ?

[FabledIntegral]

I'm sure Israel is shitting their pants right now at the prospect of someone other than Mubarak being next door and ordered Obama to get things under control. Will Obama use U.S. drones to get rid of Mubarak opponents, like he does in Pakistan, I wonder?

No, I do not write for Reuters in my spare time ...

Israel shocked by Obama's "betrayal" of Mubarak
If Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak is toppled, Israel will lose one of its very few friends in a hostile neighborhood and President Barack Obama will bear a large share of the blame, Israeli pundits said on Monday. Political commentators expressed shock at how the United States ... http://us.mobile.reuters.com/article/to ... 3720110131

So what's your point?

Yes, if the current government of Egypt falls it will likely be replaced by an extremist Islamic theocracy. Yes the Arab population of Egypt is likely to support the Palestinian pursuit of genocide as they've openly declared is their goal and have been actively seeking for the last 90 years.

I'm not sure why you're so giddy about this.

I highly doubt it would be replaced with an extremist theocracy when the root cause for the revolution isn't even concerning religious tensions in the first place. Rather, it's concerning rather poor economic conditions in the country, where the gap between the wealthy and the poor is only widening. The Muslim Brotherhood, for the most part, is filled with moderates that are more focused on building schools, community centers, hospitals for people, providing food and shelter, etc. than with fundamentalism; although I'm sure there are some extremists there, I personally doubt they could climb to power when, unlike Iran, Egypt isn't looking for an Islamic revolution.

I believe (don't quote me) that the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood also said he had no intention on assuming a governmental leadership role or even participating in new elections if they were to be held. I would be much quicker to equate the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt with Christian evangelical groups in the United States helping build churches, schools, etc. in poverty stricken areas. And you can equate the extremists they have with the idiot hellfire preachers we have that condemn everyone to hell and advocate removal of separation of church and state.

I've heard that the European media tends to portray a much less negative light on anything concerning "Muslim" than the United States... can only hope, the U.S. media seems to portray anything associated with Islam as "hostile" and "extremist" even when it usually isn't the case.

[FabledIntegral]

If the perpetuity of Israel's existence is tied to the U.S. it may be time for them to come up with a Plan B. A State that can't exist of its own devices isn't a State.

What about other States which are in a similar situation, such as South Korea, Taiwan, etc? There are (and always have been) some nations which avoid invasion mainly due to their allies, but I fail to see how that disqualifies them from statehood. It would be prudent for each to devise a "plan B" as you say, but if nothing else works atm, then they have no choice but to continue with the status quo.

Well, in such a case, they aren't sovereign states, but technically could still be deemed states nonetheless. Most people when using states in a connotative manner rather than the definition have an implied sovereignty involved that I'm not convinced Taiwan has (they can't even declare they're an independent nation). You could make a better case for SK, although at the same time its borders have been in constant dispute from a civil war, although I'm not quite sure if that effects it or not.

[patches70]

If the perpetuity of Israel's existence is tied to the U.S. it may be time for them to come up with a Plan B. A State that can't exist of its own devices isn't a State.

What about other States which are in a similar situation, such as South Korea, Taiwan, etc? There are (and always have been) some nations which avoid invasion mainly due to their allies, but I fail to see how that disqualifies them from statehood. It would be prudent for each to devise a "plan B" as you say, but if nothing else works atm, then they have no choice but to continue with the status quo.

The gist of the quote- "A State that can't exist of its own devices isn't a State" is founded in Machiavelli's "The Prince".

You would have to read Machiavelli's reasoning to understand what it means and why he makes that argument. It is a valid argument.

I skim-read The Prince a couple years ago, but maybe I'll have to go back and read it more thoroughly. hmmm...

(According to Machiavelli)
To have a sound state you must have sound laws and a sound military. Machiavelli does not go into great detail of the sound laws but he speaks at length about a sound military.

Machiavelli says that the ruler of a kingdom (State) has several options in regards to military. The best military is that of the State's own citizens, willingly serving. They are loyal, they are brave and they are defending something dear to them, their homes and families.
The State that lacks such a military, may rely on mercenaries. This is one of the worst choices. Machiavelli gives many examples of past States that have relied on mercenaries only to be let down by the mercenaries in times of war, or taken over by those same mercenaries at the first opportunity.

Taiwan and SK both rely on the US for protection. SK has a pretty decent military though, Taiwan, not so much. In regards to mercenaries, Machiavelli says that if the captains of your mercenaries are poor soldiers, they will certainly fail you in defending your State. If the mercenary Captains are of excellent quality, then they will always seek to usurp The Prince eventually. Take Taiwan and SK, since the US defends them, the US has great leverage upon them to do as we wish. Whether or not you look at the US as mercenaries is the key I suppose.
Consider Vietnam, JFK was appalled when Ngo Dinh Biem was "removed", at the behest of his ally, The United States. JFK did not really want him murdered, just removed from power. In regards to Vietnam, I would consider the US more of a mercenary force and we see what it got South Vietnam, they ceased to exist in the end. They could not defend themselves, and those who promised to defend them eventually failed.

There are auxiliary forces, today's equivalent to maybe UN forces. Machiavelli thinks those types of forces are useless all together. Consider today, that if the UN has to send in forces, then your State is pretty much gone already, which is why the UN is there. Why they are so useless is that they are not bound by the orders of The Prince of whose State they occupy. Auxiliary forces follow the orders of someone outside of the State they are stationed in.
Regardless, when auxiliary forces have to come into your nation, then your nation effectively ceases to exist.

If The Prince does not wish to use mercenaries, or rely on auxiliary forces, and cannot raise a sound military through his own citizens, then he may form alliances. However, the problem with alliances, is that The Prince with the weak military making an alliance with The State having a strong military, The Prince faces more problems.
If you do not consider the US as "mercenaries" in regards to Taiwan and SK, but rather consider them allies, I would ask this.
In regards to Taiwan, if China were to launch a full scale invasion, would the United States risk Global Nuclear War for the sake of Taiwan?
If you believe the answer to that question is "no", then you begin to see the value of alliances.
If the answer is to that question is "yes", then you begin to see the cost of such alliances.
If you are the weaker nation in an alliance, then you are dependent on the stronger allies to determine if it is worth keeping an alliance when hostilities break out.
If you are the weaker nation of an alliance, and your stronger ally ends up in hostilities with a stronger nation than yourself, and you find yourself the first target, you learn more about the costs of such alliances.

In that regard, look at Italy in WWII. The weakest of the Axis powers, and the first to fall.

Consider the Nation of Georgia a few years ago, when Russia just walked in and kicked the snot out of them. It is hard to truly consider yourself a nation when your neighbor can walk in and smash you anytime they want. You exist only so long as your neighbor allows. You are not truly an independent nation in that case. This is probably why Georgia wanted to be a part of NATO so badly, for protection. I would ask, even if they were a member of NATO, would the US risk a terrible war with Russia for the sake of Georgia?

That is why to truly be a nation, a State, you must be able to defend yourself from likely attackers. You must have a sound social system, or your The Prince finds himself overthrown, as in Egypt today.

Mubarak would have done better if he had paid attention to Machiavelli's advice. It is not just military matters Machiavelli warns The Prince of, but of social conduct and the treatment of the People as well. When you apply all of what Machiavelli speaks of to Egypt, you can see why Mubarak is in the situation he is in now.

[neanderpaul14]

hopefully the army will kick in and kill some people and the world could get rid of muslim extremists, but personnaly i think the revolution will start to slow down and people will go back to watching tv... a couple of days, they still have problems in tunisia and '' the revolution '' have won .....

LOL......So you think the problem is that the cable's been out for a couple of days? I hope the upcoming ice storm doesn't knock out the cable here, I'd hate to see rioting in New England.

[ben79]

hopefully the army will kick in and kill some people and the world could get rid of muslim extremists, but personnaly i think the revolution will start to slow down and people will go back to watching tv... a couple of days, they still have problems in tunisia and '' the revolution '' have won .....

LOL......So you think the problem is that the cable's been out for a couple of days? I hope the upcoming ice storm doesn't knock out the cable here, I'd hate to see rioting in New England.

I am 100% sure that the thing that cause revolution was '' that the cable was out for a couple of days ''

New England ( the name is weird ... they make a revolution to kick england ass and they chose the name '' New England '' )

[Ray Rider]

(According to Machiavelli)
To have a sound state you must have sound laws and a sound military. Machiavelli does not go into great detail of the sound laws but he speaks at length about a sound military.

Machiavelli says that the ruler of a kingdom (State) has several options in regards to military. The best military is that of the State's own citizens, willingly serving. They are loyal, they are brave and they are defending something dear to them, their homes and families.
The State that lacks such a military, may rely on mercenaries. This is one of the worst choices. Machiavelli gives many examples of past States that have relied on mercenaries only to be let down by the mercenaries in times of war, or taken over by those same mercenaries at the first opportunity.

Taiwan and SK both rely on the US for protection. SK has a pretty decent military though, Taiwan, not so much. In regards to mercenaries, Machiavelli says that if the captains of your mercenaries are poor soldiers, they will certainly fail you in defending your State. If the mercenary Captains are of excellent quality, then they will always seek to usurp The Prince eventually. Take Taiwan and SK, since the US defends them, the US has great leverage upon them to do as we wish. Whether or not you look at the US as mercenaries is the key I suppose.
Consider Vietnam, JFK was appalled when Ngo Dinh Biem was "removed", at the behest of his ally, The United States. JFK did not really want him murdered, just removed from power. In regards to Vietnam, I would consider the US more of a mercenary force and we see what it got South Vietnam, they ceased to exist in the end. They could not defend themselves, and those who promised to defend them eventually failed.

There are auxiliary forces, today's equivalent to maybe UN forces. Machiavelli thinks those types of forces are useless all together. Consider today, that if the UN has to send in forces, then your State is pretty much gone already, which is why the UN is there. Why they are so useless is that they are not bound by the orders of The Prince of whose State they occupy. Auxiliary forces follow the orders of someone outside of the State they are stationed in.
Regardless, when auxiliary forces have to come into your nation, then your nation effectively ceases to exist.

If The Prince does not wish to use mercenaries, or rely on auxiliary forces, and cannot raise a sound military through his own citizens, then he may form alliances. However, the problem with alliances, is that The Prince with the weak military making an alliance with The State having a strong military, The Prince faces more problems.
If you do not consider the US as "mercenaries" in regards to Taiwan and SK, but rather consider them allies, I would ask this.
In regards to Taiwan, if China were to launch a full scale invasion, would the United States risk Global Nuclear War for the sake of Taiwan?
If you believe the answer to that question is "no", then you begin to see the value of alliances.
If the answer is to that question is "yes", then you begin to see the cost of such alliances.
If you are the weaker nation in an alliance, then you are dependent on the stronger allies to determine if it is worth keeping an alliance when hostilities break out.
If you are the weaker nation of an alliance, and your stronger ally ends up in hostilities with a stronger nation than yourself, and you find yourself the first target, you learn more about the costs of such alliances.

In that regard, look at Italy in WWII. The weakest of the Axis powers, and the first to fall.

Consider the Nation of Georgia a few years ago, when Russia just walked in and kicked the snot out of them. It is hard to truly consider yourself a nation when your neighbor can walk in and smash you anytime they want. You exist only so long as your neighbor allows. You are not truly an independent nation in that case. This is probably why Georgia wanted to be a part of NATO so badly, for protection. I would ask, even if they were a member of NATO, would the US risk a terrible war with Russia for the sake of Georgia?

That is why to truly be a nation, a State, you must be able to defend yourself from likely attackers. You must have a sound social system, or your The Prince finds himself overthrown, as in Egypt today.

Mubarak would have done better if he had paid attention to Machiavelli's advice. It is not just military matters Machiavelli warns The Prince of, but of social conduct and the treatment of the People as well. When you apply all of what Machiavelli speaks of to Egypt, you can see why Mubarak is in the situation he is in now.

Thanks! That's quite fascinating. Reminds me of the strategies and possible outcomes you have to consider in a game called Diplomacy. Have you played it before?

However regarding this sentence: "I would ask, even if they were a member of NATO, would the US risk a terrible war with Russia for the sake of Georgia?"
I would respond with "If Georgia were a member of NATO, would Russia risk a terrible war with the US (and allies) for the sake of conquering Georgia?" It's something we'll never know, but worth considering.

In addition, I see how in Machiavelli's definition of a sound state, a mercenary military is quite unreliable and allies always must take into account their own state of affairs and possible repercussions of their actions, however, as I said before, this is how nations throughout history have prolonged their existence. Often there is no other choice. The result may not be a sound state, but a state none the less. I'm fuzzy on the details of the Vietnam War, but it seems like South Vietnam only lasted as long as it did because of massive amounts of combat troops (mercenaries, if you will) from the US, South Korea, and Australia/New Zealand. Israel lready has the troops necessary to defend itself (barring Russia sending combat troops to aid Israel's enemies), but cannot produce all the supplies it needs. For example, the modern state Israel has, over the course of its brief existence, depended on Britain, France, and the US for military aid and/or supplies. Simply because the US may decide to abandon Israel at a time of need doesn't mean that Israel will be overrun. As long as at least one great power continues to support Israel by providing a market for military supplies, Israel will be able to defend itself and possibly even expand, as demonstrated in the wars of 1967 and 73. Therefore it seems to me that a state which is able to defend itself by means of armaments bought from its allies is much more stable than a state which can only defend itself by means of foreign mercenaries. After all, allies are always much more willing to sell arms and supplies than to send troops which may be killed.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm sure Israel is shitting their pants right now at the prospect of someone other than Mubarak being next door and ordered Obama to get things under control. Will Obama use U.S. drones to get rid of Mubarak opponents, like he does in Pakistan, I wonder?

No, I do not write for Reuters in my spare time ...

Israel shocked by Obama's "betrayal" of Mubarak
If Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak is toppled, Israel will lose one of its very few friends in a hostile neighborhood and President Barack Obama will bear a large share of the blame, Israeli pundits said on Monday. Political commentators expressed shock at how the United States ... http://us.mobile.reuters.com/article/to ... 3720110131

So what's your point?

Yes, if the current government of Egypt falls it will likely be replaced by an extremist Islamic theocracy. Yes the Arab population of Egypt is likely to support the Palestinian pursuit of genocide as they've openly declared is their goal and have been actively seeking for the last 90 years.

I'm not sure why you're so giddy about this.

I highly doubt it would be replaced with an extremist theocracy when the root cause for the revolution isn't even concerning religious tensions in the first place. Rather, it's concerning rather poor economic conditions in the country, where the gap between the wealthy and the poor is only widening. The Muslim Brotherhood, for the most part, is filled with moderates that are more focused on building schools, community centers, hospitals for people, providing food and shelter, etc. than with fundamentalism; although I'm sure there are some extremists there, I personally doubt they could climb to power when, unlike Iran, Egypt isn't looking for an Islamic revolution.

If you recall, the revolution of 1979 in Iran was started by many different groups, which nearly all had an anti-monarchy motivation. The theocrats (COPYRIGHT, BBS 2011) in the beginning weren't set up for a guaranteed or even a high chance of winning all the spoils; however, after the king fell and shit got real, the main groups didn't plan and organize well enough while the theocrats were the best organized and best positioned to take control. But with such events, they were a little lucky too.

For anyone to come in here and say, "YEAH, THOSE GUYS ARE GONNA WIN" without providing any good reasoning, is only basing that on pure speculation. I'd love to hear from you, saxi, and GabonX about which group will dominate and how and why.

[BigBallinStalin]

However regarding this sentence: "I would ask, even if they were a member of NATO, would the US risk a terrible war with Russia for the sake of Georgia?"
I would respond with "If Georgia were a member of NATO, would Russia risk a terrible war with the US (and allies) for the sake of conquering Georgia?" It's something we'll never know, but worth considering.

Technically, Georgia was a member of NATO in all but name. They contributed armies to the Afghan effort, contributed in joint military practices, and were one step officially into NATO until the Russians completed discouraged such a thought.

So to answer your question, No, the US wouldn't risk war with Russia over a nation not worth protecting for such high costs.

With #2, the chances of all-out war with the US from an aggressive yet shady Russian maneuver are extremely slim, which is why the Russians took that chance.

Russia was just testing the waters at the expense of several millions of people's livelihoods. Isn't statecraft, national security, and international affairs fun? :/

[Baron Von PWN]

However regarding this sentence: "I would ask, even if they were a member of NATO, would the US risk a terrible war with Russia for the sake of Georgia?"
I would respond with "If Georgia were a member of NATO, would Russia risk a terrible war with the US (and allies) for the sake of conquering Georgia?" It's something we'll never know, but worth considering.

Technically, Georgia was a member of NATO in all but name. They contributed armies to the Afghan effort, contributed in joint military practices, and were one step officially into NATO until the Russians completed discouraged such a thought.

So to answer your question, No, the US wouldn't risk war with Russia over a nation not worth protecting for such high costs.

With #2, the chances of all-out war with the US from an aggressive yet shady Russian maneuver are extremely slim, which is why the Russians took that chance.

Russia was just testing the waters at the expense of several millions of people's livelihoods. Isn't statecraft, national security, and international affairs fun? :/

Well that, and the Georgians shelled a Russian military installation. People like to forget that.

[saxitoxin]

If the perpetuity of Israel's existence is tied to the U.S. it may be time for them to come up with a Plan B. A State that can't exist of its own devices isn't a State.

What about other States which are in a similar situation, such as South Korea, Taiwan, etc? There are (and always have been) some nations which avoid invasion mainly due to their allies, but I fail to see how that disqualifies them from statehood. It would be prudent for each to devise a "plan B" as you say, but if nothing else works atm, then they have no choice but to continue with the status quo.

The gist of the quote- "A State that can't exist of its own devices isn't a State" is founded in Machiavelli's "The Prince".

You would have to read Machiavelli's reasoning to understand what it means and why he makes that argument. It is a valid argument.

I skim-read The Prince a couple years ago, but maybe I'll have to go back and read it more thoroughly. hmmm...

(According to Machiavelli)
To have a sound state you must have sound laws and a sound military. Machiavelli does not go into great detail of the sound laws but he speaks at length about a sound military.

Machiavelli says that the ruler of a kingdom (State) has several options in regards to military. The best military is that of the State's own citizens, willingly serving. They are loyal, they are brave and they are defending something dear to them, their homes and families.
The State that lacks such a military, may rely on mercenaries. This is one of the worst choices. Machiavelli gives many examples of past States that have relied on mercenaries only to be let down by the mercenaries in times of war, or taken over by those same mercenaries at the first opportunity.

Taiwan and SK both rely on the US for protection. SK has a pretty decent military though, Taiwan, not so much. In regards to mercenaries, Machiavelli says that if the captains of your mercenaries are poor soldiers, they will certainly fail you in defending your State. If the mercenary Captains are of excellent quality, then they will always seek to usurp The Prince eventually. Take Taiwan and SK, since the US defends them, the US has great leverage upon them to do as we wish. Whether or not you look at the US as mercenaries is the key I suppose.
Consider Vietnam, JFK was appalled when Ngo Dinh Biem was "removed", at the behest of his ally, The United States. JFK did not really want him murdered, just removed from power. In regards to Vietnam, I would consider the US more of a mercenary force and we see what it got South Vietnam, they ceased to exist in the end. They could not defend themselves, and those who promised to defend them eventually failed.

There are auxiliary forces, today's equivalent to maybe UN forces. Machiavelli thinks those types of forces are useless all together. Consider today, that if the UN has to send in forces, then your State is pretty much gone already, which is why the UN is there. Why they are so useless is that they are not bound by the orders of The Prince of whose State they occupy. Auxiliary forces follow the orders of someone outside of the State they are stationed in.
Regardless, when auxiliary forces have to come into your nation, then your nation effectively ceases to exist.

If The Prince does not wish to use mercenaries, or rely on auxiliary forces, and cannot raise a sound military through his own citizens, then he may form alliances. However, the problem with alliances, is that The Prince with the weak military making an alliance with The State having a strong military, The Prince faces more problems.
If you do not consider the US as "mercenaries" in regards to Taiwan and SK, but rather consider them allies, I would ask this.
In regards to Taiwan, if China were to launch a full scale invasion, would the United States risk Global Nuclear War for the sake of Taiwan?
If you believe the answer to that question is "no", then you begin to see the value of alliances.
If the answer is to that question is "yes", then you begin to see the cost of such alliances.
If you are the weaker nation in an alliance, then you are dependent on the stronger allies to determine if it is worth keeping an alliance when hostilities break out.
If you are the weaker nation of an alliance, and your stronger ally ends up in hostilities with a stronger nation than yourself, and you find yourself the first target, you learn more about the costs of such alliances.

In that regard, look at Italy in WWII. The weakest of the Axis powers, and the first to fall.

Consider the Nation of Georgia a few years ago, when Russia just walked in and kicked the snot out of them. It is hard to truly consider yourself a nation when your neighbor can walk in and smash you anytime they want. You exist only so long as your neighbor allows. You are not truly an independent nation in that case. This is probably why Georgia wanted to be a part of NATO so badly, for protection. I would ask, even if they were a member of NATO, would the US risk a terrible war with Russia for the sake of Georgia?

That is why to truly be a nation, a State, you must be able to defend yourself from likely attackers. You must have a sound social system, or your The Prince finds himself overthrown, as in Egypt today.

Mubarak would have done better if he had paid attention to Machiavelli's advice. It is not just military matters Machiavelli warns The Prince of, but of social conduct and the treatment of the People as well. When you apply all of what Machiavelli speaks of to Egypt, you can see why Mubarak is in the situation he is in now.

nicely summarized

It's not accidental that NATO requires member-states to standardize their armaments and order-of-battle to technological and organizational specifications issued by the U.S. Joint Staff, that - after the fall of the Iron Curtain - the new eastern European members were required to scrap what were (in many cases) brand new, Soviet systems to comply with the Standardization "Agreements." The ability of most nations these days to wage war is dependent on the pleasure of maybe half-a-dozen countries who hold the keys to the arms locker.

For anyone to come in here and say, "YEAH, THOSE GUYS ARE GONNA WIN" without providing any good reasoning, is only basing that on pure speculation. I'd love to hear from you, saxi, and GabonX about which group will dominate and how and why.

you asked for it

Somewhere near Cairo there's an Egyptian Army depot or munitions dump that's guarded by a motor rifle regiment or reinforced battalion or something along those lines. Despite the relatively mundane nature of this facility it probably, at this hour, has a flag officer - maybe a Maj.-Gen. or Field Marshal - running the place with a CIA liaison holding a briefcase full of cash and the deed to a beachfront home in Miami at his right-hand.

Meanwhile the US embassy is busy chartering every out-of-work tour bus it can get its hands on. If Mubarak falls there will be a few days for the dust to settle and figure out who is going to emerge as the new headman. If this is a person who does not have Israeli interests at heart, aforementioned rifle regiment will all be granted a weekend's holiday, said charter buses will roll-up, unload a few hundred ideologically like-minded activists who will have a two-hour shopping spree and then return to Cairo armed-to-the-teeth.

IOW, yes-man out / yes-man in. It is utterly impossible for any nation that finds itself geographically positioned in a strategic zone in which the U.S. has taken interest to extricate itself. No spontaneous street demonstration, no matter how well-intentioned, can overcome years of well-financed planning for every possible contingency.

I wouldn't even be surprised if this were all a U.S. instigated event. Maybe Mubarak made a misstep behind the scenes somewhere. We didn't learn for several years later, for instance, that the wonderful Serbian "youth movement" everyone was cheering as an explosion of democratic populism (just like now in Egypt) that overthrew Milošević was all organized and run out of Embassy Belgrade ... it's all the same storylines being rolled out, once again -- tales of individual heroism, some sexy gadget-of-the-year protesters are using in the face of guns (is it Twitter this time or FourSquare? hard to keep track), a well-dressed charismatic leader flying-in from out of country to rally the nation, etc. etc. etc. The usual.

Well that, and the Georgians shelled a Russian military installation. People like to forget that.

Good point, as always.

[patches70]

Well that, and the Georgians shelled a Russian military installation. People like to forget that.

The Georgia affair was quite fascinating to me, actually. You see, Georgia, every year at about the same time, they would go into South Ossetia and whip up on those people. Something about a holiday that the Ossetians celebrate in regards to some independence or something. Anyway, the Ossetians would always get all riled up and the Georgians would always come in and bomb em a little bit, smack em around and then go home until next year.

However, in 2008, the Georgians got a nice surprise. The Russians were waiting for them. You see, the Russians had an entire division. 10,000 men standing ready. You can't mobilize that many men that quickly and throw then into combat. The Russians had planned it.

The Russians knew we wouldn't do a thing about it because our forces were stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, many don't realize this, but the Russians hated Bush for some reason. The Georgians on the other hand, loved Bush. I believe the Russian actions in August, 2008, was a deliberate "thumb the nose" at Bush and a chance to whip up on the poor ole Georgians.

I remember the conflict, Bush had stern words for Russia, but the Ossetians consider themselves Russian. They identify with Russian far more than they do with Georgia.

I don't know anything about Georgia bombing a Russian position which prompted a Russian attack, maybe so. All I know is that Russia had 10,000 troops sitting a waiting in just the right spot at just the right time to beat down the Georgians. It was kinda hilarious in a way. The Georgians, like clockwork, go in for their annual Ossetian bashing and in turn got the snot kicked out of them.

Well, serves em right I suppose in a way.

[BigBallinStalin]

However regarding this sentence: "I would ask, even if they were a member of NATO, would the US risk a terrible war with Russia for the sake of Georgia?"
I would respond with "If Georgia were a member of NATO, would Russia risk a terrible war with the US (and allies) for the sake of conquering Georgia?" It's something we'll never know, but worth considering.

Technically, Georgia was a member of NATO in all but name. They contributed armies to the Afghan effort, contributed in joint military practices, and were one step officially into NATO until the Russians completed discouraged such a thought.

So to answer your question, No, the US wouldn't risk war with Russia over a nation not worth protecting for such high costs.

With #2, the chances of all-out war with the US from an aggressive yet shady Russian maneuver are extremely slim, which is why the Russians took that chance.

Russia was just testing the waters at the expense of several millions of people's livelihoods. Isn't statecraft, national security, and international affairs fun? :/

Well that, and the Georgians shelled a Russian military installation. People like to forget that.

I haven't forgot that the Georgians supposedly initiated a conflict with a country 1000 times stronger than them, but...

Was it provoked? Did the Russians through Georgian communication give them misinformation that other positions were under attack? There's plenty of unanswered questions, and plenty of other options available at that time.

[Wasn't most of the news on the beginnings of the conflict only coming from Russian mass media sources?]