I'm not "trolling" at all. Instead, this is serious stuff. To be self-interested about this, there is a risk of WWIII that would hurt me also.

This is about the importance of 'democracy', that is, settling political differences at the ballot box without blood instead of in the streets with blood.

And it's about a 'process' to change a government and give a 'legitimate' government that can have wide support of a 'social contract' that can avoid civil war and maintain peace.

And this is about international political arson.

The people of Egypt and the newsies should be careful about what they wish for because the might get it.

Your main point seems to be that by evidence direct, indirect, and 'generally accepted common knowledge' a 'lot' of people in Egypt very much don't like their government. So, the "hundreds of thousands" are, to be simple, 'very unhappy'. I can agree with that.

I will go further and agree that the Mubarak government hasn't done enough to help the people of Egypt and has been brutal with dissenters. And I will agree that Egypt should have a better government.

Still, we need to be a little careful here. I mention two reasons for being careful:

One reason is the newsie suggestion of the romantic 'narrative' of uncorrupted, sincere, dedicated, patriotic, native Egyptian youth spontaneously risking their lives in the streets against a decades old, corrupt, self-serving, self-perpetuating, ugly, brutal, violent, exploitative, evil dictatorship selfishly and 'defiantly vowing' to hang on to their unjust power and privilege and continue crushing to poverty, destitution, and often death the ordinary Egyptian people just to enrich a Mubarak led cabal of wealthy exploiters, all heavily driven by outside powers, hint, hint, the US, its need for oil through the Suez Canal and its desire to protect the 51st state, rich, brutal, inwardly directed Israel as it continues to scarf up the centuries old olive groves of the long suffering, native Palestinian people. Do I have the newsie's 'story' about right?

Yup, if a 'story' isn't good, then the newsies "will make it good" and thus grab readers by the heart, the gut, and below the belt, create 'compelling content' via vicarious, escapist, fantasy, emotional experience entertainment and, thus, grab eyeballs for the ad revenue and please the editors, publishers, and stockholders.

Second, we're playing with both the good of Egypt and WWIII here, so let's be a little careful.

To be a little careful, at

http://www.trueknowledge.com/q/population_of_egypt_2010

the 2010 population of Egypt is supposed to be 77,231,905.

Now the newsies say that "hundreds of thousands" have been in the streets or the square or wherever. So, not even the romantic newsies have said "millions". So, we're talking no more than one protester per 77 people or so.

That seems to be true but, as you point out, maybe not "the whole story". Okay: For each dedicated, sincere, life-risking protester, we should count more unhappy Egyptian people elsewhere in Cairo and the rest of Egypt. Okay, I'll go along with that.

So, as in the US where the citizens have the right "to petition the government for redress of grievances", the protesters should be able to gather, speak, shout, and scream in the streets, and the government should listen and, hopefully, act. Okay.

The Egyptian military could have flown over the streets with some helicopter gunships and then flown back to base with the streets quite silent but didn't do that. Uh, there are stories that for years the Egyptian military has gotten north of $1 billion a year from the US and that the top of the Egyptian military has been thoroughly educated in US military colleges. Hmm.

But, wait, there's more! There's the long, terrible 'transgression' of the evil Mubarak cabal. Now from 'the voice of the people' in the streets, there is 'retribution' for the evil cabal. If, as the newsies and apparently the White House want, the old Mubarak leaves office, then as he rides across the desert to retirement and into the sunset, he will get 'redemption'. So, borrowing from the 'Ring' of Wagner, the 'Ring' of Tolkien, the 'Star Wars' of Lucas, and the 'Jurassic Park' of Spielberg (and close to Goethe's 'Faust'), we have the classic trilogy of transgression, retribution, and redemption. So we have a second grade version of a 'morality play', popular all the way back to the beginnings of that foundation of the newsies, English literature. Still better would be a protest leader who ascends the barricades, gets the spontaneous acclimation of the hundreds of thousands, walks into the Presidential Palace, crisply saluted by smiling military guards, and gets the girl. Newsies just LOVE English literature! Democracy, reality, not so much.

Also, in the US are many guilt-ridden people who believe that the world would be one shining city on a hill just but for US evil foreign policy manipulation. So, whenever a 'friend' of the US falls, less guilt is felt.

Then there's the oil: The guilt-ridden are convinced that the US has been 'raping the natural world' to burn oil to support an 'unsustainable', dirty, filthy, unclean, wasteful, greedy, lazy, planet destroying lifestyle. So, if the oil were cut off, then less guilt would be felt.

Ah, two more morality plays for the newsies!

With these various morality plays of the newsies, does something bother you here?

Hint: Uh, just where is the 'democracy'? Or if that is asking too much, what about the 'process' of selecting a government?

For one step more, if some hundreds of thousands of people, maybe representing a few million people, in a country of 77 million people can bring down a government just by gathering in a square, then what is left of any reasonable government selection process?

Next, if Mubarak does what the people shouting in the streets want, then how to get a legitimate new government? That is, it's not enough just to bring down the old government; in addition it is crucial to build up another one. And in all of this, 'legitimacy' is from important up to crucial. Uh, without a lot of 'legitimacy', there is little basis for a crucial 'social contract' that will let the streets empty and the country get back to work. The newsies are suggesting that the only legitimacy needed is the shouting of the uncorrupted, sincere, dedicated, patriotic, native Egyptian youth, and this should bother you.

Next we come to what is likely the 'realpolitik' of this situation: Uh, even the most superficial reading of political history can show that the volume of screaming in the streets can be enormously amplified by some well-funded organization. Who and where might such funding and organization be from? How about from people who want to see Mubarak fall and have a chance of getting a government in Egypt they like much better? Net, can't take every 'Egyptian patriot' shouting in the streets at face value.

For the good of Egypt and most of the world, I'd say:

Without a legitimate government, Egypt could descend into civil war, heavily about Islamic theocracy versus 'Western democracy', that could spread from Casablanca east to Afghanistan and further east to the Philippines, block the Suez Canal, disrupt world oil, start a war with Israel, and lead to WWIII.

If a theocracy takes over Egypt, then it would be Sunni like UBL. However, I can believe that even the Shiite Iranians would prefer a Sunni theocracy in Egypt to a Western secular democracy friendly with the US.

To avoid civil war, etc., Egypt needs a government with at least what passes for 'legitimacy'.

For the sake of at least legitimacy, the 'process' Egypt has for selecting a government should continue. In particular, the legitimacy of the present government should not be destroyed by shouting in the streets and, in particular, then replaced by a government with even less legitimacy and, thus, more risk of civil war.

For the sake of legitimacy, Mubarak should stay in office until September as planned.

Uh, the original idea of democracy was to settle differences at the ballot box instead of in the streets.

If the people in the streets are a genuine, patriotic, indigenous, spontaneous political movement representing a significant fraction of the people of Egypt, then good: They should do well in the elections in September and do good for Egypt afterward.

But what the newsies want, for Mubarak just to leave office, is mostly just so that the newsies can have a 'story' and is irresponsible and risks blood in the streets up to WWIII. I'm still working but am having difficulty constructing even more contempt for the newsies than I have already: Their job is to find a fuel leak, throw lighted matches, and then write their 'stories' awful conflagration.

In getting Mubarak to leave before September, the people in Egypt should be careful about what they wish for because they might get it.