GWiz Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 That's because he is/was. PM Chretien felt the same way about Mubarak and Canada. YOU said it doesn't matter what Canada does/thinks/feels... Changed your mind? Not true...the US has asked Mubarak to step aside in an orderly way. You are wrong...again. It is true... The US has said it's maintaining it's neutrality on the situation and has NOT asked Mubarak to "step down" NOW or even to turn Egyp's "life support", water, electricity, internet, etc, back on NOW... Then scapegoat all the other nations as well. The TANKS we see in the streets are American not anyone elses... Take responsibility... Yes they are an option....and political organization can function to facilitate a transition to something different and/or better. All you are doing is expressing an opinion that sounds a lot like what the "evil USA" has done for years. Option, yes... One the people are willing to suffer or die for, in Egypt, highly unlikely... Like most places, IF, post "revolution", regardless of who ultimately forms power. the U.S. continues it's "support", which in turn keeps Egypt's military well fed and happy, everything should turn out alright... If not, then, THAT could be a whole different story... God Bless America and their (Chinese) money... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 " Of course much of the aid has been in the form of military aid, and of course impoverished people can't eat bullets or live in tanks when they're hungry and homeless. Still, the money the regime saved through the aid, whether given in cash, military, or other goods and services, has benefited Egyptians." Good point. The problem is the money went to the elite and to suppressing the vast majority of the population. Mubarak announced he will not run in the next election. Power to the people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/01/opinion/dancing-with-dictators.html Published: September 01, 2002For a nation that honors democracy and freedom, the United States has a nasty habit of embracing foreign dictators when they seem to serve American interests. It is one of the least appealing traits of American foreign policy. Like his predecessors, President Bush is falling for the illusion that tyrants make great allies. If Mr. Bush is not careful, Washington will be mopping up for years from the inevitable foreign policy disasters that come of befriending autocrats who maintain a stranglehold on their own people. Hmmmmmm. But there is a difference between making alliances of convenience and uncritically working with dictators. Washington should not repeat the mistake it has made so often in the past by muting its support for democracy and human rights in these societies. General Musharraf, the Saudis and other autocratic allies like President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt rule repressive societies that become a breeding ground for anti-American hostility. Terrorism will retreat where democracy advances, not where autocrats muzzle political expression or buy peace at home by financing violence abroad. But you are right Bob, the US does not support dictatorships. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 YOU said it doesn't matter what Canada does/thinks/feels... Changed your mind? No....change Chretien's mind. It is true... The US has said it's maintaining it's neutrality on the situation and has NOT asked Mubarak to "step down" NOW or even to turn Egyp's "life support", water, electricity, internet, etc, back on NOW... Wrong, as expected, a US envoy was dispatched to ask Mubarak to step down...and now he will. The TANKS we see in the streets are American not anyone elses... Take responsibility... Try the rest...then buy the best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 No....change Chretien's mind. Wrong, as expected, a US envoy was dispatched to ask Mubarak to step down...and now he will. Try the rest...then buy the best. 1. (you missed one all or nothing you know)... SEE, I did notice... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 (edited) http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/01/opinion/dancing-with-dictators.html Hmmmmmm. But you are right Bob, the US does not support dictatorships. I must be crazy to think I can dispute an op-ed from the New York Times. Let me ask you a question, you said that the USA "chose" dictatorship in Egypt. What, or who, was America's democratic option in Egypt? When did America have a clear-cut choice between freedom and liberty on the one hand for Egyptians, and oppression and dictatorship on the other? You must be hiding some secret history books that nobody else has access to! Edited February 1, 2011 by Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 They were indeed positive, and perfectly justifiable. But with a terrible outcome, obviously. Of course, since the West adored the murderous tyrannical Shah, we supposed the Iranians should have loved him as well. But it doesn't work that way. I doubt anyone "adored" him. They helped prop him up because he was of value to them. When the riots came Carter and his government encouraged the Shah to leave and discouraged him from trying to use overwhelming force to stay on. The results were bad for the WEst, and bad for the Iranian people. If the current situation results in a democratic regime which respects human rights then good on them. But many doubt that such a government will come into play or, if it does, that it can survive. Just as the initial secular government which took over from the Shah was quickly overthrown by the Islamists, so too might this happen in Egypt. There are no opposition figures with any significant power behind them except the Muslim Brotherhood. There is no organized opposition except the Muslim Brotherhood. It would be naive to believe there is not a large chance of them taking power, and that they will be no more kind to political dissent than the current occupant of the President's office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 I doubt anyone "adored" him. They helped prop him up because he was of value to them. When the riots came Carter and his government encouraged the Shah to leave and discouraged him from trying to use overwhelming force to stay on. The results were bad for the WEst, and bad for the Iranian people. If the current situation results in a democratic regime which respects human rights then good on them. But many doubt that such a government will come into play or, if it does, that it can survive. Just as the initial secular government which took over from the Shah was quickly overthrown by the Islamists, so too might this happen in Egypt. There are no opposition figures with any significant power behind them except the Muslim Brotherhood. There is no organized opposition except the Muslim Brotherhood. It would be naive to believe there is not a large chance of them taking power, and that they will be no more kind to political dissent than the current occupant of the President's office. Said it before and I'll say it again... Like most places, IF, post "revolution", regardless of who ultimately forms power, the U.S. continues it's "support", which in turn keeps Egypt's military well fed and happy, everything should turn out alright... If not, then, THAT could be a whole different story... God Bless America and their (Chinese) money... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 There are no opposition figures with any significant power behind them except the Muslim Brotherhood. There is no organized opposition except the Muslim Brotherhood. It would be naive to believe there is not a large chance of them taking power, and that they will be no more kind to political dissent than the current occupant of the President's office. Exactly, that's also my understanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Agreed....hating the annual slaughter of baby seals is not hating Canadians. Ouch! That's gotta hurt, eh? Not in the least. He's married a lady who works in the field of environmental justice, he's a regular feature at Burning Man...as his new friends say, they need all the help they can get turning things around. Listen, lines are being crossed that can never be pushed back, get used to it. Cascadia here we come. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 That has more to do with the creation of Israel than anything else. Remember - prior to the 20th century you were safer in Arab countries than you were in European countries. And even then, you'd better not be a Jew living anywhere close to the third reich. It took the holocaust for Western nations to finally start to rid themselves of rampant antisemitism. Maybe, I think what most of Europe is finally ridding itself of or leaving, more to the point, is what will one day perhaps be known as The Age of Empires. The folly of going rogue and projecting one's power to the far corners of the globe for the greater glory of God, King and Country et al has or is finally begun to sink in. It's just a god damn crying shame the rest of the West didn't stay the hell out of WW1 and let Europe settle it's differences then, before everyone had nukes. It's entirely possible Hitler would never have emerged, communism probably wouldn't have gained anywhere near the traction it did, and we'd be living in a world none of us would recognize. I'm betting we'd looking up at new cities on the Moon and launching our first ships to the stars by now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Maybe, I think what most of Europe is finally ridding itself of or leaving, more to the point, is what will one day perhaps be known as The Age of Empires. The folly of going rogue and projecting one's power to the far corners of the globe for the greater glory of God, King and Country et al has or is finally begun to sink in. It's just a god damn crying shame the rest of the West didn't stay the hell out of WW1 and let Europe settle it's differences then, before everyone had nukes. It's entirely possible Hitler would never have emerged, communism probably wouldn't have gained anywhere near the traction it did, and we'd be living in a world none of us would recognize. I'm betting we'd looking up at new cities on the Moon and launching our first ships to the stars by now. It is impossible to know how altering fundamental historical events would have turned out and pointless to theorize on whether the resulting world would be better or worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 There are lessons there in history - France, Russia, Spain, Iran, Nepal - to which not many people in Egypt and Tunisia seem not to be paying attention. [+] Do you think we've learned any lessons about what can happen when we help create, support and sustain regimes, like the Shaw's or Mubarak's for example? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Not in the least. He's married a lady who works in the field of environmental justice, he's a regular feature at Burning Man...as his new friends say, they need all the help they can get turning things around. Great...that's one less Canadian to say "America sucks!". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 (edited) ....I'm betting we'd looking up at new cities on the Moon and launching our first ships to the stars by now. Don't you realize the irony of this statement in the context of world wars, rockets, and nuclear weapons? See "V-2". Edited February 2, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 It may be one thing to know what is best for another country, but it is another to go in, change their government because it makes you safer, but does the exact opposite. *********When the west, and especially the US, props up a guy like Mubarak, which is a dictator (no denying that) for the last 30 years, do you think the US is going to get a free pass on this? Absolutely not. They want total lack of control from the U.S., fine. How about total lack of monetary and military aid as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 They want total lack of control from the U.S., fine. How about total lack of monetary and military aid as well? I would think that would be pretty darn swell. Hell, cut off all the foreign aid to the middle east (including Israel). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 They want total lack of control from the U.S., fine. How about total lack of monetary and military aid as well? i like that. the same rule goes for israel and the $3 billion they receive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 No....change Chretien's mind. Quite the change for you admitting that Canada matters... Wrong, as expected, a US envoy was dispatched to ask Mubarak to step down...and now he will. Your TV broken? Try the rest...then buy the best. Why buy when you can get it free? __________________________________________________________________________________________________ Here's the point you missed - Option, yes... One the people are willing to suffer or die for, in Egypt, highly unlikely... Like most places, IF, post "revolution", regardless of who ultimately forms power, the U.S. continues it's "support", which in turn keeps Egypt's military well fed and happy, everything should turn out alright... If not, then, THAT could be a whole different story... Gotta love the military... God Bless America and their (Chinese) money... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 They want total lack of control from the U.S., fine. How about total lack of monetary and military aid as well? It's about time to stick a fork in that bullshit argument of U.S. benevolence to Egypt! F.A.Q. on U.S. Aid to Egypt: Where Does the Money Go—And Who Decides How It’s Spent? According to the State Department, U.S. military aid to Egypt totals over $1.3 billion annually [5] in a stream of funding known as Foreign Military Financing. And who benefits from the 1.3 billion Egypt receives for military spending? Obviously the aid benefits Egypt’s military and whatever government it supports, which has so far been Mubarak’s. Egypt can purchase this equipment either through the U.S. military or directly from U.S. defense contractors, and it can do so on credit. The other group that benefits from this aid arrangement is U.S. defense contractors [11]. As we reported with Sunlight Foundation, contractors including BAE Systems, General Dynamics, General Electric, Raytheon and Lockheed Martin have all done business [12] with the Egyptian government through relationships facilitated by high-powered DC lobbyists. So, guess who's lobbyists will be banging on the doors in Washington if they actually did cut off military aid? But, wait a minute! Doesn't the U.S. send economic aid? U.S. economic aid to Egypt has declined over the years, but is generally in the hundreds of millions annually. Some of this aid also comes back to benefit the U.S. through programs such as the Commodity Import Program [5]. Under that program, the U.S. gives Egypt millions in economic aid to import U.S. goods. The State Department, on its website, describes it as “one of the largest and most popular USAID programs.” It seems that both the military and the economic aid sent to Egypt has a strong self-serving aspect to it. Also worth consideration are the intangibles, such as unqualified support for U.S. policy in the Middle East, and special arrangements such as giving U.S. naval ships the front of the line priority when transiting the Suez Canal. So, who really has the most to lose if these ties were cut? You and the other warhawks, and the celebrity warhawks on Foxnews and elsewhere, seem to think the U.S. has some right to run every country in the world to serve its own interests. But the days of U.S. Empire imposing its will on the world is coming to an end, one way or another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Nic Robertson with some of the rioters/demonstrators. Take it for what it's worth, but anti-Semitism is the theme of the day with these folks. That clip is the exact one I was talking about ealier... These are reasonably educated,multiligual,young Egyptians.In a country that has such a young populous and high illiteracy rate,these are the types who will hold sway in public opinion... Keep in mind,we keep hearing that there really is no one to lead Egypt outside of Mubarak,or his henchmen... Hence,I believe,the reason for El Baradei being parachuted into the situation....The reason is that the only real other option is radical Islamofascism... That's a very sobering clip... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 It's about time to stick a fork in that bullshit argument of U.S. benevolence to Egypt! F.A.Q. on U.S. Aid to Egypt: Where Does the Money Go—And Who Decides How It’s Spent? According to the State Department, U.S. military aid to Egypt totals over $1.3 billion annually [5] in a stream of funding known as Foreign Military Financing. And who benefits from the 1.3 billion Egypt receives for military spending? Obviously the aid benefits Egypt’s military and whatever government it supports, which has so far been Mubarak’s. Egypt can purchase this equipment either through the U.S. military or directly from U.S. defense contractors, and it can do so on credit. The other group that benefits from this aid arrangement is U.S. defense contractors [11]. As we reported with Sunlight Foundation, contractors including BAE Systems, General Dynamics, General Electric, Raytheon and Lockheed Martin have all done business [12] with the Egyptian government through relationships facilitated by high-powered DC lobbyists. So, guess who's lobbyists will be banging on the doors in Washington if they actually did cut off military aid? But, wait a minute! Doesn't the U.S. send economic aid? U.S. economic aid to Egypt has declined over the years, but is generally in the hundreds of millions annually. Some of this aid also comes back to benefit the U.S. through programs such as the Commodity Import Program [5]. Under that program, the U.S. gives Egypt millions in economic aid to import U.S. goods. The State Department, on its website, describes it as “one of the largest and most popular USAID programs.” It seems that both the military and the economic aid sent to Egypt has a strong self-serving aspect to it. Also worth consideration are the intangibles, such as unqualified support for U.S. policy in the Middle East, and special arrangements such as giving U.S. naval ships the front of the line priority when transiting the Suez Canal. So, who really has the most to lose if these ties were cut? You and the other warhawks, and the celebrity warhawks on Foxnews and elsewhere, seem to think the U.S. has some right to run every country in the world to serve its own interests. But the days of U.S. Empire imposing its will on the world is coming to an end, one way or another. Absolutely correct, and absolutely stupid, and even worse, dangerous... Just have a look at what's happening to the stock markets (U.S. AND Canada) and price of oil... UP, UP, UP, do you know WHY? Because BAE Systems, General Dynamics, General Electric, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and hundreds of others of that "dynamic" BENEFIT by even the hint of Mid East turmoil... WAR, or even the potential for instability in the MIDDLE EAST, is GOOD FOR BUSINESS... That what you want? Another Mideast WAR? If it is, just cut off the wests money and let them get it from someone else a little less "friendly" to the west... I've never met a dictator or other authoritarian regime that couldn't find a way to get all the money they need for themselves and the populous be damned... Funding the military is all they need to do... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Ditto. AW is not Bush-Cheney 2004. One is an intelligent, gutsy and caring poster. The other is not. Spot on... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 extremism breeds extremism...if the anglo-american instigated coup had not removed the Iranian democracy and replaced it with the hated shah we would not have a theocracy in Iran now...I think the CIA refers to it as "blowback"... Spot on...The overthrow of the democratically elected Mohammad Mossadiq was a CIA/Anglo/American corporate coup... The Shah,essentially did what Mubarak has done.Make nicey nicey with his geopolitical benefactors while brutally controlling his populous.... Sadly,"blowback" is coming...Serious "blowback"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Ever notice the simularities between what the U.S. did to precipitate the Soviet Union's downfall and what China is now doing vis-a-vie the United States? Yep.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.