there IS a difference.
the guy in egypt has been in power since obama wore diapers.... to put things in perspective...
Arabs Gone Wild
- Thread starter beardo
- Start date
the guy in egypt has been in power since obama wore diapers.... to put things in perspective...
Scuba
Well-Known Member
So your saying, that just because he's not the same age, he can't POSSIBLY have ANY bad intentions what so every in supporting a tyrannical dictator? (not like any of your recent presidents have put a stand against tyranny)
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
I don't think Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan had bad intentions at all when it comes to Egypt. They were left with a choice. Negotiate with the current dictator of Egypt or don't. To have a policy of not negotiating with middle eastern dictators effectively meant not having any diplomatic relations with the middle east what so ever. There is no such thing as a stable middle eastern democracy even now. The closet thing is Turkey. Pakistan may have elections for administrative positions but it seems like the military calls the shots there.
As far as middle eastern dictatorships go Egypt was the most moderate. Their foreign policies were reasonable. It wasn't reasonably possible to cut off all diplomatic relations with the entire middle east and I'm not sure it would have even been a good thing. Foreign trade and a healthy economy generally is a net benefit to countries when it comes to humanitarian concerns.
What were we supposed to do? Invade, occupy, and set up new governments in every middle eastern country? I'm not sure that would have turned out better.
Scuba
Well-Known Member
I don't believe we should have intervened at all. But i think it's detestable to SUPPORT a dictator, we BAN EVERYTHING in from cuba, but Egypt noooooooo. We should NOT have ever given a corrupt and greedy official money, that goes with our own fucking government. Fuck a democracy, fuck governments, i can do better in life on my own trading with neighbors. I wish that for everyone alive, to just be able to be free from any and all forms of government that tries to control their daily life. or at the very least a infinitesimally small government, controlled by the people not "Elected Officials".
doc111
Well-Known Member
We placed an embargo on Cuba, primarily because they had missiles pointed at us. Iran got one for taking a bunch of hostages. I don't recall Egypt doing anything of the sort to the U.S. It's politics man! Most things in politics don't make sense. We can't deal with Cuba in the same manner we deal with N. Korea. These countries have distinct cultural differences that make it impossible to have the same policies. The same goes for any country. No 2 are alike so you can't paint them all with the same brush.
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
We can throw in N Korea with that group as well.
I don't think that helped the people of Cuba, Iran, or N Korea at all. Not saying we should be friends with north korea, I'm just saying hostilities between our governments doesn't appear to have a net benefit to the people of those countries.
Now look at Vietnam. Since we've normalized trade relations with them, there has been an improvement in the area of human and economic rights.
In countries like Iran and N Korea, we don't trade with them for international security reasons, not for humanitarian reasons. There is no humanitarian benefit that comes with those sanctions. Quite the opposite in the case of N Korea.
Same logic can be applied to Egypt, Yemen, etc. There would be no upside for the US or for the people of Egypt to cut off diplomatic and trade relations. There was a huge upside in in having those relations.
In fact, you could argue that the revolt in Egypt would not have happened if there were international sanctions placed against them. The lack of foreign trade would have resulted in a poorer Egypt. That would have resulted in a less educated poor population. There wouldn't have been people organizing rallies on twitter and facebook. Less educated populations are easier to repress. It was the taste of middle class life that made them want freedom. Without an industrial modern country that came with that trade, they might have not understood that freedom was even a possibility.
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
We didn't. We had no say in Egypt's government. All we did was have diplomacy with the government in place, we did not put them in power.
How's that working out for the people of Cuba? The people of Egypt have internet, cell phones, modern housing. The people of cuba are generally all in poverty. The people of Egypt per capita have more wealth than the people of cuba.
What's the benefit either the US or the people of Egypt would have received from international sanctions? There was a huge down side to cutting off relations to with Egypt and very little to no upside.
welshsmoker
Well-Known Member
oh i forgot, nothing to do with the suez canal either.. lol
BoomerBloomer57
Well-Known Member
and the band played on,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Day what? Better or worse?
and the wall, comes tumbling down,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Day what? Better or worse?
and the wall, comes tumbling down,,,,,,,,,,,,,
beardo
Well-Known Member
Yeah I guess their keeping it open they've got it lined with tanks they said on the news.
bunnyface
Well-Known Member
So say they oust or kill off Mr Mubarak(current PM in Egypt,,)
In this scenario, the armywould be the key institution that indicates to the president that he must leave because he is the main cause of instability. It would then take charge of securing the country.
But for some Egyptians, and certainly for Western governments and Israel, the sudden disappearance of Mr Mubarak represents potential disaster. The fear is that a power vacuum would result in the sort of chaos in which armed Islamist groups might thrive and the army would need to take over the running of the state.
Mr Mubarak has given every indication that he is resisting all pressure to go.
Though the army and police have been on the streets in great numbers, and many people have died in clashes, the state has not fully unleashed its security forces on the protesters.
The military may be the key institution in deciding how the revolt ends ..
Normally, the riot police are in charge of dealing with protests and they are usually highly efficient at mass arrests and breaking up crowds with controlled brutality. But the police may have been overwhelmed by the number of protesters, and their determination and fearlessness.
In any free and fair election, the Muslim Brotherhood would be expected to win a large part of the vote. It is well-supported and respected within Egypt, largely for the work of its charities. But is it is untested in government and poorly understood - especially in the West.
How would it reconcile its aim of creating a state ruled by Islamic law with its stated support for democratic principles?
In this scenario, the armywould be the key institution that indicates to the president that he must leave because he is the main cause of instability. It would then take charge of securing the country.
But for some Egyptians, and certainly for Western governments and Israel, the sudden disappearance of Mr Mubarak represents potential disaster. The fear is that a power vacuum would result in the sort of chaos in which armed Islamist groups might thrive and the army would need to take over the running of the state.
Mr Mubarak has given every indication that he is resisting all pressure to go.
Though the army and police have been on the streets in great numbers, and many people have died in clashes, the state has not fully unleashed its security forces on the protesters.
The military may be the key institution in deciding how the revolt ends ..
Normally, the riot police are in charge of dealing with protests and they are usually highly efficient at mass arrests and breaking up crowds with controlled brutality. But the police may have been overwhelmed by the number of protesters, and their determination and fearlessness.
In any free and fair election, the Muslim Brotherhood would be expected to win a large part of the vote. It is well-supported and respected within Egypt, largely for the work of its charities. But is it is untested in government and poorly understood - especially in the West.
How would it reconcile its aim of creating a state ruled by Islamic law with its stated support for democratic principles?
the most powerful military in the world can't subdue a people which doesn't want to be subdued. all you have to do is look at afganistan.
No army stands a chance if the people resist. even if egypt unleashes it's full security force, which it won't, because the egyptian military has traditionally been for the people, not the government, they're not just pawns who follow orders blindly....
the egyptian security machine is there to defend the Suez Canal, and Egypt will loose billions in US money and military aid if the military starts acts of aggression against its own people with that security machine.....
No army stands a chance if the people resist. even if egypt unleashes it's full security force, which it won't, because the egyptian military has traditionally been for the people, not the government, they're not just pawns who follow orders blindly....
the egyptian security machine is there to defend the Suez Canal, and Egypt will loose billions in US money and military aid if the military starts acts of aggression against its own people with that security machine.....
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
Israel just allowed the Egyptian army to move them in to Sinai.
medicineman
New Member
I normally agree with you, but, I believe the US will support whomever comes out on top, no matter what happens to the people. The US must put on it's democratic face to the world, but behind closed doors, they are trying to figure out what to do if the people take control, the army takes control, or Mubarak kills thousands and remains in control. They need the Suez Canal regardless of who rules Egypt. American warships transit the canal in times of emergencies, and the US will negotiate with whomever rules the Canal. I doubt if a muslim group comes out on top they will continue to fund Egypts military, but hey, who knows, they have funded way worse.
beardo
Well-Known Member
Israel should make them take all their palistinians
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
Not a bad idea at all.
However it'll never happen. Jordan tried that. They took in all the Palestinians they possibly could. Now 1/3 of their population are Palestinians. How did the Palestinians thank Jordan for their hospitality? As of last week they were protesting in the streets demanding an end to the "oppressive" Jordanian government. There is a reason no one wants the Palestinians. I do have some sympathy for them, but they sure do bring it out in people. Not real surprising no one will let them crash on their couch.
beardo
Well-Known Member
sounds like our , Mexicans and Armenians.
Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
The power of people.
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
Sure, if the mexicans here demanded Obama step down and be replaced with a Mexican national.
BoomerBloomer57
Well-Known Member
Well this here Rodeo is kicking along.
Interesting how this is turning out.
That MB is one slick machine. And their getting greased with blood.
Social awakining.
I like that. It gives me something to snork at.
36 hours on my timeline before all hell breaks out.
Democracy in the Middle East.
When pigs fly my friends, when the pigs fly.
Interesting how this is turning out.
That MB is one slick machine. And their getting greased with blood.
Social awakining.
I like that. It gives me something to snork at.
36 hours on my timeline before all hell breaks out.
Democracy in the Middle East.
When pigs fly my friends, when the pigs fly.