Egypt: Islamists hit Christian Churches.....

[Nynaeve Meara]

Well.....here is how World History takes a look at it.

Four events were decisive.
1. The Reagan administration cemented Egypt, the largest and most important Arab country, into the U.S. alliance system.
2. Reagan oversaw the weakening of the Soviet’s strongest Arab ally, Iraq.
3. Middle East events forced the Soviet Union toward an (ultimately doomed) reconstruction of its economy.
4. Then the final shove: In 1985, the Reagan administration persuaded Saudi Arabia to increase oil production.

Between 1985 and 1986, Saudi Arabia increased oil production from two million barrels a day to five million barrels. The oil price tumbled as oil supply surged: from US$30 a barrel to US$20 in just a few months.

The effect on the Soviet economy was devastating. Oil was the Soviet Union’s main – practically only – exportable product, the most important source of hard currency for the economically stagnant regime.

As former Soviet prime minister Yegor Gaidar details in a 2006 book, the Saudi action cost the Soviet Union $20 billion a year, money that had been used to pay for food imports from the West. How to close the sudden financial gap? The Soviets borrowed from Western banks.

As the Soviet economy stalled, borrowing needs increased. By 1989, the Soviet Union needed US$100-billion to avoid food shortages. That desperate need for Western loans precluded any Soviet intervention when first Poland and then the rest of the Warsaw Pact shook off Soviet rule in the spring, summer and fall of 1989.

The Reagan administration’s Middle East policy broke the Soviet empire. But no political achievement lasts forever. The price of oil has soared again, re-empowering Russia and other bad actors like Venezuela and Iran.

The Reagan policy has run its course, as all policies do. But no statesman is expected to solve the problems of all time. The 40th President of the United States magnificently surmounted the problems of his time. We honor Ronald Reagan most not by replicating him, but by emulating him: by doing not what he did, but as he did. He was the right leader for his time. Modern conservatives need to discover the right leadership for their time.....snip~

How Reagan’s Mideast Policy Won the Cold War

All of this has nothing to do with Egypt; so what was the point? I don't as favourable light on Reagan's middle east policies.

Glaring omission: Reagan encouraged the Saudis to arm and finance the Osama Bin Laden anti-Soviet mujahedeen in Afghanistan, and thus created Al-Qaeda. The “Reagan Middle East” ended on September 11, 2001.

 

[MMC]

All of this has nothing to do with Egypt; so what was the point? I don't as favourable light on Reagan's middle east policies.

Glaring omission: Reagan encouraged the Saudis to arm and finance the Osama Bin Laden anti-Soviet mujahedeen in Afghanistan, and thus created Al-Qaeda. The “Reagan Middle East” ended on September 11, 2001.

The Point was.....net result. Egypt was in the US Alliance. Where before it was not.

Yeah and your point is with stopping the Spread of Communism in the ME and Asia?

The main lines of Reagan's record on democracy promotion can therefore be summarized fairly briefly: Reagan distinguished between allies and adversaries. In relation to U.S. adversaries, Reagan issued ringing and sincere denunciations of undemocratic practices in order to indicate moral concern as well as to weaken hostile regimes. In relation to American allies, on the other hand, Reagan was usually much more circumspect, because he understood that to destabilize an autocratic but U.S.-aligned government might very well lead to something worse. There was certainly some movement toward more pointed forms of pro-democracy pressure on U.S. allies during Reagan's second term, but even then, Reagan's first instinct was always to bolster, support, and reassure allies, rather than to critique them......snip~

RealClearPolitics - Conservative Foreign Policy & Reagan's Legacy

I think we didn't start to encourage them until after Bin Laden had already taken up arms against the Soviets. See that part about him being a Muslim took him to the call against the Soviets first.

Osama bin Laden was born in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in 1957. When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, bin Laden joined the Afghan resistance. After the Soviet withdrawal, bin Laden formed the al-Qaeda network which carried out global strikes against Western interests, culminating in the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. On May 2, 2011,

The teacher who educated the children, influenced in part by a sect of Islam called The Brotherhood, began instructing his pupils in the importance of instituting a pure, Islamic law around the Arab world. Using parables with often-violent endings, their teacher explained that the most loyal observers of Islam would institute the holy word—even if it meant supporting death and destruction. By the second year of their studies, Osama and his friends had openly adopted the attitude and styles of teen Islamic activists. They preached the importance of instituting a pure Islamic law at Al Thagher; grew untrimmed beards; and wore shorter pants and wrinkled shirts in imitation of the Prophet's dress.

But Osama would have little chance to use his degree. When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, Osama joined the Afghan resistance, believing it was his duty as a Muslim to fight the occupation. He relocated to Peshawar, Afghanistan, and using aid from the United States under the CIA program Operation Cyclone, he began training a mujahideen, a group of Islamic jihadists. After the Soviets withdrew from the country in 1989, Osama returned to Saudi Arabia as a hero, and the United States referred to him and his soldiers as "Freedom Fighters."

Yet Osama was quickly disappointed with what he believed was a corrupt Saudi government, and his frustration with the U.S. occupation of Saudi Arabia during the Persian Gulf War led to a growing rift between Osama and his country's leaders. Bin Laden spoke publicly against the Saudi government's reliance on American troops, believing their presence profaned sacred soil. After several attempts to silence Osama, the Saudis banished the former hero. He lived in exile in Sudan beginning in 1992.....snip~

Osama bin Laden Biography - Facts, Birthday, Life Story - Biography.com


Actually.....the Reagan ME policy was over lapped by the Incompetency of Foreign Policy due to the Clinton Administration. Which created more problems than what we Originally had. But then due to doing nothing about it. It increased more tensions with our own allies and emboldened our enemies. Which we have been playing catchup ever since.

 

[Nynaeve Meara]

The Point was.....net result. Egypt was in the US Alliance. Where before it was not.

Yeah and your point is with stopping the Spread of Communism in the ME and Asia?

Egypt was already a US ally with Sadat that wasn't going to change, heck that is the reason Egypt was kicked out of the Arab league to begin with.

Sadat Ignored during NY visit
Reagan did the exact same thing and it didn't work for anyone; influencing another countries electoral process is wrong. Just think how you'd feel if back in the 1970s the USSR decided to pay someone to be our President. That is how the Egyptian people felt with Mubarak.

We didn't stop the spread of Communism in the slightest, all we did was pay dictators to fight our wars for us under the Mcarthyism doctrine. Which was based on lies.

Actually.....the Reagan ME policy was over lapped by the Incompetency of Foreign Policy due to the Clinton Administration. Which created more problems than what we Originally had. But then due to doing nothing about it. It increased more tensions with our own allies and emboldened our enemies. Which we have been playing catchup ever since.

Reagan had a terrible Middle East policy which amounted to "Pay this dictator we set up money and leave it alone".

That is the reason why most of the Middle East hates the US, including Israel. Although Israel's problems more stem from the British rule right after WWII.

 

[MMC]

Egypt was already a US ally with Sadat that wasn't going to change, heck that is the reason Egypt was kicked out of the Arab league to begin with.

Sadat Ignored during NY visit
Reagan did the exact same thing and it didn't work for anyone; influencing another countries electoral process is wrong. Just think how you'd feel if back in the 1970s the USSR decided to pay someone to be our President. That is how the Egyptian people felt with Mubarak.

We didn't stop the spread of Communism in the slightest, all we did was pay dictators to fight our wars for us under the Mcarthyism doctrine. Which was based on lies.

Reagan had a terrible Middle East policy which amounted to "Pay this dictator we set up money and leave it alone".

That is the reason why most of the Middle East hates the US, including Israel. Although Israel's problems more stem from the British rule right after WWII.

Well their choice was to kiss our ass or Kiss the Russians.....not to difficult to figure out when it comes to those who have the power. Now All just need to answer that question on whos is the better ass to kiss. After that.....logic dictates the course.

 

[Nynaeve Meara]

Well their choice was to kiss our ass or Kiss the Russians.....not to difficult to figure out when it comes to those who have the power. Now All just need to answer that question on whos is the better ass to kiss. After that.....logic dictates the course.

Umm what?

The USSR didn't have plans in Egypt at all.

So basically you are saying its alright to prop up dictators regardless of what the local populace wants?

 

[MMC]

Umm what?

The USSR didn't have plans in Egypt at all.

So basically you are saying its alright to prop up dictators regardless of what the local populace wants?

No they didn't have Egypt, But the USSR had Iraq, Syria, and since 1902 had been vying with the British over what they Called Central Asia and then Later the ME. Their influence.

If the local Populace is a den of thieves and some cutthroats that are into nothing but chaos and anarchy. Then it may be necessary. So that there is still rule of law.

 

[Nynaeve Meara]

No they didn't have Egypt, But the USSR had Iraq, Syria, and since 1902 had been vying with the British over what they Called Central Asia and then Later the ME. Their influence.

If the local Populace is a den of thieves and some cutthroats that are into nothing but chaos and anarchy. Then it may be necessary. So that there is still rule of law.

Yes, the US did have Egypt, that is why Sadat was kicked (Eg Egypt) from the Arab League.

Egypt kicked from Arab League
"Sadat made a historic visit to Israel in 1977, which led to the 1979 peace treaty in exchange for Israeli withdrawal from Sinai. Sadat's initiative sparked enormous controversy in the Arab world and led to Egypt's expulsion from the Arab League, but it was supported by most Egyptians."

Egypt was never a den of thieves and cutthroats as it was always a western city with the advent of the Romans and Greeks back in the BCE years. Now if you are talking Saudi or Iran or even Iraq you might have a point but that doesn't discount the US manipulation of a sovereign nation especially since that manipulation had severe consequences on that country in nearly every way.

Here is the thing, we messed up with Egypt in a large way. Just as much as we messed up with Afghanistan and instead of fixing the problem we are only making it worse by allowing military coup to exist when we, ourselves, would be up in arms if the military of the US took out a President based on the pressure of another nations relationship to that President.

 

[MMC]

Yes, the US did have Egypt, that is why Sadat was kicked (Eg Egypt) from the Arab League.

Egypt kicked from Arab League
"Sadat made a historic visit to Israel in 1977, which led to the 1979 peace treaty in exchange for Israeli withdrawal from Sinai. Sadat's initiative sparked enormous controversy in the Arab world and led to Egypt's expulsion from the Arab League, but it was supported by most Egyptians."

Egypt was never a den of thieves and cutthroats as it was always a western city with the advent of the Romans and Greeks back in the BCE years. Now if you are talking Saudi or Iran or even Iraq you might have a point but that doesn't discount the US manipulation of a sovereign nation especially since that manipulation had severe consequences on that country in nearly every way.

Here is the thing, we messed up with Egypt in a large way. Just as much as we messed up with Afghanistan and instead of fixing the problem we are only making it worse by allowing military coup to exist when we, ourselves, would be up in arms if the military of the US took out a President based on the pressure of another nations relationship to that President.

No one said Egypt was.....your question was posed towards Dictators and the propping up of one. Which was my answer.

That's what that piece on Reagan talked about. How he brought Egypt into the fold. Which your disagreement with the Historians is on how his ME Policy won him the cold war.

I would disagree with you on faulting the Egyptian Military.....the MB hi-jacked the election in the first place. There is no reason to leave terrorists in power of a Country.

 

[Medusa]

Well the MB struck back late yesterday or early this morning. Killing 25 off duty policemen that were on Buses. Dragged them out and killed them execution style. Course once again the MS Media wants to call them Militants now. When In fact it was the MB and those from Morsi's own clan. Shouldn't we be going after these Journalists and reporters for falsely reporting the facts of the story. They know it was the MB. There is no reason to lie or falsify information to the rest of the planet.

If anything they should be specifying who it is that is making these attacks. This way the MB cannot hide anywhere in the world.

They are tuff guys when nobody is fighting back. They like using the banger tactics. Until it starts coming back their way. They need to face the same thing they are putting out there. We should oblige then. Also letting every criminal element out there know. That it is Free Card Blanche when it comes to any in the MB. Leaving them no place to run and no place to hide. All the MB needs to be told is, Do or die punks.....make your stand. Prepare to meet whom you claim you would die to do so.

Egypt turmoil deepens; militants kill 25 policemen.....

Islamic militants on Monday ambushed two mini-buses carrying off-duty policemen in the northern region of Egypt's Sinai Peninsula, killing 25 of them execution-style in a brazen daylight attack that deepens the turmoil roiling the country and underscores the volatility of the strategic region.

Sinai, a strategic region bordering the Gaza Strip and Israel, has been witnessing almost daily attacks since Morsi's ouster — leading many to link the militants there to the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist group from which Morsi hails.

In Monday's attack, the militants forced the two vehicles to stop, ordered the policemen out and forced them to lie on the ground before shooting them, the officials said. The policemen were in civilian clothes, said the officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media. There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the attack, which also left two policemen wounded.

"They think they can end the movement," said Muslim Brotherhood senior member Saad Emara. "The more killings, the more people join us.".....snip~

Egypt turmoil deepens; militants kill 25 policemen


Now if you believe that one.....I got a bridge, its Right down the street where this delusional putz Saad Emara lives. He must have forgot all those pics of Egyptian Civilians going after the MB. Even beating them with sticks and brooms. Then the news reports about the MB in Libya and Syria having trouble. Plus the Saud coming out and condemning the MB as Terrorists.

MMC ,the saudi regime doesnt like the radical brothers because they oppose the monarchical system in saudi arabia

l have to agree with teh radical brothers because it is not allowed in islam

 

[Nynaeve Meara]

No one said Egypt was.....your question was posed towards Dictators and the propping up of one. Which was my answer.

Sure you did, it was implied in several of your posts as somehow Egypt is lesser than say Israel. I heartily disagree with that assessment.

That's what that piece on Reagan talked about. How he brought Egypt into the fold. Which your disagreement with the Historians is on how his ME Policy won him the cold war.

Reagan didn't bring Egypt into the fold in any way. If anything he alienated the country which caused Mubarak to take the money and ignore any and all US influence in the process. Sadat is the one who brought Egypt to the US side and him alone is the reason the USSR had no influence on Egypt in the 80s Reagan had nothing to do with it. That is pure revisionist or US propaganda.

I would disagree with you on faulting the Egyptian Military.....the MB hi-jacked the election in the first place. There is no reason to leave terrorists in power of a Country.

You'll have to prove they hi-jacked the election because a vocal minority are just that a minority. When the government was voted it the only outrage I saw was a few outliers and most of the US because of the irrational fear of anything Arab. Never mind the fact we pay homage to Saudi every year. Which is completely run with Sharia law fyi.

 

[MMC]

[/B]
MMC ,the saudi regime doesnt like the radical brothers because they oppose the monarchical system in saudi arabia

l have to agree with teh radical brothers because it is not allowed in islam

Well.....that's an internal dispute amongst the Sunni themselves. Which doesn't count all those other disputes that the MB is all involved in.

This time it is quite different.....as none want to hear what the MB has to say anymore.

 

[Medusa]

Well.....that's an internal dispute amongst the Sunni themselves. Which doesn't count all those other disputes that the MB is all involved in.

This time it is quite different.....as none want to hear what the MB has to say anymore.

l hope you are right because it seems obama still disagrees with us

 

[MMC]

Sure you did, it was implied in several of your posts as somehow Egypt is lesser than say Israel. I heartily disagree with that assessment.

Reagan didn't bring Egypt into the fold in any way. If anything he alienated the country which caused Mubarak to take the money and ignore any and all US influence in the process. Sadat is the one who brought Egypt to the US side and him alone is the reason the USSR had no influence on Egypt in the 80s Reagan had nothing to do with it. That is pure revisionist or US propaganda.

You'll have to prove they hi-jacked the election because a vocal minority are just that a minority. When the government was voted it the only outrage I saw was a few outliers and most of the US because of the irrational fear of anything Arab. Never mind the fact we pay homage to Saudi every year. Which is completely run with Sharia law fyi.

Not really......here is what you said.

So basically you are saying its alright to prop up dictators regardless of what the local populace wants?

Here is what I said.....

Originally Posted by MMC View Post

No they didn't have Egypt, But the USSR had Iraq, Syria, and since 1902 had been vying with the British over what they Called Central Asia and then Later the ME. Their influence.

If the local Populace is a den of thieves and some cutthroats that are into nothing but chaos and anarchy. Then it may be necessary. So that there is still rule of law......snip~

As you will note there was No inference to Israel at all.....nor that Egypt was lesser than them either.

Again you say Reagan didn't bring Egypt into the fold. I have already shown what the Historians State. So that is neither here nor there.

Well when they don't let women vote and keep certain people from voting for whom they want to vote for. Then making believe that they would follow democracy. I call that hi jacking an election.

What I saw was a bunch of terrorists get upset since they were removed from power. Then go out and take their frustrations out on some unarmed people. Creating anarchy and chaos. Afraid to take on the Egyptian Military.....so they figured they would play bully on others.

Now we are watching the MB fall apart in most ME countries as none want them in their countries creating any more confusion.

But make no mistake.....in my last case scenario. The US or the UN with our help just takes the Sinai. Since there is nothing that the Egyptians or any Arabs can do about it.

 

[Nynaeve Meara]

Not really......here is what you said.

So basically you are saying its alright to prop up dictators regardless of what the local populace wants?

Here is what I said.....

Originally Posted by MMC View Post

No they didn't have Egypt, But the USSR had Iraq, Syria, and since 1902 had been vying with the British over what they Called Central Asia and then Later the ME. Their influence.

If the local Populace is a den of thieves and some cutthroats that are into nothing but chaos and anarchy. Then it may be necessary. So that there is still rule of law......snip~

As you will note there was No inference to Israel at all.....nor that Egypt was lesser than them either.

Sure, that is why you mentioned the cutthroats and thieves right?

Again you say Reagan didn't bring Egypt into the fold. I have already shown what the Historians State. So that is neither here nor there.

I've shown you where you are wrong in several areas with that revisionist history claim. Reagan wasn't President when Egypt was brought into the fold. (IE 1972) So unless you are going to claim Reagan was President in 1972 you'll have to abandon that revisionist ideal.

What I saw was a bunch of terrorists get upset since they were removed from power. Then go out and take their frustrations out on some unarmed people. Creating anarchy and chaos. Afraid to take on the Egyptian Military.....so they figured they would play bully on others.

Your version of terrorists perhaps but they were democratically elected, we just didn't like their government style so we paid the military to remove them. While we officially condemn a military coup we just ignore it if we are financing it. That is what bothers me most about our actions.

 

[MMC]

Sure, that is why you mentioned the cutthroats and thieves right?


I've shown you where you are wrong in several areas with that revisionist history claim. Reagan wasn't President when Egypt was brought into the fold. (IE 1972) So unless you are going to claim Reagan was President in 1972 you'll have to abandon that revisionist ideal.


Your version of terrorists perhaps but they were democratically elected, we just didn't like their government style so we paid the military to remove them. While we officially condemn a military coup we just ignore it if we are financing it. That is what bothers me most about our actions.

I mentioned them since it would be easier to discern rather just trying to explain away lawlessness. Although the cutthroats and thieves Right here in Chicago.....are ten times worse than anything over there. But do try and tell me what I was thinking of.

I never argued that Reagan wasn't President. But according to the link I provided He was responsible for bringing Mubarak into the US alliance. Regardless its a mute point and was used to emphasis his ME policy was what won the Cold War.

My version, the Suadis Version, The Libyans version, The Syrians Version, The Coptic Christians version, The Iraqis version, seems a whole bunch out there know exactly what the terrorists are about. Yes they made sure they got democratically elected. Guess what Kim Jung Il got elected too. So did the President of China. So Did Putin.

This time we didn't pay the military to remove them. This time both Neo Cons and Neo Libs stood together and have spoken out against the Egyptian Military and using Terms such as Egyptian Authorities to restrain themselves.

Now the Saud has spoken.....came out and said they stand with the Egyptian Military over MB. They are terrorists. So now.....we will do what the Saud expects.

 

[Nynaeve Meara]

I mentioned them since it would be easier to discern rather just trying to explain away lawlessness. Although the cutthroats and thieves Right here in Chicago.....are ten times worse than anything over there. But do try and tell me what I was thinking of.

I could think of a lot worse places than Chicago for violence if we are going to start picking anywhere in the world.

I never argued that Reagan wasn't President. But according to the link I provided He was responsible for bringing Mubarak into the US alliance. Regardless its a mute point and was used to emphasis his ME policy was what won the Cold War.

Except he didn't? Mubarak wasn't supposed to be President in the first place which means we had to pay the Egyptian government to appoint him to begin with. Sadat was already a friend to the US and this didn't change after he was assassinated, Egypt never veered from the US alliance path.

My version, the Suadis Version, The Libyans version, The Syrians Version, The Coptic Christians version, The Iraqis version, seems a whole bunch out there know exactly what the terrorists are about. Yes they made sure they got democratically elected. Guess what Kim Jung Il got elected too. So did the President of China. So Did Putin.

This time we didn't pay the military to remove them. This time both Neo Cons and Neo Libs stood together and have spoken out against the Egyptian Military and using Terms such as Egyptian Authorities to restrain themselves.

Now the Saud has spoken.....came out and said they stand with the Egyptian Military over MB. They are terrorists. So now.....we will do what the Saud expects.

That doesn't make it right to support a military coup; that would make us the terrorists regardless of who supports our stance.

 

[MMC]

I could think of a lot worse places than Chicago for violence if we are going to start picking anywhere in the world.


Except he didn't? Mubarak wasn't supposed to be President in the first place which means we had to pay the Egyptian government to appoint him to begin with. Sadat was already a friend to the US and this didn't change after he was assassinated, Egypt never veered from the US alliance path.


That doesn't make it right to support a military coup; that would make us the terrorists regardless of who supports our stance.

I would think you would be more concerned with putting terrorists in power.....and as far as Chicago goes, I doubt any with less of conscience is out there. On a whole scale that is.

 

[Nynaeve Meara]

I would think you would be more concerned with putting terrorists in power.....and as far as Chicago goes, I doubt any with less of conscience is out there. On a whole scale that is.

What terrorists? We are the terrorists in Egypt at the moment and we have been since the 1980s.

If you think Chicago is bad you haven't seen a lot of developing countries; There are much worse areas in the country than Chicago. Chicago is nothing compared to say South Africa; Somalia, Ethiopia, Cambodia, & etc.

 

[donsutherland1]

That doesn't make it right to support a military coup;

I have to disagree. One has to judge each case by its own circumstances. That Egypt's people wanted to be unshackled from a leader who was consolidating power at the expense of his people and his nation's institutions is one argument to support the move. That American interests would best be safeguarded from the change is, at least for the U.S., another good argument. The same can be said with respect to Saudi Arabia. Rational nations do not sacrifice their critical interests in the name of ideals and illusions.

This is ultimately an Egyptian affair. However, the U.S. should not be indifferent when it comes to working to safeguard its interests. In this case, that means it should work with the transitional government and help it develop a framework for political stability. In contrast, its current policy of hesitation is whittling away its capacity to help shape events and opening opportunities for others to exploit the situation for their own benefit.

 

[Nynaeve Meara]

I have to disagree. One has to judge each case by its own circumstances. That Egypt's people wanted to be unshackled from a leader who was consolidating power at the expense of his people and his nation's institutions is one argument to support the move. That American interests would best be safeguarded from the change is, at least for the U.S., another good argument. The same can be said with respect to Saudi Arabia. Rational nations do not sacrifice their critical interests in the name of ideals and illusions.

This is ultimately an Egyptian affair. However, the U.S. should not be indifferent when it comes to working to safeguard its interests. In this case, that means it should work with the transitional government and help it develop a framework for political stability. In contrast, its current policy of hesitation is whittling away its capacity to help shape events and opening opportunities for others to exploit the situation for their own benefit.

"We don't care what you do as long as you benefit us in some way,oh by the way here is some hush hush money" - What a great stance to have for the nation that is supposed to stand for freedom.

This is the same issue England ran into with their colonies, look how that turned out for them.

 

[mbig]

"We don't care what you do as long as you benefit us in some way,oh by the way here is some hush hush money" - What a great stance to have for the nation that is supposed to stand for freedom.

I am very queasy about a Coup overthrowing a legitimately elected govt, despite having as much a problem as anyone on this board with Islam/Islamism.
Seems our Pres feels the same, though he is much more comfy with that unfortunate Religio-Political system.

That said, Every govt does/has always done what's in it's own best interest.
And there Is a difference between engineering an overthrow and condoning one, if not having encouraged it. It MAY be in our interest, and even in Egypt's interest. History will speak on the latter.

This is the same issue England ran into with their colonies, look how that turned out for them.

The colonies, now British Commonwealth, turned out rather well!
I oft think the Arab Middle East would have been better off, as India, with longer tutelage under His/Her Majesties Govt.

"There are no permanent allies, only permanent interests." (this is an oft cited paraphrase of the original quote)
- Lord Palmerston, 1848

Welcome to DP.

 

[DiAnna]

The US wanted democracy in Egypt, but it turned out that the democratically elected gov of the Muslim Brotherhood was not really willing to play by democratic rules. That's why the US toppled that government via the Egypt military, which is in the US pockets (to be exact, 82% in the pockets of the US -- as 82% of the military's budget consists of US military "aid").

My guess is the the US government hopes that once the military has restored order and pushed back the MB, some kind of democracy can emerge. But if that's not possible, the US will rather take another secular, anti-islamist military dictatorship over islamist rule.

So what exactly are people complaining about, when it comes to Obama? When his government allows democracy, they attack him for "supporting islamism", as the MB won the election. When his government topples the islamists, they attack him for "destroying democracy". Seems he can't do right, no matter what he does.

:shock: What????

Is there a shred of evidence that the US was behind the military overthrow of Morsi?? A shred?? Those are dangerous and shocking allegations to make, and if true, could topple Obama's presidency and lead to his impeachment. You are also implying that the US government was behind Egypt's initial revolution against Mubarek. Why on earth would the US do that?? Mubarek was a staunch friend to the west, and the US in particular, yet when it became clear that his iron fist wrapped around the Egyptian people had led to their revolt for democracy, the US supported the people's bid for democracy. The US didn't get involved in Egyptian elections, and although it wasn't happy when the Muslim Brotherhood won, it voiced support for the will of the people.

The US certainly didn't cause Morsi to basically throw out the Egyptian constitution, disband the parliament and grant himself limitless power; Morsi did that himself. It's the Egyptian people that rose up against that blatant power grab, so you stating that the US was behind all of this without producing the evidence is more than a little shocking. I respect you as a poster, so I'm basically asking you why you would make such an allegation, and what evidence prompts you to do so? I sincerely want to know.

 

[Nynaeve Meara]

The colonies, now British Commonwealth, turned out rather well!
I oft think the Arab Middle East would have been better off, as India, with longer tutelage under His/Her Majesties Govt.

You'll have to prove that with some evidence; the colonies were doing terrible under British control that was the whole point of rebelling from the control to begin with. (IE India, US, Ghana, South Africa, etc)

The French were the ones to sort of take control after the Turks were ousted several times in Egypt.

 

[mbig]

You'll have to prove that with some evidence; the colonies were doing terrible under British control that was the whole point of rebelling from the control to begin with. (IE India, US, Ghana, South Africa, etc)

The French were the ones to sort of take control after the Turks were ousted several times in Egypt.

1. You didn't address the rest of my post.
2. Again, the colonies, now British Commonwealth "turned out", (your phrase) very well. I don't need "proof" of that simple truth.
Were there some rebellions/nasties/etc along the way TO "turning out" .. sure.

 

[Nynaeve Meara]

1. You didn't address the rest of my post.
2. Again, the colonies, now British Commonwealth "turned out", (your phrase) very well. I don't need "proof" of that simple truth.
Were there some rebellions/nasties/etc along the way to "turning out" .. sure.

I didn't figure it needed addressing we have different opinions on what the US has done in Egypt; in my view it is completely wrong and follows along a similar line to Afghanistan and we all know how that turned out. I'm willing to agree to disagree.

The commonwealth colonies had several decades of violence against the British before they were successful; calling South Africa successful is a stretch. Ghana is doing better thanks to US support.