Egypt

[PB the Deplorable]

This coup to oust the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is incredibly good fortune for the Egyptians, their neighbors, and the rest of the world.  Despite US interference on behalf of now former President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood.  The Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization, with much blood and many attacks on their hands.  The leaders of al Qaeda belonged to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Half of all Arabs live in Egypt,  It has a good sized army.  They have been a long time friend of the US and stabilizing force in the region.  Their neighbors include Libya to the west, Sudan to the south, Hamas (in Gaza), Israel, & Jordan to the northeast, and the Saudi's across the Red sea to the East.  They co-exist with Israel.  They own and control the Suez canal.  Because of their size, location, stability, and military strength, they are a strong voice in the region.

The militaries in many parts of the world - including Egypt - see themselves as the protectors of the state.  When things get out of hand politically, they see it as their duty to remove the government, take charge, reestablish order, then at some point hand the government back to civilians.  We see this from time to time in places like Thailand, Pakistan, former colonies of Spain like The Philippines and much of Latin America.  It's a different mindset from other places that have military coups - in those places the military has no intention of handing power back to anyone. 

Iran was lost to the terrorists permanently after the Shah fell, and they have been extremely destructive.  We are very fortunate to have Egypt back in the fold of civilized nations.  Had the Muslim Brotherhood fully consolidated power as leaders of Egypt, they would have been extremely dangerous.


 

[PB the Deplorable]

An important note is to understand the role of the US, or at least the Administration, in some of this.  When the people of Iran took to the streets in 2009-10 to demonstrate against the fraudulent re-election of Ahmadinejad, Obama ignored them.  When the Arab Spring protests finally showed up in Egypt, Obama ignored all of it until the Muslim Brotherhood hijacked the demonstrations, then he did everything he could to support them and undercut the original demonstrators and Mubarak.  He was very pleased when they seized power, has met with them many times, and continued the sales of tanks and warplanes to them.  He has said nothing while the Coptic Christians were being rounded up and murdered.  Now the people are once again demonstrating against the government - this time the Brotherhood - and again Obama ignores them.

Obama did nothing in Libya until the jihadis hijacked the revolution there then stepped in to help them, and did nothing in Syria to help the rebels until their revolution in turn was stolen by al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.  Now he is sending arms and supplies to the terrorists there.

When the Morsi (Brotherhood) government was recently warned by the Egyptian military, Obama told the military if they stepped in and removed the government that he would cut off aid.  He has clearly supported the Muslim Brotherhood, first against our ally Mubarak, and now against the popular counter-revolution.

[Yorkshire pud]

It's certainly a new form of 'democracy'...A government is elected democratically by the people, and executes it's mandate..One year on, and the ones who didn't win have the army to back up their drive to get rid of the elected government.. Presumably it's a model that could be used the world over? Oh wait a minute; that only applies if you actually disagree with the government, and disregards the majority who voted them in. If you agree with the incumbent government it's called a military coup that leads to a minority lead fascist dictatorship.

[Juan]

Did they support the policies of the Muslim Brotherhood?  Did the majority of the people support the Islamization of the country -certainly not the Coptics. The military has the support of the Coptic pope and the Muslim Mufti.  This is something more than a banana republic military coup.  I fear it will be a return to Nasser, but we will have to wait and see.  And if it is a return to Nasser, will the Egyptians attempt to settle the war in Syria and revive the United Arab Republic?

[PB the Deplorable]

It's certainly a new form of 'democracy'...A government is elected democratically by the people, and executes it's mandate..One year on, and the ones who didn't win have the army to back up their drive to get rid of the elected government.. Presumably it's a model that could be used the world over? Oh wait a minute; that only applies if you actually disagree with the government, and disregards the majority who voted them in. If you agree with the incumbent government it's called a military coup that leads to a minority lead fascist dictatorship.

First off, they weren't exactly 'executing their mandate'  Have you been paying attention to what they've been up to over the past year?  They have all the earmarks of a permanent dictatorship, hostile to their non-Sunni neighbors and to the west.  You know, Islam is not the 'Religion of Peace', and Islamic terrorism is not simply a matter for the police.  Regardless of what we are told by our governments

You may recall a conversation a few weeks ago about the infrastructure of democracy - things like a loyal opposition, rule of law, elections, a parliamentary law making body, freedom of the press, an independent judiciary - all that stuff.  And that is was US policy to nudge our friends towards that over time, rather than have a series of dictators and bloody transitions of power?

Well, Egypt is one of those countries that has moved towards democracy over time, but they aren't all the way there yet.  Mubarak was a dictator, but Egypt was moving slowly towards democracy. 

So just because they had an election and Morsi won, doesn't mean he's to be propped up from now on no matter what.  Just the opposite.  By definition the Muslim Brotherhood is our enemy and we have every right to try to topple them.  Before they consolidate and become a worsening terrorist Iran style regime. 

The Morsi election and the election to ratify his Constitution were disputed.  Likely stolen.  While president, he declared himself above the judiciary, and made several other undemocratic moves, not to mention gross human rights abuses, so I don't think we need to support that.  Especially when the people closest to the situation are back out in the streets and saying this isn't what they asked for or wanted. 

The fact that a government was elected, or claims to have been elected, is not the last word on whether the US or the west or anyone else has an obligation to support them.  We need to operate in what's in our national interest.   I'm glad the Egyptian military stepped in.  We should support them, not issue threats.

[Zoo]

I love how a country can reboot their system- seems to me we could take a few notes from them. When their Government over reached their hands into peoples private life the people said no more then stood up and took to the streets. I for one say good for them. As a American I see people bicth but do nothing-not everyone I still know people who will stand side by side with each other. In this country if you disagree with are Government you are labeled a racist or just shunned by the MSM and even the people you know. I for one don't care what MSM think of me and will always stand up against a Government who forgets who they serve. So once again my hats off to the people of Egypt!!1 

[Yorkshire pud]

First off, they weren't exactly 'executing their mandate'  Have you been paying attention to what they've been up to over the past year?  They have all the earmarks of a permanent dictatorship, hostile to their non-Sunni neighbors and to the west.  You know, Islam is not the 'Religion of Peace', and Islamic terrorism is not simply a matter for the police.  Regardless of what we are told by our governments

You may recall a conversation a few weeks ago about the infrastructure of democracy - things like a loyal opposition, rule of law, elections, a parliamentary law making body, freedom of the press, an independent judiciary - all that stuff.  And that is was US policy to nudge our friends towards that over time, rather than have a series of dictators and bloody transitions of power?

Well, Egypt is one of those countries that has moved towards democracy over time, but they aren't all the way there yet.  Mubarak was a dictator, but Egypt was moving slowly towards democracy. 

So just because they had an election and Morsi won, doesn't mean he's to be propped up from now on no matter what.  Just the opposite.  By definition the Muslim Brotherhood is our enemy and we have every right to try to topple them.  Before they consolidate and become a worsening terrorist Iran style regime. 

The Morsi election and the election to ratify his Constitution were disputed.  Likely stolen.  While president, he declared himself above the judiciary, and made several other undemocratic moves, not to mention gross human rights abuses, so I don't think we need to support that.  Especially when the people closest to the situation are back out in the streets and saying this isn't what they asked for or wanted. 

The fact that a government was elected, or claims to have been elected, is not the last word on whether the US or the west or anyone else has an obligation to support them.  We need to operate in what's in our national interest.   I'm glad the Egyptian military stepped in.  We should support them, not issue threats.

So how do you feel that the protesters (about 15-20 million or so, depending on who you listen to) are wanting a liberal government? There was a large heated debate today on BBC radio 2..listen to it yourself..easy to find. Jeremy Vine show, 12 noon it starts..first article discussed. To pick out this particular government as not sticking to their manifesto is ludicrous. The method on how they were elected might be open to question, but everyone agreed to it, and over 50% of the electorate voted..How many voted at the last US presidential election? 33% voted at the last UK general election.. Mubarak was more than just a dictator, he was a nasty piece of work' which makes the events all the more puzzling, the very same army that was castigated for supporting Mubarak who they wanted out, is being used to impose an un-elected judge to rule..


It goes without saying that if it had been a coptic president ousted, you'd have been calling the protesters anti democratic muslim cavemen..But because they're secular liberals, it's ok, that a big crowd (not necessarily the majority) can change an elected president you don't like. As Ii say, is that a model to be repeated the world over? You don't like the government, get a bigger crowd to take over the streets..

[PB the Deplorable]

So how do you feel that the protesters (about 15-20 million or so, depending on who you listen to) are wanting a liberal government? There was a large heated debate today on BBC radio 2..listen to it yourself..easy to find. Jeremy Vine show, 12 noon it starts..first article discussed. To pick out this particular government as not sticking to their manifesto is ludicrous. The method on how they were elected might be open to question, but everyone agreed to it, and over 50% of the electorate voted..How many voted at the last US presidential election? 33% voted at the last UK general election.. Mubarak was more than just a dictator, he was a nasty piece of work' which makes the events all the more puzzling, the very same army that was castigated for supporting Mubarak who they wanted out, is being used to impose an un-elected judge to rule..


It goes without saying that if it had been a coptic president ousted, you'd have been calling the protesters anti democratic muslim cavemen..But because they're secular liberals, it's ok, that a big crowd (not necessarily the majority) can change an elected president you don't like. As Ii say, is that a model to be repeated the world over? You don't like the government, get a bigger crowd to take over the streets..

The point here is the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization, and the world doesn't need another Iran.  It really doesn't.  Mubarak was no threat to his neighbors, was able to co-exist with non-Muslims and Israel, and was a positive influence in a neighborhood that included Libya, The Sudan, Gaza, and Saudi Arabia.  And they were moving - slowly - towards democracy.

On a scale of all African and Arab governments, Egypt under Mubarak - and hopefully under the next government - would rank comparatively high.  There was no chance of that being the case under Morsi, as he has already shown.

I wouldn't get all wrapped up in 'elections'.  They are a key to democracy but they are not the be all and end all.  Especially in some of these third world places with little or no experience with democracy.  And where they are less than 'free and fair' anyway.  More important is the consent of the governed, and the intention of the government towards their neighbors and the rest of the world.

[Juan]

As Ii say, is that a model to be repeated the world over? You don't like the government, get a bigger crowd to take over the streets..

Isn't that what happens in parliamentary democracies such as yours?  The mob (reflected by polls rather than mobs in the streets) and there's a call for a new election.

[Yorkshire pud]

Isn't that what happens in parliamentary democracies such as yours?  The mob (reflected by polls rather than mobs in the streets) and there's a call for a new election.

Erm....no.

[PB the Deplorable]

One of the first things Morsi did was retire the top generals and promote others to replace them.  Thinking they would be beholden to him.  He must have been caught off guard by the coup.

Obama just looks worse by the day.  Some of the posters being carried.


[attachimg=1]

[attachimg=2]

[Yorkshire pud]

The point here is the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization, and the world doesn't need another Iran.  It really doesn't.  Mubarak was no threat to his neighbors, was able to co-exist with non-Muslims and Israel, and was a positive influence in a neighborhood that included Libya, The Sudan, Gaza, and Saudi Arabia.  And they were moving - slowly - towards democracy.

There are many terrorist organisations that are supported by western governments. It depends how you define a terrorist.. But then again, the point is moot; as the ousted government was elected to be there, irrespective to how you or I view it. It's now been taken out by the army, which isn't democratic.

On a scale of all African and Arab governments, Egypt under Mubarak - and hopefully under the next government - would rank comparatively high.  There was no chance of that being the case under Morsi, as he has already shown.

Really? What evidence do you have to support that?

I wouldn't get all wrapped up in 'elections'.  They are a key to democracy but they are not the be all and end all.

Yeah, let's roll it out in the USA.. Simply install at will someone because they have a nice face or buy the right shirts.. It's overrated anyway this new fangled election shit.

Especially in some of these third world places with little or no experience with democracy.

Breathtakingly patronising and arrogant.. It's civilisation originated 15000 years ago. America still had segregation in the 60's. And has schools teaching creationism. Glass houses and bricks etc.

  And where they are less than 'free and fair' anyway.  More important is the consent of the governed, and the intention of the government towards their neighbors and the rest of the world.

Wooow...when was it incumbent on a population to vote for an administration that was popular with the rest of the world? Bush and Obama between them have hardly endeared themselves to the world at large, and arguably have made more than a contribution to the shit storm that is called "war on terror". Did the US voters consider the rest of the world's opinion when they were elected? That's a rhetorical question by the way.

[PB the Deplorable]

There are many terrorist organisations that are supported by western governments. It depends how you define a terrorist.. ..

Can you please provide a list of terrorist organizations supported by western governments?  And not one or two who are perhaps borderline, or that you don't like but aren't actually 'terrorist', or whose long ago members used those tactics 50 years ago, but many current terrorist organizations.

... the ousted government was elected to be there, irrespective to how you or I view it. It's now been taken out by the army, which isn't democratic...

Morsi was extremely undemocratic once in office.  The referendum to ratify his new Constitution was fraudulent - he actually lost that vote but stole the referendum and claimed victory anyway.  The genocide of the Coptics began the day he entered office.  He exempted his decrees from judicial review. 

I could go on.  But you're stuck on him having 'won' his election and that's all that matters

... Really? What evidence do you have to support that? ...

Is that disputable?  Why don't you get a map out, look at those countries and see for yourself which had better governments and which had worse than Egypt under Mubarak.  If you haven't been paying attention, you can easily go online and see what has been going on in every one of them.

... Breathtakingly patronising and arrogant..

You disagree and think Egypt has a functioning modern democracy?  We're going to have to disagree on this one.

...  Wooow...when was it incumbent on a population to vote for an administration that was popular with the rest of the world? Bush and Obama between them have hardly endeared themselves to the world at large, and arguably have made more than a contribution to the shit storm that is called "war on terror". Did the US voters consider the rest of the world's opinion when they were elected? That's a rhetorical question by the way.

Reading your post, I wonder what you would have said about Hitler and Nazi Germany.  He was elected.  It wasn't very 'democratic' when foreign armies came in and removed him and his regime.  The fact that he usurped more power than what he was elected to, committing gross horrific human rights abuses, was a danger to his neighbors, and ultimately attacked them - from your post all this is secondary to him having been 'elected'. 

[Yorkshire pud]

Can you please provide a list of terrorist organizations supported by western governments?  And not one or two who are perhaps borderline, or that you don't like but aren't actually 'terrorist', or whose long ago members used those tactics 50 years ago, but many current terrorist organizations.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/04/u-s-support-chechen-terrorists-fighting-russia-just-like-we-supported-al-qaeda-to-fight-russia.html


http://real-agenda.com/2013/07/02/us-supported-terrorists-in-syria-decapitate-catholic-priest/




Of course some would say that Israel is a state terrorist organisation (not that I subscribe to that); and then there's historical instances..Fark, PIRA, Al Qaeda (formally Mujaheddin), the dozens of US supported military coups since the 60's..but as thats 'history' it doesn't matter; Well it doesn't if you're all nice and cosy in the West and not living with the aftermath decades later.



 

Morsi was extremely undemocratic once in office.  The referendum to ratify his new Constitution was fraudulent - he actually lost that vote but stole the referendum and claimed victory anyway.  The genocide of the Coptics began the day he entered office.  He exempted his decrees from judicial review. 

I could go on.  But you're stuck on him having 'won' his election and that's all that matters

Interesting. Similar to a lot of leaders in what we call 'free' countries..And dare I say it; (yes), almost the very same accusations of exceeding powers that you accuse Obama of doing..and probably (if balance is too be maintained) Bush before him.

Is that disputable?  Why don't you get a map out, look at those countries and see for yourself which had better governments and which had worse than Egypt under Mubarak.  If you haven't been paying attention, you can easily go online and see what has been going on in every one of them.

Better? Mubrak was a dictator! Do you know how many opponents he had murdered? He himself was instrumental in a military coup, thats' how he got eventually got too be where he was..there's the little matter of him stealing $70 BILLION from the treasury too. But I'm sure it's all a misunderstanding.

 

You disagree and think Egypt has a functioning modern democracy?  We're going to have to disagree on this one.

No, I don't think it's functioning..not at all. And I don't think it will ever have a chance to do so.

Reading your post, I wonder what you would have said about Hitler and Nazi Germany.  He was elected.  It wasn't very 'democratic' when foreign armies came in and removed him and his regime.  The fact that he usurped more power than what he was elected to, committing gross horrific human rights abuses, was a danger to his neighbors, and ultimately attacked them - from your post all this is secondary to him having been 'elected'.

Sure he was elected; and his invasion of Poland ensured that Britain declared war on Germany..Interestingly, Preston Bush helped finance Hitler's machine.. The US administration at the time didn't see much of a problem with Hitler, because they didn't get involved in that little skirmish for another two years, and only because Pearl harbour was bombed by Japan. The horrific abuses had nothing to do with the initial declaration of war, it was entirely because of his designs on world domination, starting with western Europe. So his election as Chanceller (Later self proclaimed Fuhrer) is an irrelevance, because his treatment of the Jews, socialists, communists, gypsies and the disabled wasn't seen as sufficient (because it was largely unknown) reason to go to war. 

[PB the Deplorable]

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/04/u-s-support-chechen-terrorists-fighting-russia-just-like-we-supported-al-qaeda-to-fight-russia.html


http://real-agenda.com/2013/07/02/us-supported-terrorists-in-syria-decapitate-catholic-priest/




Of course some would say that Israel is a state terrorist organisation (not that I subscribe to that); and then there's historical instances..Fark, PIRA, Al Qaeda (formally Mujaheddin), the dozens of US supported military coups since the 60's..but as thats 'history' it doesn't matter; Well it doesn't if you're all nice and cosy in the West and not living with the aftermath decades later...

Ok.  I agree with you that Obama supports terrorists.  Starting with Bill Ayres and Bernadette Dohrn - his BFFs living right in his very own neighborhood and members in good standing of his Chicago political machine.  He obviously supports the Muslim Brotherhood.  And CAIR.  And the people that ended up in power in Libya.  And al-Qaeda and others that have hijacked the uprising in Syria.  That's all pretty well known by now.  He doesn't appear to have a problem with the Ayatollahs and other thugs in Iran.

I guess I meant western governments that are a little more respectable and responsible than our current President.  If you'd said Obama supported terrorist groups, I would have known what you meant and wouldn't have questioned it.

... Better? Mubrak was a dictator! Do you know how many opponents he had murdered? He himself was instrumental in a military coup, thats' how he got eventually got too be where he was..there's the little matter of him stealing $70 BILLION from the treasury too. But I'm sure it's all a misunderstanding...

Don't misunderstand. No one is saying Mubarak was Mr Wonderful.  Just that he was better than Morsi, and his regime is better than most of the others in Africa and the Arab world.  It's not a difficult bar to clear.

I'll go further.  The world would have been better off if we'd just left Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq.  Same with the Taliban in Afghanistan.  And Khadafy in Libya.  And now Assad in Syria.  Iran was not better off after the Shah was replaced.  Could probably say the same thing about many of the places we've meddled.  The way to go is to isolate them and let them fall on their own and let the locals pick up the pieces.  Like what happened with the USSR and the Warsaw Pact counties.  Not only can't we save the world, we can't even identify the 'right' side much of the time - if there even is one.

... No, I don't think it's functioning..not at all. And I don't think it will ever have a chance to do so....

Oh. Then we agree. 

So why did you suggest I was "breathtakingly patronising and arrogant" for saying it?

The best thing about this is they are doing it themselves.


[attachimg=1]

[Eddie Coyle]

 
           10 Dead in Egypt riots.

          That's the equivalent of a protester getting an ankle sprain in the USA.

[Sardondi]

           10 Dead in Egypt riots.£,

          That's the equivalent of a protester getting an ankle sprain in the USA.

That's true. What is interesting (in the sense of whatever it is that is interesting to us about the predicament of scores of millions of poor sods who are suffering untold miseries of a nation in societal chaos) is that even in the best of the boom times, Egyptians dance on the edge of a razor blade. Added to that is now the Egyptians have gone through "unrest", violent demonstrations and a(nother) military coup. Now looms the prospect of a civil war, in which it is a virtual certainty that the outcome will be either a Muslim government or a Crazy Muslim© government. It still has not been explained to the satisfaction of the average Egyptian man-on-the-street why in Hades US President Obama would back the Muslim Brotherhood, the philosophical font of all modern Islamic terror and a sworn eternal enemy of the West, which, last time we checked Wikipedia, included the US. But the bumfuzzled Egyptians have received no answer from the White House, and must content themselves with denouncing just-deposed President Morsi, whom they call "Obama's Bitch". (You have to admit that's not a bad grasp of American street idiom for a bunch of ESLers.)

But it gets worse for Egypt. Because IIRC Egypt imports over 50% of the food it needs to feed its people every day. You'd have thought that in as seemingly as once-devout a nation of believers in ancient traditional deities as Egypt that the gods would have used the near-limitless waters of the mighty Nile to annually irrigate more than a relative sliver of the vast expanses of the bone-dry soil that is Egypt. But no.

Compounding the limits of the Nile's irrigation, it seems that the evil capitalist corporations which existed in 15,000 BCE destroyed Egypt's climate, so that what was once a huge swath of green across the entirety of Egypt had become an old desert by the time villages started popping up around 5,000 BCE. What's worse, the gods didn't even allow the dead greenery to stack up in such mass that it eventually became oil deposits. Because almost as bad as Egypt's food problem is the fact that Egypt is a woeful 23rd in worldwide oil production, which is barely enough oil for its own energy needs (which is actually more a function of Egypt's industrial backwardness than a measure of its oil output). India produces more oil than Egypt. *sigh*

But all is not despair. For in those desert sands upon which the pitiless sun beats down like a 16-pound hammer of molten steel on a volcano anvil, can also be found the magnificent pyramids, many stunning temples and countless tombs, a huge number of which may be studied at length in an unprecedentedly thorough archaeological and written historical record. And all those archeological treasures bring tourists. And tourists who come to Egypt love to throw great wads of $, £, â,¬ and Â¥ around like party favors. Tourism is Egypt's great national product.

The problem is, tourists don't like to come and throw wads of their currency in countries with civil unrest. Particularly when one of the parties to that unrest is a large contingent of Crazy Muslims©. So here we have the predicament of millions of people who are at the best of times a week and a spate of sea storms away from famine. With all that, they demand a more representative government, even though it may cost the lives of a god many of them to achieve, and that they face economic disasters of biblical proportions even if things turn out great.

There is an innate human yearning for freedom. The Egyptians show us this, for even in the face of losing so much of the little they have, they put it all at risk just to live a little bit freer. They also have had the example of a free West in general, and in particular the representative republican form of government of the US to inspire them. They are clearly envious of our freedoms and want what we have, and not just in material terms.

Why then are we so contemptuous of our freedoms that we are surrendering them at a furious rate daily? What would happen if even a little of the spirit which animates those Egyptians in the streets of Cairo came into us here? Would we be demanding immediate full implementation of Obamacare and more scrutiny of the Tea Party by the IRS? Suuuuure. And if you believe that, I have a pyramid to sell you.

Once we had a government that ruled us unilaterally, which did not respond to us, and so we revolted against it. That appears to be what the Egyptians are doing now. Will we ourselves ever be inspired again?

[Eddie Coyle]

        When Syria says "I told you so". What frightens me about the Middle East(well here too) that our historical models seem to be approaching obsolescence. Could they turn into an Algeria? It should be implausible, but I wouldn't rule it out. Will the Islamists become desperate and push for a full on civil war.

[RealCool Daddio]

        When Syria says "I told you so". What frightens me about the Middle East(well here too) that our historical models seem to be approaching obsolescence. Could they turn into an Algeria? It should be implausible, but I wouldn't rule it out. Will the Islamists become desperate and push for a full on civil war.

I think they are already in a civil war.


I'm surprised that few point out Bush's culpability in Syria.  He blindly and thoughtlessly threw Iraq into anarchy, toppling one of only two secular states in in the Middle East - no matter how odious Saddam Hussein was.  He decapitated the Baathists, who ruled both Iraq and Syria in a secular manner, albeit with an iron fist.  The iron fist, however,  kept the region out of the hands of extreme Islamists. 

[Sardondi]

...I'm surprised that few point out Bush's culpability in Syria.  He blindly and thoughtlessly threw Iraq into anarchy, toppling one of only two secular states in in the Middle East - no matter how odious Saddam Hussein was.  He decapitated the Baathists, who ruled both Iraq and Syria in a secular manner, albeit with an iron fist.  The iron fist, however,  kept the region out of the hands of extreme Islamists.

? "Post Bush, ergo propter Bush", eh?

[Jackpine Savage]

        When Syria says "I told you so". What frightens me about the Middle East(well here too) that our historical models seem to be approaching obsolescence. Could they turn into an Algeria? It should be implausible, but I wouldn't rule it out. Will the Islamists become desperate and push for a full on civil war.

This is what happens when you let the State Dept. and CIA "do things on the cheap". The 1950s and 60s were filled with us overthrowing regimes with suitcases full of cash and a few plane loads of weapons. Then we spent the next 30 years, trillions of $$$ and thousands of American lives trying to contain that bloody mess. It's like squeezing a sausage, the violence just gets tacked on later. The ARMs of foreign policy.

Though I'm really not outraged about it from a moral sense, rather, I hate how they try to justify justify imperialism with a facade of morality. They're in it for the money and the business interests, they just wrap it in "humanitarian" packaging. The general electorate (you and I) have just as much blood on our hands. Just because we allow them to do it in secret so we can reap the economic benefits under a sense of plausible deniability doesn't make us any less culpable. It's akin to northern industrialist during the civil war acting all outraged about slavery after they built their fortunes from diverting southern slave derived money and resources through a merchantile system of tariffs.

This is the problem with "morals", they work for a while until the same schemers realize that if they can claim the mantle of moral authority first, they are pretty much free to do as they please, for their social conscience is free of guilt, and even if they get called on it they scoff and act outraged that one would even HINT there exists even a modicum of self-interest in their schemes.  I call it the "Do it for the Children" tactic.  Carbon credits anyone?

[Sardondi]

....Carbon credits anyone?

BWAAAAHAAAAHAAAA!

[Jackpine Savage]

I think they are already in a civil war.


I'm surprised that few point out Bush's culpability in Syria.  He blindly and thoughtlessly threw Iraq into anarchy, toppling one of only two secular states in in the Middle East - no matter how odious Saddam Hussein was.  He decapitated the Baathists, who ruled both Iraq and Syria in a secular manner, albeit with an iron fist.  The iron fist, however,  kept the region out of the hands of extreme Islamists.

Well, not really completely. The old Baathists still run the Iraq Army. I did some work with an Iraqi Colonel who used to be on Saddam's staff and now runs entire Iraqi Airforce training program. The de-baathification program was quietly ended number of years ago.

The baath party was hated by isreal, probably partially due to its roots being linked to the nazis. Isreal fed us shit intelligence salted with real stuff about Iraq for years, then when 911 happened they saw their chance and pulled the trigger. Petreaus was suspicious of Isreal, and I suspect he had something to do with the ending of debaathification, or more accurately, the "rebaathification" of the army.  His jaundiced view toward Israel may have been what got him fired to the CIA. Yes, fired TO the CIA.

[Jackpine Savage]

One more thing. Near the end of 2007, Bush canceled some top high tech weapons sales to Israel, ostensibly to punish them for selling tech to the Chinese, among others. Obama reinstated the sales about a year after he was elected.

[Yorkshire pud]

Ok.  I agree with you that Obama supports terrorists. <snip>

Here we go again..It's all Obama; No it isn't. Obama is the latest of several..and the middle east/far east problems haven't evolved in the last six years. Just because the average American hasn't received news generated outside their county doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Most of any conflict involving western forces is censored; stuff involving foreign countries and it's people is simply not deemed important. How many of your friends for instance would tell you who Aung San Suu Ky is and her significance in Burma without looking it up?
It's interesting but not surprising, that no comments have been made about the current uprising to oust Morsi is a groundswell of liberal thinking citizens. Morsi represents a very conservative viewpoint, that enough have protested against; probably the same who helped to drive Mubarak from office. It's a dynamic situation at the moment, and there's no way of knowing from day to day let alone a month from now, what the final (if there ever is one) outcome might be.

This is the last few hours..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23201770

This is what happens when you let the State Dept. and CIA "do things on the cheap". The 1950s and 60s were filled with us overthrowing regimes with suitcases full of cash and a few plane loads of weapons. Then we spent the next 30 years, trillions of $$$ and thousands of American lives trying to contain that bloody mess. It's like squeezing a sausage, the violence just gets tacked on later. The ARMs of foreign policy.

Though I'm really not outraged about it from a moral sense, rather, I hate how they try to justify justify imperialism with a facade of morality. They're in it for the money and the business interests, they just wrap it in "humanitarian" packaging. The general electorate (you and I) have just as much blood on our hands. Just because we allow them to do it in secret so we can reap the economic benefits under a sense of plausible deniability doesn't make us any less culpable. It's akin to northern industrialist during the civil war acting all outraged about slavery after they built their fortunes from diverting southern slave derived money and resources through a merchantile system of tariffs.

This is the problem with "morals", they work for a while until the same schemers realize that if they can claim the mantle of moral authority first, they are pretty much free to do as they please, for their social conscience is free of guilt, and even if they get called on it they scoff and act outraged that one would even HINT there exists even a modicum of self-interest in their schemes.  I call it the "Do it for the Children" tactic.  Carbon credits anyone?

I never thought I'd say this Jack: But I think the above sums up in a nutshell up why we have a world in so much conflict, (Although you've given the US perspective) and why we all (yes ALL of us ladies) have played a part and continue to do so. My only caveat is the secret bit; if we're not made aware and it's kept from us, we're not in a position to make the change (The Prism scandal being a current example).

[onan]

This is what happens when you let the State Dept. and CIA "do things on the cheap". The 1950s and 60s were filled with us overthrowing regimes with suitcases full of cash and a few plane loads of weapons. Then we spent the next 30 years, trillions of $$$ and thousands of American lives trying to contain that bloody mess. It's like squeezing a sausage, the violence just gets tacked on later. The ARMs of foreign policy.

Though I'm really not outraged about it from a moral sense, rather, I hate how they try to justify justify imperialism with a facade of morality. They're in it for the money and the business interests, they just wrap it in "humanitarian" packaging. The general electorate (you and I) have just as much blood on our hands. Just because we allow them to do it in secret so we can reap the economic benefits under a sense of plausible deniability doesn't make us any less culpable. It's akin to northern industrialist during the civil war acting all outraged about slavery after they built their fortunes from diverting southern slave derived money and resources through a merchantile system of tariffs.

This is the problem with "morals", they work for a while until the same schemers realize that if they can claim the mantle of moral authority first, they are pretty much free to do as they please, for their social conscience is free of guilt, and even if they get called on it they scoff and act outraged that one would even HINT there exists even a modicum of self-interest in their schemes.  I call it the "Do it for the Children" tactic.  Carbon credits anyone?

Until the carbon credits... which I have yet to come to a point of view, there is a lot of truth to your post.


I am not sure how we became so lazy in our thinking, but this "if I don't know then it is ok" mindset is our undoing.

[PB the Deplorable]

Here we go again..It's all Obama; No it isn't. Obama is the latest of several..and the middle east/far east problems haven't evolved in the last six years....

It's one thing to interact with opponents - some that are terrorists - because that's who is entrenched, that's who is there to interact with.  Opponents don't need to negotiate with friends, sometimes they need to engage their enemies.  For example the PLO and the Palestinian Authority.  In order to achieve peace, or a ceasefire, or help promote the least bad of them, or some other goal, sometimes a government has to pragmatically engage with some of the worst people on the planet. Sometimes it's a carrot and stick approach to appeal to greed and buy them off.

That's far different from what Obama does - from Ayres to Morsi, he eagerly throws in with them.  CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood visited the White House more often than even the IRS did over the past few years.  Now that the Brotherhood rats are on the run in Egypt, Obama is pleading their case with the Egyptian military.  That is not merely 'the latest of several...' or whatever point you are trying to make in order to blur the distinction between Obama and the earlier Administrations.

[PB the Deplorable]

Here we go again..It's all Obama; No it isn't. Obama is the latest of several...

The leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood are reported to be considering setting up a 'military' wing that would direct terrorist attacks within Egypt, including tourist sites.

Yesterday, members of Hamas - which is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood - have been arrested in Cairo with cars rigged with explosives meant to be used in attacks.

These are the people Obama is supporting.  Can you imagine ANY of our other Presidents pleading on behalf of people like this?

[Jackpine Savage]

My only caveat is the secret bit; if we're not made aware and it's kept from us, we're not in a position to make the change (The Prism scandal being a current example).

But is anyone really demanding to know? If they are, they're called cranks. And once we DO know, like PRISM, does anyone actually do anything? NSA police state spying is now public knowledge aaaannnnd... crickets. As long as there are cheap iphones and alco-pops, the rabble (or chavs in your case), are happy to beleive whatever excuse they are given.

A while back I was at a cookout with a couple of buddies who work(ed) in special operations, our conversation turned towards these topics. One of the comments from one of them, a read-in O-4 with more security clearances than God, was "we step on a lot of people to get what we want".

But remember, "they hate us for our freedom". Shit, I have more respect for Nazis, at least they were honest about what they were after.   

[Jackpine Savage]

A most potent sign of what was to come was when they renamed the War Department the "Defense Department". A first step would be for us to demand they actually call things what they are. No more euphemisms, no more sophistry.