The End of Mubarak (Hopefully)

|

Dictators can flip a switch and shut off the Internet. Dictators control television news, indulging the temptation to ignore stories that cast them in a bad light. But Egypt, entering its 30th year of iron-fisted rule by the toad-like dictator Hosni Mubarak, isn't a dictatorship, according to Vice President Joe Biden. White House press secretaries don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows, so Robert Gibbs, watching the situation in Cairo unravel, is hedging.

With tanks on the streets, curfew invoked (and roundly ignored, as an Al Jazeera live shot demonstrates; with the conscript army shaking hands, as the careerists in the police force crack heads), planes ferrying various regime stooges and, rumor has it, Mubarak family members out of the country, and ruling party headquarters engulfed in flames, it looks as if this revolution will be more 1989 than 1956 or 1968. And like 1989, there have been sporadic spasms of violence in Suez, Alexandria, and Cairo, though the repressive and widely hated police dare not go full Tiananmen.

One thing to note: While nervousness about the Muslim Brotherhood filling the political vacuum is justified (when Iranian state broadcasters are cheering a revolution, it should induce heart palpitations)—I have emails into a few Egyptians friends, based in Cairo, involved in the not-very-influential liberal movement and will publish their observations when the Internet becomes available to them—it seems that the street protests are not being directed or organized by the group. Obviously, this says little about the makeup of a future, Mubarak-free government—the one that tears up what remains of the Camp David accords—but is somewhat heartening. 

The latest interesting detail: Egypt's speaker of the house promises an "important announcement" shortly. Anwar Sadat survived the 1977 "bread riots," but according to this NBC report, three private jets, under heavy security, just left Cairo, though it could have been Omar Sharif and family.

Also, the inevitable "America is behind the revolution" story from the Daily Telegraph.

Advertisement

NEXT: Man Versus the State

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If the Brotherhood takes over and re-militarizes the Sinai, this could be the start of new Israeli-Egyptian war.

    Of course, entirely funded by the US taxpayer.

    1. I don’t think the Brotherhood could get the army to sign up for another ass-whupping like they got the last time they tried it. Losing a war isn’t good for business, and Israel has proven many times that they can beat the hell out of anyone who comes at them in a straight-up fight.

      -jcr

      1. You have an odd definition of a straight-up fight.

        1. Ok, it was a sucker-punch, but it was being done by an army in uniform. Not like firing rockets from the midst of their civilian population.

          -jcr

          1. I was referring to the massive military aid and technology sharing that Israel gets from a certain non-Middle Eastern country.

            1. This would be similar to the massive military aid ad technology sharing that the Arabs got from a certain non-Middle Eastern country?

              1. And that makes it right? Maybe the Soviets wouldn’t have engaged as much if we weren’t supporting Israel so heavily, so turning the Mid East into just another proxy Cold War battlefield.

                And even if they did, what business do we have supporting either side in that conflict?

                1. Egypt turned to the Soviets when we wouldn’t fund the Aswan Dam.

                2. Jim|1.28.11 @ 7:36PM|#
                  “And that makes it right?”
                  Did you see me post that?

                  “Maybe the Soviets wouldn’t have engaged as much if we weren’t supporting Israel so heavily, so turning the Mid East into just another proxy Cold War battlefield.”
                  Maybe purple unicorns can turn green.

                  “And even if they did, what business do we have supporting either side in that conflict?”
                  Good question. Because the world isn’t perfect?

                3. BTW:
                  “Maybe the Soviets wouldn’t have engaged as much if we weren’t supporting Israel so heavily, so turning the Mid East into just another proxy Cold War battlefield.”
                  It took serious ‘statework’ to talk the Soviets into leaving Iran as they promised they would after WWII.
                  The Soviets had designs on the Mid East long before the 6-Days war.

                  1. Actually in the beginning the Soviets were big supporters of the Jewish State. The US gave only lukewarm support – Harry Truman recognized Israel over State Department objections and Ike categorically denounced the British/French/Israeli war on Egypt over the nationalization of the Suez Canal.

                    IIANM, it was not until the Nixon Administration that the aid started flowing freely, which is odd as RMN is reported to have said at one time “Fuck the Jews, they don’t vote for us anyway.”

                    One of the biggest suppliers of arms to the Israelis for the 1948 war was Czechoslovakia at the behest of its imperial master, Joe Stalin.

                    1. “Isaac Bartram|1.28.11 @ 10:33PM|#
                      “Actually in the beginning the Soviets were big supporters of the Jewish State.”

                      True. Until it became obvious that Israel wasn’t gonna be part of the Commintern.
                      Ooops!

                    2. Ike kicked the British/French out of the neighborhood when he discovered the shit they pulled.

                4. Maybe the Soviets wouldn’t have engaged as much if we weren’t supporting Israel so heavily

                  Um, no. It would have required a time machine for Soviet engagement to be the result of US support of Israel.

                  In 1947-1948, the US didn’t support Israel at all, beyond recognizing their state de facto. The Soviets were the the first nation on Earth to recognize Israel de jure and the only external power to supply arms to the Israelis in 1947-1948. The Soviets were then upset that Israel went with multiparty democracy and fundamentally free markets after the war (instead of single-party socialism), and withdrew their support.

                  Come 1955, the US was still neutral. Egypt came out and asked the US for arms to use against Israel. When the US conditioned such provision on US supervisors to make sure they were only used defensively, Egypt turned to the Soviets, and the Soviets armed the Egyptians.

                  Still the US tried to improve relations with Egypt, rather than taking the side of Israel. The US pledged millions of dollars for the Aswan High Dam . . . and the Egyptians in response recognized Communist China, which caused us to withraw the pledge.

                  In the Suez Crisis, the US and USSR jointly intervened diplomatically on the side of Egypt and forced the British, French, and Israelis to back down.

                  Nasser then pursued ever-closer relations with the Soviets afterward, (the Soviets agreeing to fund the Aswan High Dam), and the US still remained neutral. We supplied some defensive arms (anti-aricraft missiles) to Israel, sure; and we supplied the very same Hawk missiles to Egypt.

                  It wasn’t until after the Six-Day War, in 1967, that the US decided that Egypt had permanently moved into alliance with the Soviets, and we responded by supporting Israel as a counterweight.

                  1. But how can we blame it all on America?

                    1. Easy, just give the story to Chris Matthews.

                5. Jim,
                  Maybe the Soviets were only engaging because they were countering the USA wherever they could.

                  They liked Israel in the 1940;s because they were Socialists.

        2. If you mean that “straight up” equals fair, then you know even less about fighting than I.

    2. If it is a wedge between Mubarak and a Mullah, I will take Mubarak, no matter what you and Jimmy Carter say.

      The Israeli-Egyptian war, fully funded by US taxpayers ends at the next election when Maobama is ousted.

    3. We will need to increase aid to both countries immediately.

  2. The Egyptian people should arm themselves to defend their rights from their oppressors. And no, I don’t see the hypocrisy in my statement.

    1. dude, you have alittle bit of mustard riiight there…

  3. Say, why not make Omar Sharif the new president?

    1. He’s too busy with bridge tournaments.

      1. He’s like a bridge god.

        I can’t decide which Sharif character would be most appropriate if he became president: Ali from Lawrence Of Arabia? Dr. Zhivago? Agent Cedric from Top Secret?

        1. Nicky Arnstein from Funny Girl.

          (tries to spit this out with a straight face, but finally chokes on the last word, then throws up in mouth)

          1. Are you seriously suggesting that he introduce Streisandism to Egypt? I’m appalled.

            If Sharif isn’t available, I recommend Peter O’Toole.

            1. I think my vomiting made it clear how serious I was, you unobservant nincompoop.

              1. Yentlist.

                1. You take that back! The one time I tried to watch Yentl, I returned the video to the store about 45 minutes after I had left the store with it. The drive to the video store was about 10 minutes each way.

                  1. You were lucky. My mother–a dyed-in-the-wool Barbraist–made me and my brother watch that film. All of it.

                    Thank God I forgot most of the experience; otherwise, I might never have watched The Princess Bride.

                    1. “My mother–a dyed-in-the-wool Barbraist–made me and my brother watch that film. All of it.”

                      You know, PL, that really esplains a lot.

                    2. Don’t mock my pain!

                2. Oy vey . . .

            2. Or Paul Atreides. He will be a formidable duke!

              1. Omar Sharif played Paul Atreides?

              2. ^^ +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

                The protesters had best be careful to walk without a rhythm when they’re outside the city, on the open sands.

            3. And if Peter is unavailable,I recommend his daughter,Plenty.

              1. Was that a Bond chick?

            4. Peter O’toole…..that’s redundant. Like Dick Johnson

        2. The assassin in The Pink Panther Strikes Again.

  4. I hope that the U.S. government will have the good sense to stay out of this mess. But I suspect that I hope for too much. “We’re the world superpower blahblahblah”

    1. Nah, O Wonder would take three months to send half as many troops…
      it would be over by then.

  5. “Dictators can flip a switch and shut off the Internet. Dictators control television news, indulging the temptation to ignore stories that cast them in a bad light.”

    LEAVE OBAMA ALONE!!!

  6. Mubarak is speaking right now. He doesn’t seem to be resigning.

    1. He’ll never resign. He’ll just relocate.

      Personally, I’d go ensconce myself in the Great Pyramid.

      1. Maybe he’s looking into a Somali Transitional Government setup.

        1. It is a libertarian paradise.

    2. Is that Borat translating?

    3. He’s talking a lot about fighting for the poor. He sounds a lot like (Insert any leftist here).

    4. A new government to take control tomorrow… set up by Mubarak himself.

      1. Re: MWG,

        A new government to take control tomorrow… set up by Mubarak himself.

        Don’t tell me: A “transition” government.

        1. “Don’t tell me: A “transition” government.”

          Of course. Would the US administration have it any other way?

          The whole time I kept waiting for someone to jump out from behind the camera and put an end to it all Ceausescu style.

          1. Maybe he’s decided to stay because he feels his back is against the wall.

            One could hope.

            1. Well, it may be.

              I’m sure he’s got an exit strategy all ready to do.

            2. The problem for him is if he stays he may feel his back against the wall with the offer of a cigarette and blindfold.

              1. That was where I was going with the “it may be” remark.

                I’m sure he’s got an escape route all set and ready to go. Maybe a Mexican catapult or something like that.

                1. I gave this chick from Harrisburg a ‘Mexican catapult’ one time.

                  Good times.

          2. waiting for someone to jump out from behind the camera and put an end to it all Ceausescu style.

            Yeah. Ever notice how the dictators never have to face an insurgency? It’s either toppling by street protests or old age.

            Why do the fanatics only attack democratic invaders?

    5. Obama wrote that speech. The only thing he left out was “high speed rail”.

  7. So, does the DT story say the USG is behind the revolution in a good way or a bad way?

  8. Nope, he just called himself President.

    1. “… we will reduce unemployment and improve health care and education …”

      1. with high speed illegal smoked salmon!!

        1. Can’t get that smoked salmon out of my head. Must resist talking about in the middle of this speech.

          1. You all remember my speech to the Muslim world, I am sure.

  9. Mubarak: “I asked the government to resign and I will name a new government tomorrow.”

    He’s not going anywhere. He just wants to get some better underlings.

    1. Either that or he needs more time to transfer funds to his account in Liechtenstien.

      1. Idi’s digs in Saudi Arabia are available.

    2. It’s all about having The Right People, isn’t it?

  10. Mubarak: “It’s everyone else’s fault. What’s that? Yeah, I know I run the country. But it’s not my fault that everyone is protesting. We’ll replace everyone else in the gov’t but me and try it again. Thank you and drive safely.”

  11. Dear President Mubarak:

    You’re Hosnied.

    Get on the plane now.

    1. Can we say he was shellacked?

      1. OM – watch it with the violent and eliminationist rhetoric!!!

        *wags finger at OM*

  12. Note that the Daily Telegraph story is, of course, based on Wikileaks material.

    Wikileaks, once again, is more positive for the US government than the public statements of our leaders.

    1. Unbelie….

      Believable

  13. Russia 1917 didn’t need no Internet. The people dubbed the hated Czarist police ‘pharaohs’.

    1. Are you referring to the one in February or the one in October of 1917?

      1. They used fax machines in the one in the 90s, I think.

      2. Yes, Glorious February not the Bolshevik coup during October.

        1. New Calendar or Old Calendar?

  14. Exactly when did this stuff in Egypt become any of our business? If the people of Egypt want to riot and overthrow their government, power to them its their country. If the government of Egypt wants to exert control over rioters and other protesters, power to them, they are in charge in their country.

    I hope Moynihan is speaking for his own personal desires for a particular outcome in Egypt, though frankly even there I’m still of the opinion, not any of our business. If Reason is advocating for US involvement – in any shape or form – that is certainly setting a very bad precedent.

    1. It better be our business: we’re sending Egypt a lot of chee$e.

    2. I hope Moynihan is speaking for his own personal desires for a particular outcome in Egypt, though frankly even there I’m still of the opinion, not any of our business. If Reason is advocating for US involvement – in any shape or form – that is certainly setting a very bad precedent.

      I did not see anything in Moynihan’s post that advocates US involvement. But I find it interesting that you seem to think even Moynihan’s “personal desire for a particular outcome” is a problem.

      Do you not think that at least our sympathy should be in favor of an outcome where the government is largely respectful of individual freedom – as opposed to a theocracy or another dictatorship? If you don’t think so, I can only conclude that you do not support personal freedom as a universal human right.

      1. My sympathies are with me – and the government which matters to me, the US . I think you are naive to assume that an outcome which changes the GOE will result in more ‘personal freedoms’ for Egyptians. History is littered with uprisings which simply replace one (insert unfavorable type of government here) with another. Nor is it assured that that outcome will somehow be better for the US or our interests, personal or national.

        It is up to each individual to fight for what ever freedoms they can get regardless of domicile. So I suppose no, I do not support freedom as a universal entitlement that I should somehow feel obligated to support, financially and/or materially and/or verbally.

        1. I did not say changing the government of Egypt automatically would lead to more personal freedom; merely that it would be desirable if it does.

          It may be true, in some sense, that it is “up to each individual to fight for whatever freedom they can get”, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t hope that those who fight for their freedom succeed. Saying you don’t care whether people in other countries live as free human beings or under tyranny strikes me as a bit like saying you don’t care whether a hurricane strikes another country or not.

          As for your sympathies being with yourself and your own freedom – that’s fine, but liberation of other countries would not harm you or reduce your freedom.

  15. The End of Mubarak (Hopefully)

    Not necessarily! He can offer to fix their Healthcare system through a 2,200 page bill and people will rally around that!

    It certainly worked here…

    1. It’s going to work, after they figure out how to explain it real good.

  16. What I found interesting is Mubarak saying the protests only took place because of freedoms he allowed.

    I have a feeling he’s going to try to correct those “mistakes” with his “new” government tomorrow.

    1. Yes. That was telling.

      1. Just ask most any Harvard professor.

  17. Mubarak may be getting away with this now, but there’s no way he’ll be able to bequeath the presidency to his precious baby boy.

    1. I suspect that is playing into the lackluster support he’s getting from his own cronies.

      Hosni probably still thinks he can install his son and retire to his vacation house/palace. But no one other than him actually supports a hereditary monarchy.

  18. Seriously, I think the next 24 hours will decide it.

    If the Army backs him, he might ride this out for now. If the Army (or even part of it) turns, it’s all over except for the instruction to “Fasten Seatbelt For Takeoff” (or the offer of the cigarette.)

  19. WTF? Why do the Egyptians want the military to take over? Hasn’t anyone there taken Revolutions and Military Juntas 101?

    1. Actually, military juntas are a mixed bag although Ghana is the only one that I can recall coming out OK. And that took ten years.

      1. The Turkish military used to keep Turkey from doing anything too crazy. At least, that’s one way of looking at it.

        1. IIANM Pro LIB, the Turkish constitution (Attaturk’s creation – the Anzacs might have broken through and gone all the way to Stamboul if he hadn’t rallied the troops) the Turkish Army is charged with maintaining a secular western state.

          Every time that a government has gotten too Islamist or too anti-western the Army has staged a coup.

          Mind you, I suspect at times the interpretation of this may have been more guided by some sharp officer in the Turkish Army’s JAG corps (or whatever) trying to curry favor with the General Staff than by the actual spirit of the Constitution.

      2. In a land of kleptocrats the military is often the only place to find an honest man.

        Unfortunately the leadership style of most military officers rarely translates well to the civil realm. A characteristic of civilians everywhere is that they don’t like being treated like recruits in boot camp.

        1. It would be great to see a true liberal government (other than Israel) rise in the region. I don’t think the artificial one in Iraq has much chance. Unless there’s a trend beginning here, which, sadly, is unlikely.

      3. Actually, military juntas are a mixed bag although Ghana is the only one that I can recall coming out OK. And that took ten years.

        Isaac, you’re forgetting Chile and Uruguay. However, they also took a few years before turning into decent situations.

        1. BP, I wasn’t forgetting them so much as not recognizing them as successes on the same level as Ghana.

          For all his missteps as an Nkrumahist socialist in his early years, Jery Rawlings succeeded in eliminating corruption and kleptocracy at a level I’m not aware of elsewhere.

  20. My mother–a dyed-in-the-wool Barbraist–made me and my brother watch that film. All of it.

    Ok, new H&R competition.

    This lead-in is just begging for a punchline. 🙂

    1. Hey, that’s like my own little Holocaust.

      1. OK, here’s one.

        I’l bet she regretted it after she got the therapist’s bill.

        BaarrrromBomp

    2. I see Aresen already got one in at 6:06.

      Not quite Wayne & Schuster, but better than anything I can come up with.

      1. He’s getting me back for making too many Canada jokes. Which isn’t fair, because I love Canada, and I hope they, too, revolt for freedom some day.

        1. As always, Canadians will wait until their United Statesian neighbors have done it.

          1. Hard to counter that riposte. The match is yours.

            1. The Maple Leaf Revolution will not be televised.

              1. Of course it will. Al Jazeera will cover it.

              2. Mainly because it will be so boring.

                1. And bilingual.

                    1. If they weren’t drunk, why they would they watch (or play) curling?

                      Si ils n’?taient pas allum?s, pourquoi ils regardent (ou jouer) curling?

                      /Canadian

          2. As always, Canadians will wait until their United Statesian neighbors have done it.

            We’ll do it after we install another puppet government in Toronto.

        2. Aren’t the Canadians rioting now. There was a story that someone burned down the NDP headquarters.

          Although why they’d go after a party that now consists of Kieffer Sutherland’s mum, the sociology faculty of the University of Toronto and the clergy of the United Church is beyond me.

          But then it’s still bigger than the Libertarian Party. 🙂

          1. “Aren’t the Canadians rioting now. There was a story that someone burned down the NDP headquarters.”

            They only do that sort of thing if the Olympics are in town. …or if the Habs win another game.

            I understand in Toronto they throw waffles.

        3. Strange, I thought Canadians were revolting already.

  21. Oddly, Chris Matthews managed to find a Sarah Palin angle to this story.

    1. She placed a target on a map of Egypt?

      1. That woman is a Witch.

        1. Matthews also mentioned that the unrest in Egypt proves that the Iraq war was unnecessary. ‘Cause Iraq and Egypt are identical, politically. Or something.

          1. WTF.

          2. They’re both full of brown people, aren’t they?

            1. His point was that, eventually, Saddam’s victims would have risen up and deposed him, all the evidence and history to the contrary notwithstanding. Or something.

          3. I think that “thrill up my leg” that Matthews had was DVT. The clot settled somewhere in his brain.

      2. She placed a target on a map of Egypt?

        Nice.

  22. Apparently people cheered the arrival of the army – like Moynihan points out, most of the grunts are conscripts who might have more loyalty to the opposition. Also, the demonstrators are counting on the soldiers to prevent street crime in the absence of the police (who have mostly fled, being the pussies they are).

    It will be interesting to watch what the top brass of the Army does. If we’re placing bets, mine is on them ousting Mubarak but keeping a stranglehold on power.

    1. If we’re placing bets, mine is on them ousting Mubarak but keeping a stranglehold on power.

      Unfortunately, that is usually the way these things go. Not always, but usually.

  23. Anyone notice Robin Gibbs had a serious case of the meth mouth at the White House news conference today?

    1. Wasn’t Meth Mouth a character on Fat Albert?

      1. The one with pull over cap with the cut out eyelids?

        1. No, I think that was Dumb Donald.

          Either way, how did Cosby know about meth back then?

          1. Oh, Meth has been around.

            I remember it described in my brother’s health class book when I was ten. I kept the book and a few years later in junior high it was very helpful in developing discriminating drug taste.

            Also, you might want to look at this on the economic incentives built into the modern meth market.

            http://mises.org/daily/4971

            1. Oh, Meth has been around.

              Cosby was a Hell’s Angel in the 60s.

    2. Which one was Robin? Barry was the tall one, but I could never keep the other two straight.

      1. The one with the flowing locks that curled at the end. Growl!

    3. It isn’t meth mouth, you retards. It’s herpes.
      Sheesh, stop insulting the poor man.

      1. I wondered who gave Jared his aids. Now we know.

        1. Everyone should have aids…even butters

  24. The network news shows are almost on. How many times will they use the word “extraordinary” to describe the day’s events?

    Also “unprecedented.”

    1. An extraordinarily unprecedented number of times.

      1. What would really be unprecedented is Michelle Obama taking her Cleopatra-like entourage to Egypt to browbeat the masses over their children’s eating habits.

  25. Hey Hosni, I think we might have a Senior Fellow position opening up that you’d be perfect for!

    Too soon?

  26. So Mubarak is firing the cabinet, just to buy some time in order to move his family and assets offshore?

    1. Now Rahm Farooq will be free to run for mayor of Port Said.

      1. As our high-functioning dullard Vice President said, “He’s not a dictator dictator. He is not unresponsive to the needs of his people.”

        1. I don’t go for the unresponsive ones myself.

    2. Will he join Ben Ali in Saudi Arabia? The Saudis could set up a retirement hotel for deposed dictators. They could put a statue of Idi Amin in front.

      1. No alcohol in the Kingdom. I’d rather die.

        1. I blame the Furies.

        2. No alcohol for the hoi polloi, VIP’s get alcohol. I drank plenty in walled Saudi compounds.

      2. This already exists ass.

        Pink Floyd

    3. Mubarak fires everyone but himself.

  27. So “High Plains Drifter” is on AMC – I’m thinking there are some parallels to Egypt. Everyone turning on each other, covering up the Collective Sin, waiting for The Savior to step in and save the day….

    No? Well, it was a thought….

    *back to the movie*

    1. Clint Eastwood as the new leader of Egypt? He does have political experience.

      1. I nominate Barbara Mikulski for the midget.

        1. What? Kucinich, man! Kucinich!

      2. “Deserve’s got nothing to do with it….”

  28. The NBC News reporter in Cairo just showed viewers a spent tear gas cannister found on the street. Guess what it said in big, proud, blue letters?

    “MADE IN U.S.A.”

    1. Wonder what it says on the AK-47s?

      1. We made the sandals!

        1. We made the sandals!

          And the AK-47s

          Smelted iron ore mined from the Urals is not what it used to be….though the Chinese probably did use scrap torn out rail from Siberia.

    2. Guess who is the main investor in the company that manufactured the cannisters? Answer after the click.

    3. Sounds like a great marketing opportunity for some US tear gas manufacturer:

      “When an embattled dictator like Hosni Mubarak needs to trample civil rights, he needs a tear gas he can trust, which is why he turns to Acme Tear Gas. Don’t trust you oppression needs to cheap immitaions. Choose the brand professional thugs rely on: Acme.

      1. Strangely enough American made tear gas is ineffective on people seeking freedom.

        Not sure how to market that to thugs & such.

  29. Enjoy living with an Egypt under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood, dipshits.

    Remember the “Cedar Revolution”? Lebanon is now officially controlled by Hizbollah.

    Remember the Palestinian elections? They gave us Hamas.

    OR Iran in 1979? How’d that “democracy” work out for them?

    Morons.

    1. Has anyone else realized the most popular chant of the protestors is “Allahu Akbar”?

      1. It rolls off the tongue.

        1. You’re not going to think it’s so funny when they decide to close the Suez Canal and gas prices go to $8/galloon.

          1. Reality Check|1.28.11 @ 7:29PM|#
            “You’re not going to think it’s so funny when they decide to close the Suez Canal and gas prices go to $8/galloon.”

            OH, NOES! PEAK-OIL!
            Get your catcher’s mitts, folks, to catch that falling sky!

            1. It’s not peak oil, dickhead, it would be an oil embargo.

              1. Reality Check|1.28.11 @ 7:34PM|#
                “It’s not peak oil, dickhead, it would be an oil embargo.”

                It’s stupid, fucking alarmism, asshole.

                1. What’s to stop the MB from shutting down the Suez Canal once they’re in power as punishment for “supporting” Israel?

                  Do you realize that we move our navy and supplies for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan through the canal, and the kind of chaos it would create if they closed it?

                  1. Reality Check|1.28.11 @ 7:37PM|#
                    “What’s to stop the MB from shutting down the Suez Canal once they’re in power as punishment for “supporting” Israel?”

                    I dunno, bozo, maybe money? What’s to stop Russia from becoming a descent country?
                    You’re positing that MB is the benefactor (not shown) and then presuming to predict what they’ll do months down the road?
                    Anybody ever tell you you’re a yapping know-it-all? The should have.

                  2. Do you realize that we move our navy and supplies for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan through the canal, and the kind of chaos it would create if they closed it?

                    No more naval support for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? Horrors.

          2. I don’t own the canal or the oil. I can be pissed off about anything people do with property I have no ownership claim to.

            1. Freedom of the seas is part of international law, there is no real “ownership” of the canal in the sense that it would be legal for them to shut off access.

              1. Due to crabs.

              2. A canal is not a sea.

                1. No, no don’t stop him! We’ll get the inside scoop on what the world’s gonna be like in 2015.
                  Or a boring claim of that…….

                2. Neither is an ocean or a bay, but its still covered by freedom of the seas.

                  1. Bays are only covered by freedom of the seas if an international border goes through them.

                    1. Not Michael Bay.

              3. The Suez Canal isn’t part of the sea, Stupidity Check.

                1. What about me? Am I a sea?

                2. Let’s face it, all Jessica Simpson and I care about is “Chicken of the Sea”, so take your arguments about freedom of the seas and seamen elsewhere…

            2. Ownership is irrelevant. Under the Constantinople Convention, “The Suez Maritime Canal shall always be free and open, in time of war as in time of peace, to every vessel of commerce or of war, without distinction of flag.”

              1. Egypt was a British colony at the time, so they were not a party to the Constantinople Convention.

          3. Sucks, but it’s their oil.

            1. Err… Canal, rather.

          4. Isn’t the canal a major source of revenue for the Egyptian Government? Shutting it down would be incredibly stupid.

            1. “Isn’t the canal a major source of revenue for the Egyptian Government? Shutting it down would be incredibly stupid.”
              Don’t tell that to blowhard; it’ll kill his theories about the grassy knoll.

          5. gas prices go to $8/galloon.

            I just found out the US recently became the #1 producer of natural gas.

            So much for peak oil.

      2. The riots have no leadership at present. It isn’t a movement. It’s a release of pent-up emotions, probably triggered by the Tunisian “revolution.” Will it last? Did the Iranian “revolution” of 2009 last? (Not that they are comparable situations.)

        1. Right, it’s not organized, which is what scares me–it means a well-organized force can easily co-opt it. And the most organized force in Egypt, outside the ruling party, is the Muslim Brotherhood BY FAR.

          1. It’s certainly a concern. One of many possible outcomes.

          2. Right, it’s not organized, which is what scares me–it means a well-organized force can easily co-opt it.

            Like Sarah Palin did to the Tea Party.

            1. We used her like the whore she is. Now she’s yesterday’s news.

              1. I will need to examine her vagina in order to verify this claim.

        2. I think it compares more to Romania (following other countries, no organization).

          Whether it ends that well is another matter.

  30. Reality Check|1.28.11 @ 7:19PM|#
    “Has anyone else realized the most popular chant of the protestors is “Allahu Akbar”?”

    Gee, we have our own inside source here, right? Down there on the streets, checking to make sure your claim is “most popular” are you?
    Or just a random asshole watching TV news?
    I’m guessing the latter.
    And assuming you are too self-important to read what others posted, the MB is mentioned above with concern that it may well be the winner in the mess.
    Thanks for your statements of the obvious and reports from NBC.

    1. Yeah, and it was a pathetic handwave.

      I’m sure the poster got a Wilsonian stiffie over the revolution in Lebanon, too, until it benefited Hizbollah.

      1. Reality Check|1.28.11 @ 7:32PM|#
        “Yeah, and it was a pathetic handwave.”

        Yeah, and your crystal ball is so good, well, the Fed had to put you out of buisness, right?

        1. I gave numerous examples from recent history in the Arab/Muslim world of “democratic” revolutions being taken over by Islamist scum.

          Now, let’s hear an example where a revolution in the Arab world led to a western-style, American-friendly democracy.

          1. Reality Check|1.28.11 @ 7:36PM|#
            “I gave numerous examples from recent history in the Arab/Muslim world of “democratic” revolutions being taken over by Islamist scum.
            Now, let’s hear an example where a revolution in the Arab world led to a western-style, American-friendly democracy.”

            Why, I don’t have a single example of an Arabian revolution that lead to flying unicorns! I guess that makes you right!

            1. I’m trying to figure out how Banality Chucker is pinning blame for the revolt in Egypt on libertarians. Got any ideas?

              1. “I’m trying to figure out how Banality Chucker is pinning blame for the revolt in Egypt on libertarians. Got any ideas?”

                Not sure s/he is, but s/he is certainly willing to tell us that the world is coming to an end, and only s/he knows it.

              2. I don’t think he is. I think he’s saying that Arabs are incapable of governing themselves properly, so they need brutal dictators like Mubarek.
                Which is basically the same argument that’s always been used by opponents of freedom.

                1. Agreed Ornithorhynchus, I wrote about the argument tonight

      2. I’m sure the poster got a Wilsonian stiffie over the revolution in Lebanon, too, until it benefited Hezbollah.

        You CIA guys better watch your necks, or else you’ll be doing some swinging from the rafters, assholes. Ha. Ha. Ha.

      3. I’m pretty sure that the biggest boost that Hizbollah ever got was the Israeli invasion.

        1. There’s really no reason to believe that altered anything. If Israel had been decisive in using overwhelming devastating force then there definitely would have been no benefit.

      4. You do know that the Cedar revolution was initially detrimental to Hizbollah right?

    2. Good points, but, to be fair, we’re all armchair quarterbacks. Not to mention crackpots and narcissists. We do our “reporting” from cubicles and our parents’ basements. We suck. Some of us more than others.

      1. Women find me irresistible.

  31. John Kerry from Davos on Al Jazeera, replying to question if demonstrators can make an end to the 30-year old rule of Mubarak: “Why focus on the negatives.”

    1. “John Kerry ….”Why focus on the negatives.””
      Hilarious.

      1. Well, if you want a negative to focus on, I can’t think of much that’s more negative than John Kerry.

        1. a swift kick in the boat for a statement like that.

  32. Egyptians are pussies if any of the following happens:

    1. Mukabar stays in power.
    2. Muslim extreme assholes take over.
    3. Army dipshit fools Egyptians in to taking power by providing the army’s “support”. (Pentagon’s plan B?)

    The Egyptian army should just protect Egyptian citizens… and stay out of the way of the political process.

    1. OMG i hope they dont shut down the piramids LOL

    2. Egyptians are doing a hell of a lot more to rectify their government’s power abuses than we are.

      1. +1776

        I almost feel that if a general launched a coup and declared himself King of America, it would be the best thing to happen for the Liberty movement in America. It would shock people into action

        1. I should clarify, I wasn’t encouraging rioting or violent rebellion in the USA. There are plenty of peaceful means to further change that few of us take advantage of.

          The Egyptians can only bring about change by violence. One reason why dictatorships are usually not much more beneficial for the dictator than they are for the people.

          1. Those make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable – JFK

          2. “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable”

      2. I am Jack’s chopped liver.

  33. Mark Levin showed what a big phony he is saying we have to stick with Mubarak. On the other hand, it’s not a good thing that the Iranians are happy with these events.

    1. Egyptians have seen what happened in Iran as well. I doubt they wana go down that road

  34. “OMG i hope they dont shut down the piramids LOL”
    They’ll drive mummies to $8.00/look!

      1. We better start looking into abiotic mummy theory.

  35. From Associated Press:

    The crowd included Christian men with keyrings of the cross swinging from their pockets and young men dressed in fast-food restaurant uniforms. . . .When a man sporting a long beard and a white robe began chanting an Islamist slogan, he was grabbed and shaken by another protester telling him to keep the slogans patriotic and not religious.

    Women were largely unmolested in a city where sexual harassment on the streets is persistent. . . In downtown Cairo, people on balconies tossed cans of Pepsi and bottles of water to protesters on the streets . . . . “

    1. THAT is awesome, if true.

      I’m telling ya, the Egyptians don’t want to become another Iran any more than America wants them to

  36. Cairo, Egypt (CNN) — “Freedom!” the crowds chanted along the banks of the Nile River in Cairo after dark Friday, defying a curfew being enforced by troops with armored personnel carriers and tear gas.

  37. “The End of Mubarak (Hopefully)”

    COO of Nit-Pickers, Inc here. How about losing “hopefully” now and forever?
    Thank you and now back to your regularly-scheduled programing.

    1. The End of Hopefully (Hopefully)

      1. Does that mean I can no longer hopefully pray for a peaceful war?

  38. What’s to stop the MB from shutting down the Suez Canal once they’re in power as punishment for “supporting” Israel?

    Actually, dipshit, the Suez is too narrow and shallow for supertankers to pass through safely so almost all oil comes around the Cape of Good Hope anyway.

    But I’m not at all surprised that someone with your shallow narrow-minded worldview does not know that.

    1. If we’re using prices as a metric, I think we’re closer to “peak tobacco” than to peak oil…

    2. Besides, Canada and Mexico are our biggest oil vendors.

      1. Of course, if your Congress keeps going on about not buying oil from our “dirty” oil sands, we might just start selling to the Chinese instead.

        They can pay us in a currency that is rising in value.

        1. You’ll still sell us Timbits though, right…right?

          Please! We need ’em!

        2. The Albertans have also got to worry about a bunch of eastern bastards living south of Steeles Avenue (the northern boundary of the City of Toronto) who in spite of living in an environment that is almost completely covered with asphalt and concrete think they know what is truly “natural”.

          1. If I was an Albertan I would be worried about Olli Jokinen photoshops.

      2. If the Mideast oil supply is cut off, the demand for Western Hemi oil is going to spike as Europe enters the market. Hence, price increases.

        1. What about Lorenzo’s Oil?

        2. Which will be good for Texas.

          1. Too bad we have that offshore drilling moratorium going on.

  39. Freedom of the seas is part of international law, there is no real “ownership” of the canal in the sense that it would be legal for them to shut off access.

    No, the Suez Canal is a total artifice.

    The owners, at the present the Egyptian government, could totally fill it in and return the ground to the state it was in before De Lesseps dug it without violating one jot or tittle of international or maritime law.

    Just as the British/French consortium that owned it before Nasser nationalized it before could have.

    1. Filling it in would clearly violate the requirement in the Constantinople Convention that “The Suez Maritime Canal shall always be free and open, in time of war as in time of peace, to every vessel of commerce or of war, without distinction of flag.”

      So unless you’re claiming that the Constantinople Convention isn’t part of international law . . .

      1. I stand corrected on this point.

        I will stand by my earlier one, though; viz, that the issue of the the Suez is largely moot as newer ships, especially supertankers, cannot transit the Canal anyway.

        1. “I will stand by my earlier one, though; viz, that the issue of the the Suez is largely moot as newer ships, especially supertankers, cannot transit the Canal anyway.”

          Yep, the world isn’t ending tomorrow. Oil will find its way to where people will pay for it.
          What a shock!
          Seems we’ve lost chicken little.

      2. From Wikipedia:

        The Convention of Constantinople[4][5] was a treaty signed by the United Kingdom, Germany, Austro-Hungary, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Russia and the Ottoman Empire on October 29, 1888.

        Funny, I don’t see “Egypt” on that list, just a bunch of Imperial powers. Don’t think it binds anyone not a signatory.

        Besides, it was closed from 1967 to the mid 1970s after the Six-Day War. Merchant shippers were just a little queasy about the thought of sailing on the dividing line between the Israeli and Egyptian armies.

        1. Also, WRT to the “free and open, in time of war as in time of peace, to every vessel of commerce or of war, without distinction of flag”, I don’t think the British, who controlled the canal during WWII, were very cooperative in allowing the vessels of the Third Reich or the Imperial Japanese Navy the right to transit the canal.

          1. “I don’t think the British, who controlled the canal during WWII, were very cooperative in allowing the vessels of the Third Reich or the Imperial Japanese Navy the right to transit the canal.”

            They probably would have made a distinction, but in the event, it never came to that.

            1. I suppose the Brits could have allowed the Kriegsmarine or the IJN ships to transit, then bombed the piss out of them when they got to the other side.

              ;P

  40. Michael Moore’s help sought for Man. refinery
    Quoth the CBC:
    An NDP Member of Parliament from Manitoba is asking documentary filmmaker Michael Moore to take up the cause of workers facing the closure of a refinery and smelter in the province.

    Niki Ashton, the MP for Churchill, sent Moore a video and letter outlining the situation at the Vale SA smelter and refinery in Thompson, which the company said would close by 2015, meaning the loss of 500 jobs in the community, which is about 750 kilometres north of Winnipeg.

    Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manit…..z1COdhV9yd

  41. Egypt: 6,000 years without democracy and counting

    1. they had one 6000 years ago?

    2. we have you beat by a few thousand years I think

    3. I had a humanities textbook that classified ancient Egyptian government as a “socialist monarchy”.

  42. Let their people go!

    1. Rommel?

  43. The State is scary, and look at that frightening, unruly mob! Who do I pick?

    1. Off to the golf course!

    2. Both, of course!

  44. Internet now being provided in Egypt:

    http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/…..t-to-egypt

  45. Libertarians there are active, see associated sites to http://www.Libertarian-International.org

  46. I think what is happening there in egypt is awesome! People finally got fed up and DID something about it! Bravo! Power to the people!

    http://www.privacy-tools.au.tc

    1. “Power to the people,” says the bot.

      1. Bots regurgitating slogans is more or less expected.

        I’ll start to get worried when they begin applying for benefits.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.