No reply?

Limitations?

Oh please. The Army were sitting there in armoured cars. How many casualties did they suffer...They also used live rounds before tear gas.

Having read alot of the reports I'm well aware what happened.

You pick a side and never change your mind, you can't see anything from any other point of view.

Oh please indeed.

What did you expect them to do, sit in fooking deckchairs reading the newspaper? Egyptian demonstrations, whether political or even soccer, do have some previous

Just wondering if you want to engage in the actual discussion.

I expect them to show restraint and not gun down people in the street.

The frustrating issue is that all the bloodshed was unnecessary. If the army hadn't waded in and removed an elected politician, who it has become apparent from the sheer number of demonstrators was actually popular with large numbers, all this could have been avoided. As it is, Egypt will probably become another Syria.

Mein Gott! Almost a straight answer to a question.

Now build on that - there are plenty of outstanding ones you've been ignoring of late.

They did show restraint, they warned the protesters not to advance a number of times.

They could and should have handled it better but you know nothing of what was going through some of the soldiers minds.

So, how would the concerns of the millions of demonstrators be addressed?
Do you think it's fine for the elected to give himself unlimited law-making powers?

That's where having a well written constitution comes in, something with the ability to remove or impeach someone who abuses their powers.

The solution is not for the military to play kingmaker.

Quite.
As I understand it, the plan is to draw up a(n amended) constitution, have a referendum on it and then have elections.

Who would impeach him if not the Army?

Morsi got himself elected through a democratic process and immediately dismantled or overrode that process. No motter how well written a constitution may be, it still requires someone to police and enforce it

Wouldn't it be a matter for the courts or, at the very least, some sort of parliamentary scrutiny body? Morsi being impeached via a civilian legal process, given a hearing and then removed by a number of high-ranking judges, would probably have caused far less unrest than the army wading in and arresting half of the Muslim Brotherhood.

For that to have been possible, there would have needed to be some item in the constitution or other law via which Morsi could have been impeached.
As I understand it (which could be wrong), the constitution was inadequate and Morsi took advantage, granting himself power to edict any law ... hence the need to draw up an amended constitution prior to starting the election process all over again.

Yeah, I get that (in fact, I mentioned it myself a few pages back) but cod'ead seemed to be saying that, even with a well drafted constitution, it would be down to the army to remove/impeach the president.

Didn't he also remove/replace the sitting judiciary too?

Given it was Egypt's very first stab at democracy, it's almost inevitable that there would be anomalies. But if the law was being redrawn in favour of one man/organisation, it still leaves the question: who would have the strangth and power to stand up to such abuses?

Ah, apologies.
With a properly-drafted constitution, yes, I agree it would be a judicial process ... but, I guess, always with the army as the ultimate back-up to ensure compliance with the judicial outcome.

I would suggest that the civilian police force should undertake the enforcement role. The army getting involved should be the very last resort.

No problem with them backing up judicial outcomes (though the police might be a better option), but when the army are seen to be making the decisions, the outcome is unlikely to be positive.

True, but its clear from the previous round of protests that led to the introduction if democracy that the Egyptian police force is very unlikely to be able to 'police' mass demonstrations (or violence) in any meaningful way.

As soon as the army has to be used you're going to have problems. An army is by definition not a police force - its members are supposed to be ready and willing to use lethal force. The British army didn't cover itself in glory in NI either.

BTW did anyone see that horrific footage of those teenagers being murdered on top of a building CNN? Even edited it was awful, and a reminder of what at least a few of the people are like who the army was facing.

Bottom line is that this all shows that simply introducing 'democracy' via having an election does not represent a job well done. Written constitutions, agreed and clearly delimited roles and responsibilities for army, police, judiciary etc are equally as important as having a free vote. Without those structures, everybody ends up making it up as they go along, often with poor results.

What was going through the soldier's minds this time when they slaughtered over five hundred people?

Two separate incidents. Fuck you're dumb.

So you're finally condemning the actions of the military then? Not trotting out your rubbish about them being in fear as justification for mass murder?