Egypt: Islamists hit Christian Churches.....

[mbig]

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.

I think Everyone would Disagree with Your take that it's similar to what we did in Afghanistan!
Mebbe Chimpsky would agree with you though.

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.

Precisely. It "turned out" well, as I said.
With 54 Nations I'm sure one can cite a few problems. But by-and-Large, Ducky.

 

[Nynaeve Meara]

I think Everyone would Disagree with Your take that it's similar to what we did in Afghanistan!
Mebbe Chimpsky would agree with you though.

You are forgetting the US appointing Mubarak as President when he wasn't supposed to be one. That reeks of Afghanistan manipulation.

Precisely. It "turned out" well, as I said.
With 54 Nations I'm sure one can cite a few problems. But by-and-Large, Ducky.

I wouldn't call requiring a revolution as "turning out well", especially ones that last several decades.

 

[German guy]

: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.

Hey, not so fast, I think you're jumping to a few conclusions based on what I wrote. I didn't mean to suggest the situation is as simple as that. Sorry if my wording was misleading.

What's fact is that 82% of the budget of the Egypt military currently consists of US "aid", which means it's totally in the pocket of the US.

United States military aid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And yes, the West was happy with a pro-Western dictatorship. Of course, a pro-Western democracy would have been better, icing on the cake so to speak, but hey, when that's not possible, let's take the former. So of course the West supported Mubarak for all the decades, until it became obvious that a continuation of support would be damaging for Western interests (especially the claim to side with democratic movements and the "Arab spring"). Just like the West supported the democratic development, until anti-Western islamists were elected and made obvious they're not willing to play by democratic rules.

I don't think the Egypt military is a direct puppet of the US, but they certainly didn't take the first opportunity to once again side with the people against Morsi and topple him, without an "okay" from those who fund them. And certainly, the US did not ask them to be as trigger-happy towards the islamists as they now are. But not few in the West were probably relieved to hear that the islamists are removed from power once again, this way or another. So yeah, the condemnation of the harsh treatment of islamist protesters is partly genuine, but I guess priority is the "right" outcome.

And I fail to see what's allegedly so shocking about this kind of Western/US meddling in Middle Eastern affairs and other places in the world? It has been going on for decades, and most past Presidents did much more to meddle and influence than Obama of all people. Has Reagan been impeached for Iran Contra and supporting Saddam against Iran, or for arming the islamists in Afghanistan against the Soviets? Has Bush sr. been impeached for going to war against Saddam? Has Bush jr. been impeached for starting war against Iraq? Has any of the post-WW2 Presidents been impeached for US military aid to Israel and funding for pro-Israeli Arab governments such as Saudi-Arabia? It's simply realpolitik, and certainly not a matter of Dems vs. Reps.

So did the West want Morsi removed, after it had became obvious he's not willing to play by democratic rules? Absolutely.

Only fears are that the situation, due to the harsh treatment against the islamists, may become unstable (a stable pro-Western tyranny is better than chaos in any shape), and certainly the Western leaders would have appreciated if the military had somehow involved the islamists peacefully, because they're a strong factor. Also, I don't say humanitarian concerns are always not genuine from the side of the West, so I guess the West would have appreciated a less violent overthrow of the islamists.

But on the bottom line, as long as pro-Western people are in power in the end, nobody will shed any tears.

 

[DiAnna]

Hey, not so fast, I think you're jumping to a few conclusions based on what I wrote. I didn't mean to suggest the situation is as simple as that. Sorry if my wording was misleading.

What's fact is that 82% of the budget of the Egypt military currently consists of US "aid", which means it's totally in the pocket of the US.

United States military aid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And yes, the West was happy with a pro-Western dictatorship. Of course, a pro-Western democracy would have been better, icing on the cake so to speak, but hey, when that's not possible, let's take the former. So of course the West supported Mubarak for all the decades, until it became obvious that a continuation of support would be damaging for Western interests (especially the claim to side with democratic movements and the "Arab spring"). Just like the West supported the democratic development, until anti-Western islamists were elected and made obvious they're not willing to play by democratic rules.

I don't think the Egypt military is a direct puppet of the US, but they certainly didn't take the first opportunity to once again side with the people against Morsi and topple him, without an "okay" from those who fund them. And certainly, the US did not ask them to be as trigger-happy towards the islamists as they now are. But not few in the West were probably relieved to hear that the islamists are removed from power once again, this way or another. So yeah, the condemnation of the harsh treatment of islamist protesters is partly genuine, but I guess priority is the "right" outcome.

And I fail to see what's allegedly so shocking about this kind of Western/US meddling in Middle Eastern affairs and other places in the world? It has been going on for decades, and most past Presidents did much more to meddle and influence than Obama of all people. Has Reagan been impeached for Iran Contra and supporting Saddam against Iran, or for arming the islamists in Afghanistan against the Soviets? Has Bush sr. been impeached for going to war against Saddam? Has Bush jr. been impeached for starting war against Iraq? Has any of the post-WW2 Presidents been impeached for US military aid to Israel and funding for pro-Israeli Arab governments such as Saudi-Arabia? It's simply realpolitik, and certainly not a matter of Dems vs. Reps.

So did the West want Morsi removed, after it had became obvious he's not willing to play by democratic rules? Absolutely.

Only fears are that the situation, due to the harsh treatment against the islamists, may become unstable (a stable pro-Western tyranny is better than chaos in any shape), and certainly the Western leaders would have appreciated if the military had somehow involved the islamists peacefully, because they're a strong factor. Also, I don't say humanitarian concerns are always not genuine from the side of the West, so I guess the West would have appreciated a less violent overthrow of the islamists.

But on the bottom line, as long as pro-Western people are in power in the end, nobody will shed any tears.

I don't disagree with anything you have written here. Clearly I misunderstood your first post. I apologize for that and very much appreciate your articulate and thoughtful clarification. Thanks!