http://www.yjc.ir/en/news/1592/sheikholeslam-morsis-mistake-was-he-did-not-listen-to-leader -

http://www.yjc.ir/en/news/1534 -

I hope nation of Egypt don�t waste the clean bloods that their youth gave for their revolution .they must save their revolution and stand until access to a valuable result .

Caringheart wrote: How else do you explain the 14 million that came out in peaceful protest, calling for the removal of Morsi.

Simple -- I don't believe it.  That estimate came from the military.  If true, it would represent one sixth of the entire population, including babies and small children.  But of course the military would exaggerate its support.

In the U.S. there is a process by which a president has to be removed, called impeachment... where there is a trial and a decision.  I don't understand the politics enough to know why this process could not have taken place in Egypt.

Exactly.  Even in the worst case, they could have voted Morsi out in the next election.  So far I haven't seens anything to justify removing him by force.

As a matter of fact, I've been searching the news for any concrete accusation against Morsi.  I know he has granted himself extraordinary powers, but what has he actually done with those powers that is so horrible?  The only thing I've read is someone saying -- seriously!  -- that he banned belly dancing.    Really?  As much as you might like belly dancing, that issue couldn't have waited till the next election?

Ron Webb wrote: Caringheart wrote: How else do you explain the 14 million that came out in peaceful protest, calling for the removal of Morsi. Simple -- I don't believe it.  That estimate came from the military.  If true, it would represent one sixth of the entire population, including babies and small children.  But of course the military would exaggerate its support.

Hi Ron,

Did you not see the media coverage?  Did it not look like 14 million people?  I believe they are using the yardstick of comparison of Tiananmen square in China.

Ron Webb wrote: As a matter of fact, I've been searching the news for any concrete accusation against Morsi.  I know he has granted himself extraordinary powers, but what has he actually done with those powers that is so horrible?  The only thing I've read is someone saying -- seriously!  -- that he banned belly dancing.    Really?  As much as you might like belly dancing, that issue couldn't have waited till the next election?

So Much For Middle East Democracy

By Eric Margolis

July 09, 2013 " http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/ - Information Clearing House - The real story behind the military coup in Cairo led by General al-Sissi is much more complex than the western media is reporting. Far from a spontaneous uprising by Egyptians, � aka �a people�s revolution� � what really happened was a putsch orchestrated by Egypt�s �deep government� and outside powers � the latest phase of the counter-revolution against the so-called Arab Spring.

A year ago, Egyptians elected Mohammed Morsi president in their first fair democratic election. Morsi came from the ranks of the Muslim Brotherhood, an eight-decade old conservative movement of professionals dedicated to bringing Islamic principals of public welfare, politics, education, justice, piety and fighting corruption.

But the deck was stacked against Morsi and the Brotherhood from day one.

The brutal US-backed Mubarak had fallen, but the organs of his 30-year dictatorship, Egypt�s pampered 440,000-man military, judiciary, academia, media, police, intelligence services and bureaucrats, remained in place. Even Morsi�s presidential guard remained under control of the Mubarak forces.  The dictatorship�s old guard � better known as the �deep government� � sought to thwart every move of the Brotherhood. In fact, the stolid, plodding Morsi only became president after more capable colleagues were vetoed by the hard-line Mubarakist courts.

Morsi should have purged the �deep government,� notably the police, secret police, judges, and media who were sabotaging the democratic government. But Morsi was too soft, and the entrenched powers arrayed against him too strong. He never managed to grasp the levers of state. Ironically, after all the media hysteria in North America over the alleged dangers of the Muslim Brotherhood, it turned out to be a dud.

The Brotherhood stumbled from one crisis to the next as Egypt�s economy, already in terrible shape before the 2011 revolution, sank like a rock. Tourism, that provided 17% of national income, evaporated. Unemployment soared over 13%, and over 50% among angry urban young. We have recently seen this same phenomena in Turkey, Tunisia, Algeria, Pakistan, and Western Europe. Severe shortages of fuel and electricity sparked outrage.

Egypt�s curse is that it cannot feed its surging population of over 90 million. So Cairo imports huge quantities of wheat and subsidizes retail prices for bread. The US sustained the Sadat and Mubarak regimes with boatloads of wheat discounted 50%. This vital aid tapered off when Morsi took power. Food prices in Egypt rose 10%.

Equally important, ever since Anwar Sadat invited in the US to rearm his outdated military, Egypt�s armed forces have become joined at the hip with the Pentagon. Just as Turkey�s 500,000-man armed forces were, until eleven years ago, and Pakistan�s so remain today.

Armies of many Muslim states are designed to control their populations, not defeat foreign enemies. The only Arab military force in recent memory to beat an invader has been the guerilla forces of Lebanon�s Hezbollah.

The US provides Egypt�s military $1.5 billion annually, not counting tens of millions of �black� payments from CIA to leading generals, police chiefs, commentators and bureaucrats.

Egypt�s military has been totally re-equipped with US F-16 fighter-bombers, M-1 heavy tanks, armored vehicles, radars, electronic systems, and artillery.

Washington has supplied Egypt with just enough arms to control its population and intimidate small neighbors, but not enough to wage war against Israel. Further, the Pentagon sharply limits Egypt supplies of munitions, missiles and vital spare parts. Many of Egypt�s generals have been trained in US military colleges, where they formed close links with US intelligence and the Pentagon. CIA, DIA, and NSA have large stations in Egypt that watch its military and population.

Under Mubarak, the US controlled Egypt�s military and key parts of its economy. When Morsi and the Brotherhood came to power, Washington backed off for a while but in recent months apparently decided to back the overthrow of Egypt�s first democratic government.

This fact became perfectly clear when the White House refused to call the military coup in Cairo a coup. Had it done so, US law would have mandated the cutoff of US aid to Egypt.  US politicians and media, with shameless hypocrisy, are hailing the overthrow of Morsi as a democratic achievement. In North America, anything labeled �Muslim� has become ipso facto menacing.

The counter-revolution of Egypt�s �deep government� was financed and aided by the US and Saudi Arabia, cheered on by Israel, the UAE, Britain and France. Tiny Qatar, that backed Morsi with $8 billion, lost its influence in Cairo. The Saudis will now call many shots in Egypt.

In recent weeks, mass street demonstrations in major Egyptian cities against Morsi were organized by the police, secret police and the Mubarakist structure. Fears of the Brotherhood were whipped up among Egypt�s nervous Coptic Christians, 10% of the population, who form much of the urban elite.

Then there were tens of thousands of unemployed, highly volatile young street people, as we recently saw in Istanbul, ready to explode at any excuse. Large numbers of Egyptians were fed up with stumbles of Morsi�s government � even some of his former Salafist allies. � and the threat of economic collapse. Liberals, Nasserites, Marxists joined them.

There may be some armed resistance against the coup, but it will likely be crushed by Egypt�s military and attack-dog security forces. Senior Brotherhood officials are already being arrested, and pro-Brotherhood media gagged, while Washington turns a blind eye.

As of now, the threat of a real civil war such as Algeria suffered in the 1990�s after a US and French-backed military coup seems unlikely, but not impossible. Meanwhile, the military has installed a puppet president for the time being. The old US �asset� Mohammed el-Baradei may take over as civilian frontman for the generals, who prefer civilian sock puppets get blamed for Egypt�s economic and social crises.

So much for democracy in the Mideast. The overthrow of a moderate Islamist government will send a message to the Muslim world that compromise with the Western powers is impossible and only violent resistance can shake the status quo.

Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2013

Caringheart wrote: Hi Ron, This was posted on another forum... I'm interested to know your feedback.  Thanks, Caringheart

I agree with much of what Margolis wrote, but referring to Egypt's "deep government" is unnecessarily conspiratorial.  Let's face it, this is yet another example of American imperialism, meddling in foreign governments.  IMHO it is shameful how the US can preach about democracy and yet continue to back the Egyptian army in what is obviously a military coup to overthrow a legitimate democratic government.

I remain open to the possibility that the Morsi government did something so anti-democratic that a coup was necessary, but so far I still haven't heard anything that would justify it.  It should surprise no one that an Islamic theocracy would be disastrous to the economy, especially one that depends so heavily on tourism, but bad economic policies alone are no excuse (else half the democracies in the Western world would be collapsing in chaos!).  They could have waited till the next election to boot him out, if that was the will of the majority.

Sorry Caringheart, I don't think my answers below will be very satisfying to you because I really don't understand what you're getting at.  But I'll try my best:

Caringheart wrote: What do yo think would happen in the United States if huge numbers of people turned out in Washington D.C., calling for the resignation of the president?

Your question is too hypothetical to answer specifically.  Maybe nothing.  Maybe defeat at the next election.  Maybe impeachment.  Maybe an assassination.

One thing I would not expect would be for the military to get involved, except perhaps at the request of the government to maintain civic order.  The military has no business meddling in politics.

As far as the rest... if you had a business to run... a business where a great number of people depended on the way you run things for their own sustenance and survival...  Would you decide who you would and would not do business with?  Who you would import from, and export to, and who you would not, based on what best served the continuation of your business 'interests' and the support of your people?

I'm not sure where you're going with this, but I hope you're not suggesting that government should be run like a business.  Government and busines are fundamentally different -- as different as politics is from economics.  Businesses are amoral entities, whose only goal is profit.  They are part of the reason why we need governments to create rules under which businesses operate.

In contrast, government -- good government, anyway -- exists mainly for ethical reasons.  In fact, politics is sometimes defined as a branch of ethics.  Governments make the rules that everyone, including the government itself, must abide by; and they should be ethical rules.

So to attempt to answer your question: if I were the CEO of a major corporation, I would do (almost) anything in my power to increase the profitability of my business, including taking advantage of tax loopholes, cheap offshore labour, lax environmental regulations, etc.; while simultaneously lobbying my government to close those loopholes, restrict access to offshore labour, tighten environmental regulations, etc.

http://lhvnews.com/en/news/5000/will-muslim-brotherhood-enter-military-phase -

http://lhvnews.com/en/news/5077/will-morsi-return-to-power -

Caringheart wrote: This is my point exactly; you would do whatever was necessary to ensure the survival of the business... and yes, it is personal ethics that determine business ethics... just as ethics of governmental leaders determines the actions of government...

No, I think you missed my point.  I am tempted to say that "business ethics" is an oxymoron, but that's not quite right.  Business ethics is to play by the rules set down by government.  That's all.  It is very different from personal ethics, which is why I contrasted my business responsibility as a corporate CEO to take full advantage of every tax loophole, cheap labour and weak environmental laws with my personal responsibility to fight against all those things in the political arena.

government is a business... the business of governance for the survival of the society...

If government is a business, it's a very peculiar kind of business -- one which makes its own rules, coins its own money and is accountable to the very people it controls.

Which is why people need to elect government officials with good moral ethics.  It is why they need better choices.  It is why the people themselves need to get involved, to step up, and provide those better options from amongst themselves.

Do you seriously think that "good moral ethics" is an important criterion for choosing a CEO?  I mean, aside from a commitment to follow the letter of the law (i.e., good business ethics)?  How long do you think the CEO of a major oil or tobacco company would retain his position if he started telling people that they really ought to quit using his product?

What is better, to have a government that is unwanted by its people, turn its guns, its military on those people in order to retain power... or for those guns, that military, to remove the person in power that is unwanted by the people, in order to retain peace?

But how do we decide whether a government is unwanted?  That's what elections are for.  If Morsi had lost an election and refused to step down, then I agree that the military could legitimately force him out; but that's not what happened, as you know.

I still don't buy the claim that the majority are opposed to Morsi.  Frankly, if that were true, then the majority would be better advised to let the democratic process play itself out.  If they claim a moral right to take power by force, then their opposition can make the same claim.  And we know where that leads.

"Do you seriously think that "good moral ethics" is an important criterion for choosing a CEO?"

"if that were true, then the majority would be better advised to let the democratic process play itself out."

http://en.humanrights-iran.ir/news-20782.aspx -

http://en.humanrights-iran.ir/news-20791.aspx -

The Pentagon and the US Embassy in Cairo have denied reports in the Egyptian media that an American task force in the Red Sea is preparing to "invade Egypt."

Caringheart wrote: Maybe you and I are from different generations.  Before my generation business men did feel accountable to the people whom they employed.  Much as estate managers(the 'Lords' of england, the good ones) used to consider themselves responsible for supplying employment, and care to the people who worked for them.  Times have changed. ...

We may not be as far apart in generational terms as you might suppose.  I think the main difference between us is that I am looking at the world as it is, and you are talking about how it ought to be.  As much as we might want businesses to be ethical creatures, the hard reality is that a successful business must always place profits ahead of people.  It has to, in order to compete with other businesses that will certainly be doing the same.

Did business owners ever feel that much responsibility or empathy for their employees?  The life of a sharecropper or a miner or a sailor or a factory worker was tough, his work was dangerous, his pay was minimal and for the most part the upper echelons frankly didn't care whether he lived or died.  If anything, his circumstances have gradually improved over the decades, but only through government and union pressure, not because the bosses felt any moral imperative about it.

I'm talking about big business, of course -- mega-multi-transnational corporations with thousands or millions of employees.  Small business, where the owner actually gets to know his employees by name, is an entirely different animal.  It is also an endangered species, with the megacorps taking an ever-larger share of the economy.  Maybe that trend is the reason we sometimes have the impression of "the good old days" when employers cared about their employees.

------
I agree that the US is behaving like a business with regard to Egypt -- in other words, without regard to ethics.  Bluntly, the US needs allies in the Middle East in order to promote its "interests" (i.e., access to oil) in the region.  It knows it can't work with Morsi, so it wants him out, and it is spending billions to force him out.  Whether Morsi has a legitimate claim to leadership (which he apparently does, having won a fair election as far as I can see) is irrelevant.

Caringheart wrote: Yes, I believe it is big business that has ruined what once was the foundation of the United States of America... the small businessman.

Unfortunately, small business can't compete with the megacorps in a laissez-faire free market.  That's why we need government regulations.

As far as Egypt, I guess the point where we still differ is on whether or not large numbers of people were calling for the removal of Morsi and whether civil unrest was once again imminent.  Unless you or I go there... or know someone from there, we really have no way of knowing the truth for certain.

Going there won't help.  You can't talk to 90 million people yourself.  Fortunately, democracy has a built-in mechanism for assessing whether large numbers of people are dissatisfied with the government.  It's called an election.

Caringheart wrote: I just wonder... Do you think that's how it would go... if the country was dissolving into chaos and violence?

Well, I guess we've switched roles now, with you talking about the world as it is (or might be), while I talk about how it ought to be.

Honestly, I don't see the US devolving into chaos anytime soon.  If it does, it will not be because a majority are opposed to the incumbent government.  If they had a clear majority, they could be confident of defeating the government in the next election and would be far better off just waiting a couple of years.

No, in a mature democracy such as the US, it would only be a radical minority that would attempt to seize power by force, because they know it would be their only option.

IMHO that in itself suggests to me that the Morsi opposition does not represent a majority of Egyptians.  If they did, then why did they elect Morsi in the first place?  And why not just vote him out at the next election?

How do you think the civil war happened?

The American civil war is not analogous to the Egyptian situation.  The Confederate states were trying to secede from the Union, not to take control of it.  Apparently they had no democratic option to accomplish that.  (Which seems like a flaw in the Constitution, by the way, but that's another topic.)

Caringheart wrote: I don't know, I haven't been following that closely, but I believe he was displaying those dictatorial qualities that the Egyptians were trying to rid themselves of when they elected him.

Actually, Mubarak (his predecessor) was a relative moderate, opposed to Islamic fundamentalism and seen by many as "soft" on Israel.  He was also too cozy with the US for many hard-liners.

That would cause fear to rise in me, so surely it does in them.

Be careful of projecting your own attitudes on the people of a very different culture.  You don't think it possible that a majority of Egyptian Muslims might actually want an Islamic dictatorship?

Egypt, the second largest recipient of U.S. aid after Israel, has received from the United States more than 70 billion dollars in military and economic aid since 1948.

Iran's Foreign Ministry Spokesman Abbas Araqchi says national dialogue is the only solution to the recent crisis in Egypt, urging all sides of the conflict to exercise restraint

"The continuation of tension and conflict in Egypt has caused deep concern in all countries particularly regional states, and we are worried about the consequences of the violence and bloodshed inside Egypt and its outcome for the region,"

respect for human rights, democratic principles and the legitimate demands of the people, as well as finding a solution based on national consensus and unity among the different groups in Egypt in order to maintain solidarity in the country.

Caringheart wrote: I was pondering what can be done when a country is equally divided, and the people have the freedom to come out in numbers like this to demonstrate.  How do you keep a country from devolving into violence, civil unrest and chaos.  I wish I knew.

You may recall a recent election in the US that was essentially too close to call.  Eventually the Supreme Court weighed in and made what many regard as a wrong or arbitrary decision.  But - surprise, surprise! - there was no violence, civil unrest, or chaos!  Why?  Because Americans have a deep respect for democracy and would rather endure four years of bad leadership.

Which is exactly what Morsi's opponents should have done.

Salam

Eid Mobarak

Dear caring heart ,most of Syrian nation love Assad .president Assad only wants to vanish the terrorists  for safety of his nation . we pray for success of army of Syria .they jihad in way of Islam .

http://en.alalam.ir/news/1501736 -

Soldiers of Syria are our dear young children that defend from their sacred land . Syria is good example of unity among Shiite , Sunnite and Christianity .all of them give their blood in way of their land .