Posted on 11/23/2011 1:13:50 PM PST by mojito
The United States is encouraging Egypt’s military rulers to stick to a schedule of elections set to kick off next week, despite continuing violence – and despite the likelihood that the electoral timetable favors the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist movements.
The Obama administration is in essence caught between two unpalatable options: pressing ahead for elections that the Islamists are likely to win, and thereby sounding like a force for Egypt’s democratic transition; or recommending a postponement that a growing number of liberal Egyptians prefer, but which risks coming across as anti-democratic.
Egypt’s transitional military rulers announced Wednesday that parliamentary elections set to begin Monday will go ahead, despite five days of violence that has left more than 35 Egyptians dead and scores wounded.
The plan to proceed with voting was worked out at a meeting Tuesday between the military and the Muslim Brotherhood, the two most powerful institutions in post-Hosni-Mubarak Egypt. The new plan also calls for presidential elections to be held before July, an apparent acceleration of a previously announced transition plan.
Other political parties were invited to Tuesday’s meeting, but most liberal secular movements boycotted it.
Still, many Egyptians – in particular those who spearheaded the February movement that toppled a regime – fear that the military, composed in large part of recruits from the country’s more conservative rural areas, favors a Brotherhood electoral triumph. They worry that a parliamentary triumph for the Brotherhood, combined with the military staying in power at least until mid-summer, would allow the two to write a constitution – and to delineate civil and political rights to their liking.
Despite those concerns, the US is sticking to its support for the established electoral calendar.
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
Friggin’ unbelievable.
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
Fixed it
“...despite the likelihood that the electoral timetable favors the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist movements.”
That was a journalist typo. It was suppose to say “...because of the likelihood....”
yep.
hussein’s in the bag for the radicals.
carter: iran
obama: mideast
This is unbelievable that a Muslim would be elected in a Muslim country. Imagine in England a Christian would be elected or in Israel, a Jew. You want elections, you get elections. Majority wins.
Obama meant “especially” if it favors Islamist parties
The theory of Islamic democracy: One man. One vote. One time. (Women need not apply.)
live links...
http://newsblogged.com/live-streaming-video-tahrir-square-cairo-egypt-201111
http://rt.com/on-air/egypt-tahrir-clashes-live/
Twitter:
http://twitter.com/#!/PaulaSlier_RT
Obama is enabling “The Muslim Brotherhood”. Looks like they’ll be in charge.
WE should be worried.
Keep your nose out of the internal affairs of Egypt, Clinton/Obama!!!
10 minutes ago via Twitter..
PaulaSlier_RT PaulaSlier_RT
Muslim Brotherhood praises some changes proposed by military but is calling for information and interior ministers to step down #cairo
10 minutes ago
Yeah that worked out so well for Palestine. Now a recognised terrorist group rules the streets and the blood runs freely.
Or is that the plan Barry Hussain Obama?
I really doubt that Egypt’s military is STUPID ENOUGH to listen to President Obama. They will do what’s necessary.
Nope, it’s completely believable.
You want to stop the vote just because you don’t like how it might turn out? Not every democracy is going to love the US. It’s a fact of the world. The people there make their own decisions about whom they want in power. You wouldn’t have wanted the US military to take over the country and cancel Election Day to stop Obama from being president, would you? I mean... as much as we all detest him, I’d rather elect a bad leader than have a military dictatorship deciding everything. That never goes well.
Let the vote go through, let the chips fall where they may. We have no idea what’s going to happen. But the fact that the new government might not be friendly toward us isn’t going to be, and shouldn’t be, a factor. Freedom is messy. Isn’t that what we tell liberals?
“You want to stop the vote just because you don’t like how it might turn out?”
You’re damn right. I’d rather have countries friendly to the US than more Iran-type nightmares.
“Not every democracy is going to love the US. It’s a fact of the world.”
Agree.
“The people there make their own decisions about whom they want in power.”
Sorry, but I like the idea of us having some say also.
“You wouldn’t have wanted the US military to take over the country and cancel Election Day to stop Obama from being president, would you?”
Considering our debt level and the future of this country...no comment.
“I mean... as much as we all detest him, I’d rather elect a bad leader than have a military dictatorship deciding everything. That never goes well.”
It went great for Chile, and prevented them from becoming a Marxist state. A true US success story and more freedom there than could have ever been dreamed of, had their “people’s revolution” played out.
“Let the vote go through, let the chips fall where they may. We have no idea what’s going to happen. But the fact that the new government might not be friendly toward us isn’t going to be, and shouldn’t be, a factor. Freedom is messy. Isn’t that what we tell liberals?”
I prefer having friendly countries around the world. If we go isolationist, others (like China now) fill in the vacuum and we become Third World as they control our access to resources. You may be fine with that, but not me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.