Rather than support a SECULAR, PRO-DEMOCRACY movement in Egypt, the U.S. continues to back the dynastic regime of Mubarak. In short, the U.S. talks alot of gak about supporting democracy but when the rubber hits the road that's all it is.

olympia wrote:Rather than support a SECULAR, PRO-DEMOCRACY movement in Egypt, the U.S. continues to back the dynastic regime of Mubarak. In short, the U.S. talks alot of gak about supporting democracy but when the rubber hits the road that's all it is.

I'm sure it is that simple. You should apply at the State Department.

Wait, should the US be telling the rest of the world how to run their countries or shouldn't they?

The inconsistency is confusing to me.

Ahtman wrote:

olympia wrote:Rather than support a SECULAR, PRO-DEMOCRACY movement in Egypt, the U.S. continues to back the dynastic regime of Mubarak. In short, the U.S. talks alot of gak about supporting democracy but when the rubber hits the road that's all it is.

I'm sure it is that simple. You should apply at the State Department.

Low blow.

Anywho, Hillary Clinton has gone on record to say, "Hey, we support the democratic process (freedom, human rights, ect.) in other countries, but in this case, we are taking a wait and see approach/Egypt can handle it."

http://bikyamasr.com/wordpress/?p=24670

The US is supporting the government of a major ally in a region which is currently one of the most politically important on earth. How surprising.

whatwhat wrote:The US is supporting the government of a major ally in a region which is currently one of the most politically important on earth. How surprising.

To be honest the US as a whole still has some Cold War~esque policies of supporting its allies, even if its allies aren't necessarily all picture perfect democracys. Case in point, this or better yet Saudi Arabia. In all honesty, I see this as a good thing as it shows that we're moving past our 'Our form of government is the best and everyone MUST HAVE IT OR ELSE!', and are accepting that just because we're the biggest baddest player on the block doesn't mean everything has to be shaped to waht we please.

Monster Rain wrote:Wait, should the US be telling the rest of the world how to run their countries or shouldn't they?

The inconsistency is confusing to me.

I agree, why don't you guys get China or Russia to help you out.

Besides what do you want us to do, send troops to Egypt? We already have two war efforts going on in Afghanistan and Iraq, we're suffering an economic depression, and the world is already angry at us.

Why can't England, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, China, or Spain do something about it?

I'm sure they're secretly funding future terrori... erm... current day freedom fighters as we sit here and type.

Isn't that what they usually do?

I think people need to step back and realise just how important Egypt is to the west at the moment. Even if you need to read this wikipedia page to realise it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Egypt

I wasn't saying anything about why its important(Suez Canal) or trying to say it isn't important. All I was saying is that people need to back off of america, we do promote democracies and then get hit with criticism then we don't do something and we get hit with criticism.

I for one am tired of it.

I wasn't directing my comment at you particularly. And the suez canal is only a small part of why Egypt is important to the west. It's the second strongest power in the middle east after Israel.

Whatsmore you appear to have made this argument into the US vs everyone else (going by your "you guys" comment). Not realising that the people you are responding to are American themselves.

I realize that, but I was just trying to defend my points just in case.

As far as those two being the powers of the middle east I agree whole heartedly and a state of anarchy and upheavel would be incredibly detrimental to any efforts of peace we may make in that region.

halonachos wrote:I realize that, but I was just trying to defend my points just in case.

As far as those two being the powers of the middle east I agree whole heartedly and a state of anarchy and upheavel would be incredibly detrimental to any efforts of peace we may make in that region.

It's unfortunate that the political situation in Egypt is what it is. They're too vital to simply cast off as crack pot dictators, as hypocritical as that is. They're the keystone to the relations in the Arab world.

Ahtman wrote:

olympia wrote:Rather than support a SECULAR, PRO-DEMOCRACY movement in Egypt, the U.S. continues to back the dynastic regime of Mubarak. In short, the U.S. talks alot of gak about supporting democracy but when the rubber hits the road that's all it is.

I'm sure it is that simple. You should apply at the State Department.

You forgot the required "its George Bush's fault!" (alternatively "Its Barack Obama's fault!")

The main reason I believe is because the people who stand ready to sweep into power happen to be hard-line Islam leaders who are extremely anti-USA.

The a**hole that loves you for your money is better than the a**hole who just simply hates you.


Also the protestors have special place in my heart because seeing things burn and people rioting makes the news worth watching.

Also the media doesn’t focus on dip**it politicians when they have a good civil uprising story to sink their teeth into.

olympia wrote:Rather than support a SECULAR, PRO-DEMOCRACY movement in Egypt, the U.S. continues to back the dynastic regime of Mubarak. In short, the U.S. talks alot of gak about supporting democracy but when the rubber hits the road that's all it is.

Its secular in the sense that a lot of the protesters are not behaving in an overtly religious manner.

However, the single largest chunk of the opposition movement is the Muslim Brotherhood. A group that is a massive reason behind US support for Mubarak.

So, yeah, its correct to say that the protest movement is secular. However, its also misleading because large chunks of it are definitively organized according to explicitly religious principles.

Of course, the Muslim Brotherhood has long since adopted a platform based on Democratic reform, so that may not matter, but it does explain US caution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:
I agree, why don't you guys get China or Russia to help you out.

Because neither China, nor Russia fund Mubarak's regime?

halonachos wrote:
Besides what do you want us to do, send troops to Egypt?

Probably stop funding Mubarak, while censuring him in public, and ending our cooperative military agreements. There's a lot more to international relations than military action.

halonachos wrote:
Why can't England, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, China, or Spain do something about it?

See above. They have no reason to care, but we, apparently, do.

halonachos wrote:I wasn't saying anything about why its important(Suez Canal) or trying to say it isn't important. All I was saying is that people need to back off of america, we do promote democracies and then get hit with criticism then we don't do something and we get hit with criticism.

I for one am tired of it.

The USA promotes/supports democracies like Iraq and also repressive autocratic regimes like Saudi Arabia.

I make no comment on whether this is right or wrong.

You should recognise the facts, though.

The US supports stability. Who is in power is often not that relevant.

I blame FDR. If we hadn't beaten the Germans this wouldn't be an issue.

Frazzled wrote:The US supports stability. Who is in power is often not that relevant.

Nah, who is in power is almost always more relevant than stability.

For instance, we don't want stability in Iran specifically because we don't like the present regime. Similarly, we don't care about stability in Libya, because Qaddafi is benign from our perspective. However, we want stability in Saudi Arabia because the Saud family is sympathetic to US interests. We also want stability in Egypt because instability opens the possibility that a group that we have labeled as hostile will assume power, very likely by force; which is quite bad considering I can't think of very many armed insurrections (in non-colonial territories) that have lead to democratic governance.

In any case, if we were really interested in stability above all else, Iraq would still be a Bat'athist state.

I believe it is safe to say that America looks out for its own interests.

However, how much influence do you think the Americans would have in the riots that are going on right now?

If the USA came out publicly to say that Mubarak is a evil old slag, and the US supports the heroic struggle of the Egyptian people for self-determination, and will give the country $10 billion to run elections under the auspices of the UN, then I think it might have quite a bit of useful influence.

Stability is so rare a commodity in that part of the world that sometimes when a place has it, taking a chance on losing it just seems like to large a risk.

Right, wrong, something in the middle? I don't know but there you go for why the US government isn't cheering for fair open elections there.

WarOne wrote:
However, how much influence do you think the Americans would have in the riots that are going on right now?

Its hard to say, a big part of the reason Mubarak is so hated is that he is seen (correctly) as a US pawn, so its hard to imagine how the US could easily support the protesters; short of cutting support for the current regime. After all, dictators have a way of reaching compromise when they see no other option, unless they see their own blood in the water, when they tend to run. If the latter occurs, he'll run for the US, and we'll probably grant him asylum; severely damaging our future relationship with Egypt, and likely pushing them towards Islamism (not necessarily a bad thing).

That said, all movements have people that can be bought, and there are those that suggest US support is actually a sort of cancer in the sense that large swathes of the planet view us (correctly) as self-interested and manipulative. So, if we buy a few key people in the opposition, we might get the whole movement to turn in on itself.

Long story short, our best option is basically to proceed as normal, offering nor greater aid to Mubarak, and no less. I mean, after all, we don't really know if this protest movement is interested in democracy, all we really know is that they want Mubarak out. Parts of the movement want democracy, sure, but that doesn't mean they all want it, or that they'll get it.

I thought the US had a long tradition of propping up autocrats, dictators and puppet democracies as long as it is in the US government's benefit?

Not to be anti-US here but why shouldn't they support Mubarak? Why risk destabilising a country for the hell of it?

filbert wrote:I thought the US had a long tradition of propping up autocrats, dictators and puppet democracies as long as it is in the US government's benefit?

Absolutely, the whole "democracy is good" thing is a recent invention in terms of implemented policy. Before that it was all about "capitalism is good", which explains a lot about South America during the Cold War.

I've had ten pints so ill merely say .....

feth em

Mubarak has just asked his cabinet to resign

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/28/clashes-erupt-in-cairo-elbaradei-told-to-stay-put-cnn-camera-confiscated/?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/The-day-part-of-the-Internet-apf-1092937415.html?x=0

Did you guys see this?

Egypt is getting really weird all of a sudden.

All of a sudden?!

Heh.

Would "more weird than usual" have been more accurate?

olympia wrote:Rather than support a SECULAR, PRO-DEMOCRACY movement in Egypt, the U.S. continues to back the dynastic regime of Mubarak. In short, the U.S. talks alot of gak about supporting democracy but when the rubber hits the road that's all it is.

It's only secular if you aren't paying any attention to the key players in Egypt. Much like with the Shah in Iran, there is a very hardcore group of fanatics in Egypt and if you don't think they're forming the core of these "pro-democracy" riots, well, you got another thing coming.

mattyrm wrote:I've had ten pints so ill merely say .....

So you wake up, have breakfast, then post?

Kilkrazy wrote:

halonachos wrote:I wasn't saying anything about why its important(Suez Canal) or trying to say it isn't important. All I was saying is that people need to back off of america, we do promote democracies and then get hit with criticism then we don't do something and we get hit with criticism.

I for one am tired of it.

The USA promotes/supports democracies like Iraq and also repressive autocratic regimes like Saudi Arabia.

I make no comment on whether this is right or wrong.

You should recognise the facts, though.

I do recognise the facts and the fact is we still receive a lot of criticism no matter what we do. But its not like we're any different from any other country in terms of that aspect.

I also agree with previous statements about who would replace the current government figures. Hell even Churchill didn't want Stalin assassinated because he was afraid of what would replace him.

I do think suspending INternet access is going a bit far though...

I heard about that and I am wondering why they shut it down. They might shut down phone service at some point if things get worse in an attempt to stop communication about protests and rallies.

With luck Mubarak will get thrown on his ass and killed, or will flee to Saudi Arabia allowing a pro democratic reform movement to take hold that is wary of the muslim brotherhood which has been fairly sidelined in the largescale protests so far. I don't value our governments tainted support of a repressive undemocratic regime that we don't actually need for much other then a place to put some planes and send people for torture.

ShumaGorath wrote:I don't value our governments tainted support of a repressive undemocratic regime that we don't actually need for much other then a place to put some planes and send people for torture.

That's a pretty naive comment.

whatwhat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I don't value our governments tainted support of a repressive undemocratic regime that we don't actually need for much other then a place to put some planes and send people for torture.

That's a pretty naive comment.

Not particularly. I understand its implications, I just don't care about them. Theres realpolitik and theres idealism, I live in the grey area. Egypt's efforts for peace between israel and palestine are utterly meaningless, and it's military institutions are likely to remain fairly unchanged through a governmental transition so it's only other meaningful function as local pro American counterterrorism operation will likely remain somewhat unblemished.

Indeed it is, I admit I have a very realist view of international relations (the type of view championed by Machiavelli and Hobbes), and I have to admit....Egypt is much more important than that. It is a key US ally in the region, and one that has the beautiful resource of stability. Right now, the anti-government protesters are unified in their hatred of the government, but once they achieve that goal? Well who knows what'll happen then? We know that they have different factions, and there's a fair chance that some of those factions may want to take control for themselves. If the government of Egypt falls, we could see what was once a nice stable state collapse from that, and to be honest....that will just lead to probably a worse situation than the one we're in now.

So what's better, sticking to some high and mighty ideals, or keeping some stability in a very volatile region? Me? I'm willing to say 'screw ideals, let's go the path that means less chaos'.

I bet if the US did any stronger intervention you'd see a thread here where people bitched that the US is being too interventionist.

Melissia wrote:I bet if the US did any stronger intervention you'd see a thread here where people bitched that the US is being too interventionist.

It's hard to get more interventionist at this point, I mean, I guess we could invade a third country in the mideast, it's not like our citizens could find this one on a map either.

ShumaGorath wrote:It's hard to get more interventionist at this point

Live in hyperbole much?

ChrisWWII wrote:Indeed it is, I admit I have a very realist view of international relations (the type of view championed by Machiavelli and Hobbes), and I have to admit....Egypt is much more important than that. It is a key US ally in the region, and one that has the beautiful resource of stability. Right now, the anti-government protesters are unified in their hatred of the government, but once they achieve that goal? Well who knows what'll happen then? We know that they have different factions, and there's a fair chance that some of those factions may want to take control for themselves. If the government of Egypt falls, we could see what was once a nice stable state collapse from that, and to be honest....that will just lead to probably a worse situation than the one we're in now.

So what's better, sticking to some high and mighty ideals, or keeping some stability in a very volatile region? Me? I'm willing to say 'screw ideals, let's go the path that means less chaos'.

Were you for the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:It's hard to get more interventionist at this point

Live in hyperbole much?

It was a joke, it's pretty clear that we actually could invade several more countries. We could sell another few billion worth of weapons to authoritarian undemocratic regimes. We could continue to implicitly and financially support a repressive and land grabbing ethnic group and simply stop censuring them when they continuously violate human rights. Hell, we could just seize pakistans nukes and airstrike Iran until it loses the ability to ever try make them again.

That said though, it's hard to argue that were not being ludicrously interventionist when we're spending roughly 25% of the planets military budget on reshaping the mideast to our preferences.

One key thing that you need to understand is that a big reason the US's military budget is so high is because the US is literally paying to defend way more than itself. It's the reason Europe gets away with such a low military budget per nation, and probably why Japan, South Korea, Germany and Taiwan don't have nukes. They know that the US will defend them, and the US is PAYING to defend them. That really is a very, very important reason when you start crying that the US is spending so much money on 'national defense'.

ShumaGorath wrote:That said though, it's hard to argue that were not being ludicrously interventionist when we're spending roughly 25% of the planets military budget on reshaping the mideast to our preferences.

I don't really have a problem with that.

I kind of like spreading progress around.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:I bet if the US did any stronger intervention you'd see a thread here where people bitched that the US is being too interventionist.

QFT.

ChrisWWII wrote:Attacking the PRC to try and 'liberate' its population.

Your point aside. Why did you put 'liberate' in quotes in that sentence?

I don't really have a problem with that.

I kind of like spreading progress around.

Progress like the kind in Iraq where we've replaced a corrupt but stable authoritarian regime with a massive ethno sectarian conflict, utterly corrupt and unqualified power grabbing tribal chiefs and US puppets, and a massive recruitment network for extremist Shia and Sunni militants?

Or the kind in afghanistan where we've replaced taliban rule and dysfunctional and non existant state government with taliban rule and a dysfunctional and repressive state government that has good odds of collapsing when we leave putting them right back to square 1 + several billion in missing development aid?

Or hey the kind in Iran where the government cracked down on democratic protests, is continuing to fund a nuclear programme, and now has defacto control over elements within the Iraqi parliament?

What about Israel, which when it's not shooting people on aid ships is killing hundreds of children to stop rockets that have killed all of what? 16 people in the last decade?

How about yemen, AKA afghanistan 2? Or sudan, AKA afghanistan 3 but with pirates?

All our money sure is going to some great progress.

ShumaGorath wrote: it's not like our citizens could find this one on a map either.

But you are a citizen and you could find it, but our citizens couldn't find it on a map, but you are a citizen and you could. This is very confusing, why do you think so little of you self?

Ahtman wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote: it's not like our citizens could find this one on a map either.

But you are a citizen and you could find it, but our citizens couldn't find it on a map, but you are a citizen and you could. This is very confusing, why do you think so little of you self?

Egypt is the one shaped like a boot right?

whatwhat wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:Attacking the PRC to try and 'liberate' its population.

Your point aside. Why did you put 'liberate' in quotes in that sentence?

A result of me typing and beginning to have my mind detiorate lsightly thanks to it being 2 in the morning over here.

whatwhat wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:Attacking the PRC to try and 'liberate' its population.

Your point aside. Why did you put 'liberate' in quotes in that sentence?

Probably because removing governance does not remove oppression, and more often then not accelerates it. The removal or oppression or foreign influence being important to the concept of liberation.

ChrisWWII wrote:

whatwhat wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:Attacking the PRC to try and 'liberate' its population.

Your point aside. Why did you put 'liberate' in quotes in that sentence?

A result of me typing and beginning to have my mind detiorate lsightly thanks to it being 2 in the morning over here.

I see. I thought it may have had something to do with your political views on the PRC. Nevermind.

ShumaGorath wrote:

whatwhat wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:Attacking the PRC to try and 'liberate' its population.

Your point aside. Why did you put 'liberate' in quotes in that sentence?

Probably because removing governance does not remove oppression, and more often then not accelerates it. The removal or oppression or foreign influence being important to the concept of liberation.

Do you answer for all people or just ChrisWWII?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote: it's not like our citizens could find this one on a map either.

But you are a citizen and you could find it, but our citizens couldn't find it on a map, but you are a citizen and you could. This is very confusing, why do you think so little of you self?

Egypt is the one shaped like a boot right?

I thought it was that island off the coast of Germany.

As far as my political view on the PRC go, I view the PRC as just as valid a form of government as other governments around the world. I don't view there people as being opressed anymore than I view myself as being opressed. In fact, I have a form of respect for the PRC since things actually get done with a more dictatorial form of government. All bets are off as to whether or not those things are good, but at least something is getting done.

whatwhat wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:

whatwhat wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:Attacking the PRC to try and 'liberate' its population.

Your point aside. Why did you put 'liberate' in quotes in that sentence?

A result of me typing and beginning to have my mind detiorate lsightly thanks to it being 2 in the morning over here.

I see. I thought it may have had something to do with your political views on the PRC. Nevermind.

ShumaGorath wrote:

whatwhat wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:Attacking the PRC to try and 'liberate' its population.

Your point aside. Why did you put 'liberate' in quotes in that sentence?

Probably because removing governance does not remove oppression, and more often then not accelerates it. The removal or oppression or foreign influence being important to the concept of liberation.

Do you answer for all people or just ChrisWWII?

Only ChrisWWII.

ShumaGorath wrote:

whatwhat wrote:Do you answer for all people or just ChrisWWII?

Only ChrisWWII.

Then I shall insist my religious friends pray for his soul.

ChrisWWII wrote:As far as my political view on the PRC go, I view the PRC as just as valid a form of government as other governments around the world. I don't view there people as being opressed anymore than I view myself as being opressed. In fact, I have a form of respect for the PRC since things actually get done with a more dictatorial form of government. All bets are off as to whether or not those things are good, but at least something is getting done.

This is a whole different subject but that view would explain the quotation marks if they were intended. I wont get into it and derail this thread, but I will say I disagree with your views. The chinese government is one of the most oppressive on earth.

And I welcome your disagreement, and applaud you for your decisions to not derail the topic. I will point out that Shuma's statement is not actually representative of my beliefs, and I firmly disagree that liberation is merely the removal of foreign influences from a nation.

ShumaGorath wrote:All our money sure is going to some great progress.

It's worth a shot.

ChrisWWII wrote:And I welcome your disagreement, and applaud you for your decisions to not derail the topic. I will point out that Shuma's statement is not actually representative of my beliefs, and I firmly disagree that liberation is merely the removal of foreign influences from a nation.

I also used the term opression.

–verb (used with object), -at·ed, -at·ing.
1.
to set free, as from imprisonment or bondage.
2.
to free (a nation or area) from control by a foreign or oppressive government.
3.
to free (a group or individual) from social or economic constraints or discrimination, esp. arising from traditional role expectations or bias.
4.
to disengage; set free from combination, as a gas.
5.
Slang . to steal or take over illegally: The soldiers liberated a consignment of cigarettes.

It has a few meanings, but I'm sure you were both aware of that.

This is a whole different subject but that view would explain the quotation marks if they were intended. I wont get into it and derail this thread, but I will say I disagree with your views. The chinese government is one of the most oppressive on earth.

On what scale?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:All our money sure is going to some great progress.

It's worth a shot.

Don't ever go to vegas.

Monster Rain wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:All our money sure is going to some great progress.

It's worth a shot.

So this is our money shot?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Whatwhat wrote:This is a whole different subject but that view would explain the quotation marks if they were intended. I wont get into it and derail this thread, but I will say I disagree with your views. The chinese government is one of the most oppressive on earth.

On what scale?

Well denying relegious freedom, basic human rights and worst of all knowledge of their true circumstances to over a billion people. That's just a start. But as I said, it's not an issue for this thread.

whatwhat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Whatwhat wrote:This is a whole different subject but that view would explain the quotation marks if they were intended. I wont get into it and derail this thread, but I will say I disagree with your views. The chinese government is one of the most oppressive on earth.

On what scale?

Well denying relegious freedom, basic human rights and worst of all knowledge of their true circumstances to over a billion people. That's just a start. But as I said, it's not an issue for this thread.

I asked for a scale, a relative indicator of actual oppressiveness as compared to other states and populations. Not a laundry list of what you don't like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

Take it for what you will. China scores pretty low.

ChrisWWII wrote:...the type of view championed by Machiavelli and Hobbes...

You know that The Prince was almost certainly a satire, right? If you read the rest of Machiavelli's work, before and after The Prince, its pretty clear that he was a champion of the free republic.

ChrisWWII wrote:
....Egypt is much more important than that. It is a key US ally in the region, and one that has the beautiful resource of stability.

Egypt hasn't been stable for a very long time. Its just that there are now riots in the streets, so people pay more attention.

ChrisWWII wrote:
If the government of Egypt falls, we could see what was once a nice stable state collapse from that, and to be honest....that will just lead to probably a worse situation than the one we're in now.

Nah, states that have had working governments for a long period of time don't tend to get worse very often. What replaces the current regime might be less friendly to the US and Israel, but its unlikely to be worse than Mubarak from the perspective of the average Egyptian.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisWWII wrote:One key thing that you need to understand is that a big reason the US's military budget is so high is because the US is literally paying to defend way more than itself. It's the reason Europe gets away with such a low military budget per nation, and probably why Japan, South Korea, Germany and Taiwan don't have nukes. They know that the US will defend them, and the US is PAYING to defend them. That really is a very, very important reason when you start crying that the US is spending so much money on 'national defense'.

No, you're reasoning backwards. While countries like Germany spend far less of their GDP on the military, they still spend more than almost every nation in the world.

List of countries by gross military expenditures:
USA
China
UK
France
Russia
Germany
Japan
Saudi Arabia
Italy
India

Amaya wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

Take it for what you will. China scores pretty low.

I wonder who is behind this study.

dogma wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:...the type of view championed by Machiavelli and Hobbes...

You know that The Prince was almost certainly a satire, right? If you read the rest of Machiavelli's work, before and after The Prince, its pretty clear that he was a champion of the free republic.

Really? I haven't read any of his works, and just heard or glanced a few of his quotes. I always assumed he was a cold-hearted bastard.

ChrisWWII wrote:
....Egypt is much more important than that. It is a key US ally in the region, and one that has the beautiful resource of stability.

Egypt hasn't been stable for a very long time. Its just that there are now riots in the streets, so people pay more attention.

ChrisWWII wrote:
If the government of Egypt falls, we could see what was once a nice stable state collapse from that, and to be honest....that will just lead to probably a worse situation than the one we're in now.

Nah, states that have had working governments for a long period of time don't tend to get worse very often. What replaces the current regime might be less friendly to the US and Israel, but its unlikely to be worse than Mubarak from the perspective of the average Egyptian.

It's not like many posters here might actually care what the average Egyptian wants. In fact I'm sure a fair few still think of them as 'the enemy'.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
I wonder who is behind this study.

The Economist Group, via The Economist Intelligence Unit. Its a bit more precise than Freedom House, but hat also makes it more arbitrary; despite a clear, point-based method.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
Really? I haven't read any of his works, and just heard or glanced a few of his quotes. I always assumed he was a cold-hearted bastard.

At the very least, he was not an advocate of a particular position, but the sort of person that extrapolated best practices from a set of conditions. Hence he published Discourses on Livy, and The Prince.

dogma wrote:You know that The Prince was almost certainly a satire, right? If you read the rest of Machiavelli's work, before and after The Prince, its pretty clearw that he was a champion of the free republic.

Oh I know full well Machiavelli was basically saying 'SCREW YOU, YOU SONS OF B***HES' when he wrote the Prince, but it doesn't make the ideas that he put down in it any less valid. Johnathan Swift was being satirical with A Modest Proposal but that doesn't make the point that using part of an overpopulated areas population to feed the other parts is not a grisly, but potentially effective method. Saying that realism was championed by the likes of Hobbes and Machiavelli is just the easisest and quickest way I could thinkin of to explain what realism is to a group of laypeople as far as the study of international relations goes. I could start talking like I was writing an essay for an IR module, but this method is a bit easier.

Egypt hasn't been stable for a very long time. Its just that there are now riots in the streets, so people pay more attention.

True, but the country had been stable enough to allow for lots of economic development in the past decade or so. Even if the average civillian is under heavy watch, I'd call a nation with a booming economy stable.

Nah, states that have had working governments for a long period of time don't tend to get worse very often. What replaces the current regime might be less friendly to the US and Israel, but its unlikely to be worse than Mubarak from the perspective of the average Egyptian.

While it's true that long functioning states tend to not get worst, I'd like to point out that mainly applies to states that have a very well defined set of rules that they live by. E.g. If the President of the US is killed, we know immediately who will take his place. However, in Egypt, if the government falls we don't know who will take charge there, and if it will at all be a peaceful transition. The multiple groups opposed to the current regime are still unified in calling for democracy, but we know that there are major factions within the movement, and the Muslim Brotherhood is a major player in the anti-government movement.

No, you're reasoning backwards. While countries like Germany spend far less of their GDP on the military, they still spend more than almost every nation in the world.

The list of nations by military expenditures doesn't really disprove my point, as I wasn't saying that they spent less than other nations, but saying that they spend less than they would be without US assistance either directly, or indirectly. If we consider both actual monetary value AND Spending as a Percent of GDP. If we look at spending as a percentage of GDP, then the top spenders in the world are:

1-Eritrea: 20.9%
2-Georgia: 8.5%
3-Saudia Arabia: 8.2%
4-Oman: 7.7%
5-Israel: 7%
6-Chad: 6.6%
7-Jordan: 5.9%
8-UAE: 5.9%
9-Iraq: 5.4%
10-Sudan: 4.4%

11-USA
36-South Korea
42-UK

As you can see, when we look instead of just raw money spent, at what percent of its economy a nation is dedicating to its military we notice a different pattern. Not as many of the nations here are US allies at all, and those nations th
at are US allies are spending far less of their economy on their military as a fair chunk of the world. And even if we change it around and look again at raw spending....

1-USA: $663,255,000,000
2-China: $98,800,000,000
3-UK: $69,271,000,000
4-France: $67,316,000,000
5-Russia: $61,000,000,000
6-Germany: $48,022,000,000
7-Japan: $46,859,000,000
8-Saudi Arabia: $39,257,000,000
9-Italy: $37,427,000,000
10-India: $36,600,000,000

Even here we see a MASSIVE gap in spending between the US and its allies. Once again, the obvious reason is because the US has taken alot of the burden for defending its allied nations away from those states and onto itself.

ChrisWWII wrote: Once again, the obvious reason is because the US has taken alot of the burden for defending its allied nations away from those states and onto itself.

I don't understand how you've come to this conclusion.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote: Once again, the obvious reason is because the US has taken alot of the burden for defending its allied nations away from those states and onto itself.

I don't understand how you've come to this conclusion.

Seconded.


We Germans do not consider the US defending us.
Nor do we imagine any other of the Europeans doing it.
The money spent on the military is cut back like many other investments today.

Then the 57,000 US Military personnell (more than the US military personell in Iraq mind you) in Germany are doing nothing but twiddling their thumbs? Just because the population of a nation doesn't consider something as true, doesn't mean the government doesn't know it. You may not see the US as defending your nation, but the government knows that the US has enough troops in Germany to fight a small war, and if Germany were ever to be atacked, the United States would indeed defend her ally. The same goes for Australia. The governments of the Western World KNOW they have the US military shield and nuclear umbrella to fall back upon. Hell, the nuclear umbrella was created for the expressed purpose of limiting nuclear proliferation by telling US allied states 'You don't need your own nukes, if you're attacked with nukes, we will use our nukes to defend you.'

I do have to ask ChrisWWII; how do you view the United States as a whole? I'd like to see a bit further back in your reasoning. It's not too often we get a British (national?) come on Dakka and defend America more forcefully than a few other American posters.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I wonder who is behind this study.

The same guys behind this:

http://www.economist.com/

....Stupid little country flag. I often forget to say that I'm not British. I'm American, and I'm going to Uni out her in Scotland, so my point of view is an American one, not a British one.

I find it very interesting how they have shut off the internet, and will continue to study the situation closely. This is a relatively new development with regards to a form of information warfare, and as someone currently compiling a dissertation on cyber-warfare, highly relevant.

ChrisWWII wrote:
Oh I know full well Machiavelli was basically saying 'SCREW YOU, YOU SONS OF B***HES' when he wrote the Prince, but it doesn't make the ideas that he put down in it any less valid.

Maybe not, but it does require extra justification; which is why you get Hobbes, Morgenthau, and Waltz. All wrong, of course; there isn't very much anarchy anywhere, let alone in the international system.

ChrisWWII wrote:
Johnathan Swift was being satirical with A Modest Proposal but that doesn't make the point that using part of an overpopulated areas population to feed the other parts is not a grisly, but potentially effective method.

That wasn't his point at all. In fact, that's the opposite of his point. Swift was a populist.

ChrisWWII wrote:
Saying that realism was championed by the likes of Hobbes and Machiavelli is just the easisest and quickest way I could thinkin of to explain what realism is to a group of laypeople as far as the study of international relations goes.

Thing is, neither of those guys had anything to do with international relations. The closest is Machiavelli, and he spoke of states, not nations. You want to look at Morgenthau, Waltz, and maybe Riker.

ChrisWWII wrote:
I could start talking like I was writing an essay for an IR module, but this method is a bit easier.

Funny thing is that I'm working at my PhD in IR/Poli Sci.

ChrisWWII wrote:
True, but the country had been stable enough to allow for lots of economic development in the past decade or so. Even if the average civillian is under heavy watch, I'd call a nation with a booming economy stable.

So, since Afghanistan has ~twice the GDP growth rate of Egypt are they ~twice as stable?

ChrisWWII wrote:
While it's true that long functioning states tend to not get worst, I'd like to point out that mainly applies to states that have a very well defined set of rules that they live by. E.g. If the President of the US is killed, we know immediately who will take his place.

No, that's not true at all. Mexico is a great example, so are most Caribbean states.

ChrisWWII wrote:
However, in Egypt, if the government falls we don't know who will take charge there, and if it will at all be a peaceful transition.

No one ever knows who will take charge, we just guess, even in the US.

ChrisWWII wrote:
Your last point.

You're begging the question. There is a massive gap between the US, and its allies, but it has nothing to do with collective defense. Note that all major Western European allies of the US have among the highest gross defense expenditures.

That's alright though, I'm sure that Georgia, with its 8.5% GDP military budget is a huge threat.

ChrisWWII wrote:Then the 57,000 US Military personnell (more than the US military personell in Iraq mind you) in Germany are doing nothing but twiddling their thumbs?

What else should they do?
Oppress the natives?

Yes, there was a reason to be at a certain border.
Now, its just a junction, a recreation area, a hospital. Just wait until these bases are moved.

ChrisWWII wrote:
Just because the population of a nation doesn't consider something as true, doesn't mean the government doesn't know it. You may not see the US as defending your nation, but the government knows that the US has enough troops in Germany to fight a small war, and if Germany were ever to be attacked, the United States would indeed defend her ally.

The Government is interested in a european security policy that may or may not include America.
Actually, the defense of our own territory is irrelevant as the "war on terror" needs to be adressed and the military is transformed into a malfunctioning mess.
Your point on 6-Germany: $48,022,000,000 is fine, until you see what we get for these funds.

The US will surely defend its interests. Those do not have to be identical with those of the locals.
A "tactical withdrawal" and nuking the advancing opponent isn't unlikely....

ChrisWWII wrote:'You don't need your own nukes, if you're attacked with nukes, we will use our nukes to defend you.'

Some nations are not willing to have nukes at all.
Maybe the offer made the decision easier, but I doubt many europeans believe in WMD as a solution.
Except la France and Britannia... who keep their own.

Let us not forget South Africa, that gave their domestically developed weapons up.

dogma wrote:
Maybe not, but it does require extra justification; which is why you get Hobbes, Morgenthau, and Waltz. All wrong, of course; there isn't very much anarchy anywhere, let alone in the international system.

Oh joy...I think we're on exact opposite ends of the as far as things go with IR. I personally style myself as a Hobbes Was Right realist. Human beings by nature will be in constant warfare, and it is only through the Leviathan that order can be maintained, and human life can move away from being nasty, brutish and short. I personally take this view and apply it to the international sphere as each 'state' acting like an individual human being, and will try to get its own interests at the expense of others. Out of curiosity, where do you stand?

That wasn't his point at all. In fact, that's the opposite of his point. Swift was a populist.

His satire was saying that the solution to the problem was to use the excess population to feed other. I am of the opinino that even the author's interpretation is no better than any one else's interpreation, e.g. you can read Fareheit 451 as a story about censorship, even though Bradbury said it was about television. I know Swift wasn't championin what he said in that document, but it is possible to look at it in a non satirical weapon.

Thing is, neither of those guys had anything to do with international relations. The closest is Machiavelli, and he spoke of states, not nations. You want to look at Morgenthau, Waltz, and maybe Riker.

Hobbes did say that without a form of top-down authority, humanity would fall back to it's natural condition of constant warfare. I almost look at international relations as human interaction, only each nation is acting as one human, if that makes sense.... But as far as Machiavelli goes, he does talk about states, and in its most basic form is not international relations relations between states?

I have looked at Morgenthau, and I personally am finding him very interesting...the others are on my future 'to read list' at this point.

Funny thing is that I'm working at my PhD in IR/Poli Sci.

Awesome. That's where I'm hoping to find myself one of these days...but still, it's my intersemester break. I do not want to be writing like it's termtime when I've still got a week of R&R left to go.

So, since Afghanistan has ~twice the GDP growth rate of Egypt are they ~twice as stable?

Not at all, I never said that GDP growth and stability are porportional, just that increased GDP growth is a sign of increased stability. Afghanistan is not a very stable state, but its continual economic increases are signs of growing stability.

No, that's not true at all. Mexico is a great example, so are most Caribbean states.

You got me there, so maybe it's not a 100% accurate rule, but I still doubt that Egypt will maintain it's stability if the government that's ruled tha nation fairly effectively for over 20 years is toppled overnight.

No one ever knows who will take charge, we just guess, even in the US.

Not true, the United States has a well defined chain of succession. If the President dies, the Vice President becomes President. Then if he dies before appointing a Vice President, the Speaker of the House becomes President, etc. etc.

You're begging the question. There is a massive gap between the US, and its allies, but it has nothing to do with collective defense. Note that all major Western European allies of the US have among the highest gross defense expenditures.

That's alright though, I'm sure that Georgia, with its 8.5% GDP military budget is a huge threat.

They do hvae the highest gross defense expenditures, but that's simply because they have such massive economies already that 1% of their economies is better than most others. But you will note that most nations seem to have a higher percentage of their budget devoted to military expenditures than many of America's allies, and America's allies KNOW that the United States will come to their aid if it's needed. America's allies know they can get away with spending less on military efforts than they would normally have to, and act accordingly. Why spend more of your own money defending yourself if you can get someone else to do it for you?

1hadhq wrote:
What else should they do?
Oppress the natives?

Yes, there was a reason to be at a certain border.
Now, its just a junction, a recreation area, a hospital. Just wait until these bases are moved.

Unfortunately, they're not just an R&R point. Rammstein AFB is one of the most key American aerial hubs in Europe. The American forces in Germany are offiically there for defensive purposes. And if it gets to the point where we're using tac nukes on friendly soil, I think the last thing we need to worry about is whether or not American interest align with the interests of the locals.

Some nations are not willing to have nukes at all.
Maybe the offer made the decision easier, but I doubt many europeans believe in WMD as a solution.
Except la France and Britannia... who keep their own.

And a great argument for why other nations don't need to spend money on nukes is that 'hey, the US will defend us with its nukes, so why spend our money developing something we alreayd get for free?'

ChrisWWII wrote:
And a great argument for why other nations don't need to spend money on nukes is that 'hey, the US will defend us with its nukes, so why spend our money developing something we already get for free?'

Youre requesting everyone to have his own nukes?
The Netherlands, Belguim, Spain, etc?

Maybe one should consider what his country got for "free" in terms of tech. Before criticising the investment beeing too onesided.
Is START and START II not a good thing? Thought we need less nukes....whats left should be enough to devastate the whole planet.




Isn't it obvious the north of africa could see a time when Dictators held in place by US or SU support will fall?
Keep watching the rise of China.
Its no longer so easy to split the world into 2 spheres of influence.

Oh hell, I am one of thos who thinks nukes create stability. If everyone had nukes, no one would want to fight any wars simply because if they start a war then EVERYBODY dies. So yes, I don't think mor enukes is a good thing, I think nuclear proliferation into the hands of rational governments is a good thing.

..Then again, I'm not 100% sure I'm getting wherre you're coming from. I never hinted before this that everyone should have nukes, nore that START and START II were not good.... and I don't get what your 2nd paragraph is saying at all, or the relevance it has to this discussion. Yeah the world is multipolar now, but how does that fit in with anything we were talking about?

efarrer wrote:

olympia wrote:Rather than support a SECULAR, PRO-DEMOCRACY movement in Egypt, the U.S. continues to back the dynastic regime of Mubarak. In short, the U.S. talks alot of gak about supporting democracy but when the rubber hits the road that's all it is.

It's only secular if you aren't paying any attention to the key players in Egypt. Much like with the Shah in Iran, there is a very hardcore group of fanatics in Egypt and if you don't think they're forming the core of these "pro-democracy" riots, well, you got another thing coming.

That's not what the BBC are saying. Their reporter says it's larger disaffected middle classes rioting ATM and the Muslim Brotherhood is staying out of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

Take it for what you will. China scores pretty low.

That's just a buncha crap put up by bleeding heart liberals.

Back on topic, will stability in Egypt be assured by supporting an 86-year old for president?

ChrisWWII wrote:
Oh joy...I think we're on exact opposite ends of the as far as things go with IR. I personally style myself as a Hobbes Was Right realist. Human beings by nature will be in constant warfare, and it is only through the Leviathan that order can be maintained, and human life can move away from being nasty, brutish and short. I personally take this view and apply it to the international sphere as each 'state' acting like an individual human being, and will try to get its own interests at the expense of others. Out of curiosity, where do you stand?

Nowhere, I just point out when other people have views that aren't coherent.

Though I do think that realism is generally more incoherent than any other view of international politics. That whole assumption of anarchy is really very poor in a system where state behavior is governed by individual choice, and national preference.

ChrisWWII wrote:
Hobbes did say that without a form of top-down authority, humanity would fall back to it's natural condition of constant warfare.

The problem is that we have no proof establishing that as the natural condition, and its a particularly weak point given that, in Hobbes' time, authority did nothing to prevent constant warfare.

ChrisWWII wrote:
I almost look at international relations as human interaction, only each nation is acting as one human, if that makes sense.... But as far as Machiavelli goes, he does talk about states, and in its most basic form is not international relations relations between states?

Machiavelli talks about city-states, not nation-states. And no, international relations doesn't necessarily have anything to do with states, we only talk about it because the state is the most common political unit today.

ChrisWWII wrote:
Not at all, I never said that GDP growth and stability are porportional, just that increased GDP growth is a sign of increased stability. Afghanistan is not a very stable state, but its continual economic increases are signs of growing stability.

I think you're confusing stability with prosperity. North Korea has an awful projected growth rate, and yet its one of the most stable states in the world.

ChrisWWII wrote:
You got me there, so maybe it's not a 100% accurate rule, but I still doubt that Egypt will maintain it's stability if the government that's ruled tha nation fairly effectively for over 20 years is toppled overnight.

You're still operating under assumption that Egypt was stable before these riots, it wasn't. Really, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "stable", nor am I sure that you know what you mean when you say "stable".

In my mind a stable state is one that is not in imminent danger of being replaced by informal action. Meaning that Egypt hasn't been stable for a long time, but Mexico has been.

ChrisWWII wrote:
Not true, the United States has a well defined chain of succession. If the President dies, the Vice President becomes President. Then if he dies before appointing a Vice President, the Speaker of the House becomes President, etc. etc.

No, you're talking about what the law is, not whether or not people will follow the law. We can know the first thing, but not the second.

ChrisWWII wrote:
They do hvae the highest gross defense expenditures, but that's simply because they have such massive economies already that 1% of their economies is better than most others. But you will note that most nations seem to have a higher percentage of their budget devoted to military expenditures than many of America's allies, and America's allies KNOW that the United States will come to their aid if it's needed. America's allies know they can get away with spending less on military efforts than they would normally have to, and act accordingly. Why spend more of your own money defending yourself if you can get someone else to do it for you?

You're argument hinges on the idea that the percentage of GDP expended on the military is indicative of that military's quality, and that's a nonsense idea. The German military is not significantly worse than the Georgian one because Georgia spends 8 times as much of their GDP on their armed forces. In fact, the opposite is true.

Again, if the United States spent less on the military, I can virtually guarantee you that Germany would not spend more. This whole idea that America is somehow holding back the barbarians is a total myth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisWWII wrote:Oh hell, I am one of thos who thinks nukes create stability. If everyone had nukes, no one would want to fight any wars simply because if they start a war then EVERYBODY dies.

It hasn't stopped India and Pakistan from fighting constant border skirmishes. The absence of total war does not indicate stability.

ShumaGorath wrote:

whatwhat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Whatwhat wrote:This is a whole different subject but that view would explain the quotation marks if they were intended. I wont get into it and derail this thread, but I will say I disagree with your views. The chinese government is one of the most oppressive on earth.

On what scale?

Well denying relegious freedom, basic human rights and worst of all knowledge of their true circumstances to over a billion people. That's just a start. But as I said, it's not an issue for this thread.

I asked for a scale, a relative indicator of actual oppressiveness as compared to other states and populations. Not a laundry list of what you don't like.

Oh ok. Sorry. If countries were people. And oppressiveness was douchebaggery. China would be about the same level as the dakkadakka.com user ShumaGorath.

I'm surprised at you whatwhat. That went beyond petty.

Just speaking to him on his own level. Tis all.

Actually no, you dragged this thread down a bit. He was asking you to compare China to another country (such as the US) and see how it matched up, rather than just listing things that China has failed at (and I could argue that the US also fails).

No he asked an un welcome question after I had said i ddin't want to derail the thread with the subject several times. Then sniped at me when I didn't answer him how he wanted. boo hoo. Go give him a pat on the back about it.

whatwhat wrote:No he asked an un welcome question after I had said i ddin't want to derail the thread with the subject several times. Then sniped at me when I didn't answer him how he wanted. boo hoo. Go give him a pat on the back about it.

I'm pretty sure that you find all questions unwelcome.

Either way, if he sniped at you, maybe you should have ignored it.

I don't understand why asking about China is an unwelcome question, but I really don't care either. You go be snippy and score cheap points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ninja'd.

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:No he asked an un welcome question after I had said i ddin't want to derail the thread with the subject several times. Then sniped at me when I didn't answer him how he wanted. boo hoo. Go give him a pat on the back about it.

I'm pretty sure that you find all questions unwelcome.

Your judgement on the issue would be impeded by the fact you only ask overly meticulous rhetorical condescending drivel. And once again you haven't missed a chance to have a go at me.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I don't understand why asking about China is an unwelcome question, but I really don't care either. You go be snippy and score cheap points.

It's unwelcome because I had said I didn't want to go into it several times.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Whether shuma was in the right or not the fact is I think he's a narcissistic little prick and I will speak to him as such. I don't base my judgement of people on what they have most recently said to me, what kind of pathetic mindset is that. I never initiated any conversation with him because I don't care for getting involved in his bs dialogue. But then if he's going to respond to me several times while I'm talking to someone else like some annoying idiot who keeps poking you while your taking a piss, I'm going to say something to him. I don't give a gak if it upsets your nicy nicy balanced forum protocol.

whatwhat wrote:
Your judgement on the issue would be impeded by the fact you only ask overly meticulous rhetorical condescending drivel. And once again you haven't missed a chance to have a go at me.

Its very difficult for something to be both meticulous, and rhetorical. Perhaps you should revisit your understanding of those words.

Either way, asking meticulous, rhetorical questions is usually thought of as a good thing, as it makes the target think, so attaching the word "drivel" is hardly appropriate here.

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
Your judgement on the issue would be impeded by the fact you only ask overly meticulous rhetorical condescending drivel. And once again you haven't missed a chance to have a go at me.

Its very difficult for something to be both meticulous, and rhetorical. Perhaps you should revisit your understanding of those words.

Either way, asking meticulous, rhetorical questions is usually thought of as a good thing, as it makes the target think, so attaching the word "drivel" is hardly appropriate here.

I said overly meticulous. Which you most certainly are. Your doing it right now.

Does the direction of the hair on my arm annoy me? Wow an overly meticulous rhetorical question, you're right, that was hard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tbh the only reason I included the word rhetorical in there is because the idea you would actually ask someone a question considering you already think you know everything just didn't play right in my head.

This thread has been reported. All parties need to tone it down or suspensions will be handed out.

Frazzled wrote:This thread has been reported. All parties need to tone it down or suspensions will be handed out.

It's funny, I got banned for doing all of calling a thread trivial the other day and my post was red letter edited. I come back and find I've been called a narcissistic prick and about all that happens is that a thread report occurs, something which also implies my hand in flaming or poor behavior. Sure do love the system.

Whether shuma was in the right or not the fact is I think he's a narcissistic little prick and I will speak to him as such. I don't base my judgement of people on what they have most recently said to me, what kind of pathetic mindset is that. I never initiated any conversation with him because I don't care for getting involved in his bs dialogue.

Or, it could be that now, like in most instances, you just don't like defending your points because they exist on typically poorly constructed and hyperbolic foundations that you construct long after forming the opinion that sits atop them. I asked you to qualify a response, which you then refused to do and got pissed off about it. Sorry you didn't want to pull the thread "off track", maybe you shouldn't of brought on the subject and continuously revisited it.

This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad

from shuma's signature.

I wouldn't say its a bad thread. But the immaturity of some people in it certainly is.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I wouldn't say its a bad thread. But the immaturity of some people in it certainly is.

I know you are but won't get fooled again.

No, wait...

halonachos wrote:I agree, why don't you guys get China or Russia to help you out.

Besides what do you want us to do, send troops to Egypt? We already have two war efforts going on in Afghanistan and Iraq, we're suffering an economic depression, and the world is already angry at us.

Why can't England, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, China, or Spain do something about it?

Umm, the current government of Egypt is very close to the US. Not to China, Spain, the UK, or anyone else, but to the US. They are the number 2 recipient of US military aid, behind Israel, and the entire reason Mubarak's government has any international standing at all is because the US wishes it to be so.

And no, changing policy wouldn't involve sending troops in or anything like. If the US were simply to announce they no longer held any support for the current regime and would support a change of government, it'd be amazing what would happen. Not that I'm recommending anything of the sort, but you need to start forming your opinions based on the actual relations based on how foreign policy actually operates..


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:The US supports stability.

Except when it doesn't, which is very often.

The US supports who it supports, and there's a lot of factors involved in it (ideological similarities, containment of another group deemed ideological enemies, the ability of said group to schmooze US diplomats, whoever promised greater access to natural resources, whoever pledged to cause no trouble for US allies in the region, etc) and there's really no consistancy from one place to the next.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WarOne wrote:I believe it is safe to say that America looks out for its own interests.

I'm not sure this is really all that true, actually. It is fair to say the US looks out for the interests of those groups that are able to wield the most influence in Washington, but whether that translates to US interests as a whole I'm not so sure.

However, how much influence do you think the Americans would have in the riots that are going on right now?

If the US came out and stated it could no longer support the Mubarak regime as the rightful government of Egypt, the regime would no longer be viable on any level. I'm not sure they should do that, mind you, but they certainly have tremendous ability to influence what is happening in Egypt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Its hard to say, a big part of the reason Mubarak is so hated is that he is seen (correctly) as a US pawn

Sure, but a major reason his regime has remained viable is because he is a US pawn. This gives international legitimacy, and offers a stable location for investment and trade for international business. Take away that US support and Mubarak is left relying on his ability to instil fear in the local population, something that's largely collapsed now anyway.

so its hard to imagine how the US could easily support the protesters; short of cutting support for the current regime. After all, dictators have a way of reaching compromise when they see no other option, unless they see their own blood in the water, when they tend to run. If the latter occurs, he'll run for the US, and we'll probably grant him asylum; severely damaging our future relationship with Egypt, and likely pushing them towards Islamism (not necessarily a bad thing).

What's his name from Tunisia ended up in Saudi Arabia, and they'd always maintained close relations with the US. I can only conclude that the US didn't want him, or didn't want the political fall out from having him, and Saudi Arabia was a convenient middle ground, as it would be for Mubarak.

That's pretty much me just guessing though...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisWWII wrote:As you can see, when we look instead of just raw money spent, at what percent of its economy a nation is dedicating to its military we notice a different pattern. Not as many of the nations here are US allies at all, and those nations th
at are US allies are spending far less of their economy on their military as a fair chunk of the world. And even if we change it around and look again at raw spending....

1-USA: $663,255,000,000
2-China: $98,800,000,000
3-UK: $69,271,000,000
4-France: $67,316,000,000
5-Russia: $61,000,000,000
6-Germany: $48,022,000,000
7-Japan: $46,859,000,000
8-Saudi Arabia: $39,257,000,000
9-Italy: $37,427,000,000
10-India: $36,600,000,000

Even here we see a MASSIVE gap in spending between the US and its allies. Once again, the obvious reason is because the US has taken alot of the burden for defending its allied nations away from those states and onto itself.

As you'll see from your list of the top ten military budgets, the US spends more than all of them combined. Not only that, but only two members of that list could be described as not being allies. At which point the real question shows itself 'why the feth is the US spending 20% of the Federal budget on military stuff?'

And the answer is 'because of the vagaries of the US federal system, where the politics of porkbarreling provide tremendous incentive to individual congressmen to grow defence spending to create industry in their home district or state, while the lack of across the board accountability for the overall budget deficit offers no counteracting negative incentive'

Now, I agree with you that other developed nations need to commit more various operations around the world. But that has nothing to do with spending, and everything to do with being willing to commit troops to possible danger. Indeed, the US could drop it's expenditure dramatically, and the overall pool of troops available for overseas deployment could still grow without other developed nations spending more money... if only they'd be willing to send the troops they've already got.

US support for Mubarak

1. He is a stable leader. Demoncracy or not isnt the issue, stability is the issue.

2. Human Rights record under Mubarak isnt bad, not perfect, but you've supported worse.

3. Mubarak is a winner, why back a loser purely out of dogmatic reasons.

US support for Egypt.

The US doesnt really support mubarak, they just happen to support him on the way to supporting egypt.

1. The US is honouring the Camp David agreement of 1979. The US promised ongoing assistance to Egypt in return for a peace settlement with Israel. Egypt got a good deal including a return of the Sinai and the peace has held. Sadat had balls to sign the accords being the first Arab leader to do so and it did cost him his life. However Egypt has kept to its own end of the agreement, dealt with radicals within its borders as best it can and kept a stable border with Israel.

2. Peaceful cooperation with Egypt enables military use of the Suez canal.

That and the leading protest group the "Muslim Brotherhood" aren't exactly the nicest people either.

halonachos wrote:That and the leading protest group the "Muslim Brotherhood" aren't exactly the nicest people either.

They're not awful, they're sworn off violence, they don't believe islam is at war with the west, they don't want sharia law. The groups a bit more hard core outside of egypt, but it has a lot of splinters that have no real sway within the broad base of the movement. The majority of egyptians also don't want to live in a state under severe islamic law, they're just the strongest opposition party.

Yeah, the fact that they want Egypt's Christians and Jews to pay a poll tax, have connections with Al-Qaeda, want to prohibit dancing and similar activities, and segregate men and women in school makes them sound like a great group.

Besides they believe the west is in decline and they believe it is their job to make the west become Islam.

From a translated document written by the Muslim Brotherhood;

wikipedia wrote:"The process of settlement is a 'Civilization-Jihadist Process' with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

The quote is from wikipedia, but is taken from a translated document.

Actually, both Islam and Christianity seek to spread their religious influence. It's a vital part of the doctrine. Don't act so shocked when you hear calls for the West to follow Islam, because that's exactly what any religious evangelist (or even follower) will say about people that are not of the same religion.

halonachos wrote:Yeah, the fact that they want Egypt's Christians and Jews to pay a poll tax, have connections with Al-Qaeda, want to prohibit dancing and similar activities, and segregate men and women in school makes them sound like a great group.

Besides they believe the west is in decline and they believe it is their job to make the west become Islam.

From a translated document written by the Muslim Brotherhood;

wikipedia wrote:"The process of settlement is a 'Civilization-Jihadist Process' with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

The quote is from wikipedia, but is taken from a translated document.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Muslim_Brotherhood_in_Egypt Like I said, it's a broad organization. The muslim brotherhood wouldn't be taking hold in egypt, the egyption muslim brotherhood would (in a hopefully democratic system where the citizenry is actually not particularly in love with the MB, they just hate mubarrak). It's a hell of a lot tamer then some and in recent times has sought to distance itself from the radical elements in it's base. You can find similar writing to that in virtually any political party, hell, go a thread down and look at what beck is spouting.

It's not all legitimate or representative.

This is a really interesting article, that shows up a lot of the nonsense being thrown out in the media...

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/82416/five-things-you-should-know-about-the-riots-in-egypt

Orlanth wrote:US support for Mubarak

1. He is a stable leader. Demoncracy or not isnt the issue, stability is the issue.

Human rights violations are an issue too. People were abducted and tortured under Mubarak. Supporting that for the very nebulous 'stability' is pretty gak.

2. Human Rights record under Mubarak isnt bad, not perfect, but you've supported worse.

They're awful under Mubarak. Yes, the US has supported worse, but that exists only as a commentary on US foreign policy, not as a defence of Mubarak.

3. Mubarak is a winner, why back a loser purely out of dogmatic reasons.

Because the 'loser', who hasn't lost yet, hasn't tortured people.

1. The US is honouring the Camp David agreement of 1979. The US promised ongoing assistance to Egypt in return for a peace settlement with Israel. Egypt got a good deal including a return of the Sinai and the peace has held. Sadat had balls to sign the accords being the first Arab leader to do so and it did cost him his life. However Egypt has kept to its own end of the agreement, dealt with radicals within its borders as best it can and kept a stable border with Israel.

So the people of Egypt can have a tyrant, as long as that tyrant is good for Israel. Once again I'm left scratching my head at the incredibly weird position people will go to to protect Israeli citizens above and beyond all other citizens.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:That and the leading protest group the "Muslim Brotherhood" aren't exactly the nicest people either.

They're not leading the protest. That's nonsense. Everyone on the ground is reporting the protests are led by young, secular people, and not the Muslim Brotherhood. Whoever told you otherwise is making gak up.

halonachos wrote:

Why can't England, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, China, or Spain do something about it?

Becasue it is easier to sit back and blame the US once it dives in and find itself in yet another unwinnable S***storm...

halonachos wrote:Yeah, the fact that they want Egypt's Christians and Jews to pay a poll tax, have connections with Al-Qaeda, want to prohibit dancing and similar activities, and segregate men and women in school makes them sound like a great group.

Besides they believe the west is in decline and they believe it is their job to make the west become Islam.

You've got a choice here mate. You can continue to sound off about the worst fringes of muslim extremist groups, pretend these groups are dominant forces in the politics of their countries, and use that Islamaphobia to reinforce the idea that all countries with Muslim populations need to be ruled by dictators of our choosing. Or you can pay attention to the situations in these countries as they really are, and learn a thing or two about what's actually led to the revolution...

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2011/01/egyptian_muslims_act_as_human_shields_for_coptic_christmas_mass.html

In early January, following attacks on Corpus Christians, thousands of Muslims gathered to act as human shields for Corpus Christians looking to continue their ceremonies. A 50 year old Muslim housewife was among those who protected the Corpus Christians, and she said; "I know it might not be safe, yet it's either we live together, or we die together, we are all Egyptians."

That's the kind of power you get from group movements, that can take on a new life, which spurred by the other secular uprising in Tunisia, can lead to popular revolt. It's a powerful and important thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CT GAMER wrote:Becasue it is easier to sit back and blame the US once it dives in and find itself in yet another unwinnable S***storm...

If you'd read the thread and were interested in learning anything, you'd have seen several people point out that Mubarak's rule in Egypt in directly backed by the US. Indeed, the second biggest recipient of US aid behind Israel is Egypt. US backing for Mubarak is what gives the regime international legitimacy.

It is not an issue of the US diving in. The US dived in, decades ago, and the change in policy would be for the US to step out, stop supporting the Mubarak's repressive, torture based regime.

I just have to say that bit about the corpus Christians is awesome, and shows that religions can truly coexist

halonachos wrote:Yeah, the fact that they want Egypt's Christians and Jews to pay a poll tax, have connections with Al-Qaeda, want to prohibit dancing and similar activities, and segregate men and women in school makes them sound like a great group.

You don't have to like them. Egyptians have to like them. Though you're also misrepresenting their current position. The group is very old, very diverse, and has changed markedly over time.

This is one of those cases where relying on wikipedia, even when they present direct translations, is a bad idea. Its very complicated, and nuanced topic, with lots of complicated changes of policy and allegiance.

halonachos wrote:
From a translated document written by the Muslim Brotherhood;

wikipedia wrote:"The process of settlement is a 'Civilization-Jihadist Process' with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

The quote is from wikipedia, but is taken from a translated document.

The document you're referencing was written in the early 90's, and no longer deals with the actual goals of the Brotherhood.

sebster wrote:

If you'd read the thread and were interested in learning anything, you'd have seen several people point out that Mubarak's rule in Egypt in directly backed by the US. Indeed, the second biggest recipient of US aid behind Israel is Egypt. US backing for Mubarak is what gives the regime international legitimacy.

It is not an issue of the US diving in. The US dived in, decades ago, and the change in policy would be for the US to step out, stop supporting the Mubarak's repressive, torture based regime.

Thank you Professor.

I am well aware of the relationship that exists between the US and Egypt.

The "diving in" will take place if Mubarak loses control/ is ousted and more radical elements take advantage of the chaos and we once again decide to launch "Operation: Egyptian Freedom" or some other clever name which will do little more than act as a gigantic sign reading "come here and get the chance to kill real live American infidels"..

Then radicals and terroists will flock to fight us, and we will find ourselves bogged down in another slow bleed that we can't hope to win.

Meanwhile the above mentioned countries will sit back and sneer at the American Cowboys.

That seems to be the usual outline for "successful" US foregin policy...

We are "Big Brother". When every other shithole in the world needs help we are "expected" to. If we don't we get accused of having no interest in helping other nations; when we do we get accused of being a "bully".

It's a lose-lose situation for us (the US) CT Gamer.

Also, don't speak too badly about Muslims. It makes you an infidel and you will lose your head for it.

Fateweaver wrote:
Also, don't speak too badly about Muslims. It makes you an infidel and you will lose your head for it.

Pretty sure I'm one by birth...

CT GAMER wrote:
The "diving in" will take place if Mubarak loses control/ is ousted and more radical elements take advantage of the chaos and we once again decide to launch "Operation: Egyptian Freedom" or some other clever name which will do little more than act as a gigantic sign reading "come here and get the chance to kill real live American infidels"..

I consider that to be an incredibly unlikely proposition. Not only would such an invasion be domestically unpopular but, as you say, its unlikely to end well.

About the most active role you could expect the US to take would be the transfer of Egyptian aid dollars over to Israel, and that may not happen either.

Fateweaver wrote:We are "Big Brother". When every other shithole in the world needs help we are "expected" to. If we don't we get accused of having no interest in helping other nations; when we do we get accused of being a "bully".

It's a lose-lose situation for us (the US) CT Gamer.

Also, don't speak too badly about Muslims. It makes you an infidel and you will lose your head for it.

So we're not a bully for propping up a repressive undemocratic regime for 30 years, but we're a bully for the idea that we don't immediately help their protest movement. We have an interest in helping other nations, except now since we don't want to help the nation where we bankroll their dictator because if we help them we'll be called a bully.

We're a bully for not helping a protest movement, but we're not a bully for giving the same government billions in military aid. That makes no fething sense. Even reading it back to myself it makes no fething sense.

Fateweaver wrote:We are "Big Brother". When every other shithole in the world needs help we are "expected" to. If we don't we get accused of having no interest in helping other nations; when we do we get accused of being a "bully".

That's because when we "help" we're usually doing so by bullying a foreign government in order to get a more favorable outcome for us, and when we don't "help" its because the most favorable outcome is one that doesn't involve us.

The sum of this is that the US claims to be a benevolent force in the world, but acts in a way that clearly betrays the falsity of such claims. Thus the criticism the US garners isn't related to a sort "damned if you, damned if you don't" situation, but one based on a fundamental disconnect between US rhetoric and US policy.

CT GAMER wrote:Thank you Professor.

I am well aware of the relationship that exists between the US and Egypt.

If you were aware of the relationship, then you'd be aware how silly the question 'why are we being asked to get involved is'. It's silly because you're already very involved, and the real and meaningful question is what form that US involvement should take.

The "diving in" will take place if Mubarak loses control/ is ousted and more radical elements take advantage of the chaos and we once again decide to launch "Operation: Egyptian Freedom" or some other clever name which will do little more than act as a gigantic sign reading "come here and get the chance to kill real live American infidels"..

This is nonsense. The US will not be invading. What's more it's nonsense that is geared to do nothing but distract the conversation away from the real actions the US has taken, is taking, and could take in the future.

There's a secular revolution underway, where the US continues to support the regime of a very repressive dictator. Just talk about the level of continued support appropriate for the dictator, and leave the rest to Tom Clancy novels.

Meanwhile the above mentioned countries will sit back and sneer at the American Cowboys.

Your view of US foreign policy seems entirely built around the idea that we're all picking on you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fateweaver wrote:We are "Big Brother". When every other shithole in the world needs help we are "expected" to. If we don't we get accused of having no interest in helping other nations; when we do we get accused of being a "bully".

It's a lose-lose situation for us (the US) CT Gamer.

First up, you continue to dream about this situation where the US is uninvolved in Egypt at present, despite being corrected on this multiple times. Continuing the dream makes you look silly.

Second up, yeah, the US will be criticised whether it acts or not. This is the same for every country. Foreign policy is complex, highly subjective and people will form different ideas of the best approach, before you consider that many critics are acting in bad faith and will criticise governments regardless of what they do.

But so what? Doing the right thing was never about getting compliments, certainly not from people you don't like anyway. The only reason to pay attention to those people is so you can wallow in their attacks and play the victim. Stop that crap and man up. Do the right thing because it's the right thing, and let the critics fall by the wayside of history.

Also, don't speak too badly about Muslims. It makes you an infidel and you will lose your head for it.

This is stupid, and very bigoted. You really need to learn a lot more about how the world works.

sebster wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:Thank you Professor.

I am well aware of the relationship that exists between the US and Egypt.

If you were aware of the relationship, then you'd be aware how silly the question 'why are we being asked to get involved is'. It's silly because you're already very involved, and the real and meaningful question is what form that US involvement should take.

The "diving in" will take place if Mubarak loses control/ is ousted and more radical elements take advantage of the chaos and we once again decide to launch "Operation: Egyptian Freedom" or some other clever name which will do little more than act as a gigantic sign reading "come here and get the chance to kill real live American infidels"..

This is nonsense. The US will not be invading. What's more it's nonsense that is geared to do nothing but distract the conversation away from the real actions the US has taken, is taking, and could take in the future.

There's a secular revolution underway, where the US continues to support the regime of a very repressive dictator. Just talk about the level of continued support appropriate for the dictator, and leave the rest to Tom Clancy novels.

Meanwhile the above mentioned countries will sit back and sneer at the American Cowboys.

Your view of US foreign policy seems entirely built around the idea that we're all picking on you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fateweaver wrote:We are "Big Brother". When every other shithole in the world needs help we are "expected" to. If we don't we get accused of having no interest in helping other nations; when we do we get accused of being a "bully".

It's a lose-lose situation for us (the US) CT Gamer.

First up, you continue to dream about this situation where the US is uninvolved in Egypt at present, despite being corrected on this multiple times. Continuing the dream makes you look silly.

Second up, yeah, the US will be criticised whether it acts or not. This is the same for every country. Foreign policy is complex, highly subjective and people will form different ideas of the best approach, before you consider that many critics are acting in bad faith and will criticise governments regardless of what they do.

But so what? Doing the right thing was never about getting compliments, certainly not from people you don't like anyway. The only reason to pay attention to those people is so you can wallow in their attacks and play the victim. Stop that crap and man up. Do the right thing because it's the right thing, and let the critics fall by the wayside of history.

Also, don't speak too badly about Muslims. It makes you an infidel and you will lose your head for it.

This is stupid, and very bigoted. You really need to learn a lot more about how the world works.

You need to learn to read or quote. You attack me for my view on our involvement with Egypt when I have never made any comment at all about our involvement in Egypt. I think you mistook me for a second for CT Gamer.

I know how the world works. I also know what the Quaran or Kuran or however it is spelled says about non-believers and infidels. Just because the "peaceful" Muslims apparently don't practice what the Kuran says does not make it less wrong. Numerous passages in that book refer to acts of violence against non-believers. Denying something exists does not make it non-existant. Aethiests deny God exists but that doesn't mean he's non existent. Know what I mean Vern?

Hang on a tick...

Fateweaver wrote:
I know how the world works. I also know what the Quaran or Kuran or however it is spelled says about non-believers and infidels. Just because the "peaceful" Muslims apparently don't practice what the Kuran says does not make it less wrong. Numerous passages in that book refer to acts of violence against non-believers. Denying something exists does not make it non-existant. Aethiests deny God exists but that doesn't mean he's non existent. Know what I mean Vern?

You didn't mention the Koran, you mentioned Muslims, and you didn't speak hypothetically, you spoke with certainty. The sentiment you're expressing above is not the same as the one you expressed in your previous post.

Understanding the differences between different things is important to effectively communicating with other people.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Hang on a tick...

Spoiler:

My KoolAid senses are tingling...

They were right!

dogma wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:
I know how the world works. I also know what the Quaran or Kuran or however it is spelled says about non-believers and infidels. Just because the "peaceful" Muslims apparently don't practice what the Kuran says does not make it less wrong. Numerous passages in that book refer to acts of violence against non-believers. Denying something exists does not make it non-existant. Aethiests deny God exists but that doesn't mean he's non existent. Know what I mean Vern?

You didn't mention the Koran, you mentioned Muslims, and you didn't speak hypothetically, you spoke with certainty. The sentiment you're expressing above is not the same as the one you expressed in your previous post.

Understanding the differences between different things is important to effectively communicating with other people.

Apparently the sarcastic wink got past most people.

When I'm being sarcastic I always put up a wink. I do recall a wink behind that statement. In fact looking at my post I see it plain as day.

Not my fault that even with a sarcastic winky face people decide to take me serious.

Fateweaver wrote:You need to learn to read or quote. You attack me for my view on our involvement with Egypt when I have never made any comment at all about our involvement in Egypt. I think you mistook me for a second for CT Gamer.

"We are "Big Brother". When every other shithole in the world needs help we are "expected" to. If we don't we get accused of having no interest in helping other nations; when we do we get accused of being a "bully". "

I know how the world works. I also know what the Quaran or Kuran or however it is spelled says about non-believers and infidels. Just because the "peaceful" Muslims apparently don't practice what the Kuran says does not make it less wrong. Numerous passages in that book refer to acts of violence against non-believers. Denying something exists does not make it non-existant. Aethiests deny God exists but that doesn't mean he's non existent. Know what I mean Vern?

So you haven't read the Koran, then?

And you'll note that people of faith can claim God exists, but that doesn't make it true... just like claiming the Koran is this violent little book doesn't make it true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fateweaver wrote:Apparently the sarcastic wink got past most people.

When I'm being sarcastic I always put up a wink. I do recall a wink behind that statement. In fact looking at my post I see it plain as day.

Not my fault that even with a sarcastic winky face people decide to take me serious.

Because it wasn't a joke. And people will often say exactly what they want to say, but smile to pretend it's just a joke, to avoid responsibility.

Trust me, I'm not one of those.

If I spoke in a non-joking matter I'd be off Dakka in a heartbeat for good. Lord knows I've gotten tattled on by snot-nosed punks who can't stand up for themselves and need big "MOD" brother to step in for them.

The comment about Big Brother wasn't aimed at just our involvement in Egypt. It was referring to EVERY time we step in to help. To this day there are people who question our involvement in WW2. Perhaps I should have clarified it but I figure people with above average intelligence (or those who claim to have it) would have realized it was a blanket statement about our international policies and how other nations view our involvement in foreign affairs.

I thought Japan attacked America in WWII?

They did, but I think he may be referring to some questioning our decision to get involved in Europe, which was actually still opposed by a lot of the population....but then Hitler declared war on the US, and the rest is history.

So...who's questioning the US involvement? These countries declared war on the US, not the other way around.

Wait...this is Fateweaver making no sense again, isn't it?

Probably.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I thought Japan attacked America in WWII?

I thought it was Archduke Ferdinand.

Good one EF.

Seriously, I have gotten into discussions with people on WHY the US had to enter. Sure we could have just ignored the attack on PH and Hitlers declaration of war against the US but we didn't, though some people think we should have.

Who is 'some people'? I've never in my life heard of a discussion that was about whether or not the US should have resonded to Pearl Harbour.

And why is this in any way related to the US backing an opressive dictator?

Emperors Faithful wrote:So...who's questioning the US involvement? These countries declared war on the US, not the other way around.

Yeah, but it wasn't as though FDR was simply twiddling his thumbs. There's plenty of evidence that indicates that he was looking for an excuse to enter the war so much, in fact, that a lot of people will tell you that he allowed the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor.

The argument is nonsense, of course, by they'll tell you that none the less.

Monster Rain wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:I thought Japan attacked America in WWII?

I thought it was Archduke Ferdinand.

I see what you Nothing I see nothing!

Fateweaver wrote:If I spoke in a non-joking matter I'd be off Dakka in a heartbeat for good. Lord knows I've gotten tattled on by snot-nosed punks who can't stand up for themselves and need big "MOD" brother to step in for them.

Heh, I actually made my first ever report today, on this forum or any other. Don't worry, it wasn't you or anyone else I've ever argued with. It was just a post made as a joke, but could be seen as recommending a crime, and I didn't know where the site stood on that kind of thing...

The comment about Big Brother wasn't aimed at just our involvement in Egypt. It was referring to EVERY time we step in to help. To this day there are people who question our involvement in WW2. Perhaps I should have clarified it but I figure people with above average intelligence (or those who claim to have it) would have realized it was a blanket statement about our international policies and how other nations view our involvement in foreign affairs.

Yes, but again, feth those people. Folk will complain. If it isn't one lot it'll be the others. But the right thing remains the right thing, and the only reason to note the critics is to play the victim.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I thought Japan attacked America in WWII?

They did. But before that the US attempted to control Japanese expansion by limiting and then completely removing oil sales to Japan. Most folk knew war was inevitable. So some folk are critical of the US' decision to stop selling oil, even though everyone knew what had happened in Nanking. It's a pretty horrible argument, based on the idea that the US should just chase the highest price for it's goods, regardless of what those goods are used for overseas. Well, IBM did install the computers in the extermination camps, so I guess there are some true believers.

There's more criticism of US involvement in Europe, in that Germany never attacked the US. This has more weight, Germany did declare was on the US, but there wasn't much they could have done about it. And yeah, it sucks that US troops got killed for something that had nothing to do with them. It misses the point though, that the politics behind the whole thing had nothing to do with the individual Brits and Russians that were dying, either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:And why is this in any way related to the US backing an opressive dictator?

Good question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Yeah, but it wasn't as though FDR was simply twiddling his thumbs. There's plenty of evidence that indicates that he was looking for an excuse to enter the war so much, in fact, that a lot of people will tell you that he allowed the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor.

The argument is nonsense, of course, by they'll tell you that none the less.

Well, FDR was doing things to limit Japanese expansion, which was inevitably going to lead to war in the Pacific. That he was actively looking for a war is dubious, and the idea that he allowed the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbour is lunacy.

Oh I know that but sometimes it's so easy to get involved in an argument with idiots and "truthers".

I don't worry anymore about being reported. I watch my P's and Q's but haters gonna hate and there are just some posters on Dakka who feel the need to attack me no matter what the topic is.

I don't like being banned but if I do again I'll just enjoy my small vacation and then come back for more. Like an abused housewife who goes back to her hubby after his release.....

Yes, yes I went there....

Egypt has poor human rights and will continue to have poor human rights. If only a couple thousand of people protest the current government then that means there are a couple million who will continue to do what they have been doing, beating their wives, etc.

Concerning the war effort, the british had spy rings working on the influential of America to get them to join the war effort. We did embargo the Japanese to prevent them from expanding and we even had pilots in China to train Chinese fighter pilots and to also fight the Japanese before we were in the war, technically they were mercenaries. America didn't like what Germany was doing and Pearl Harbor gave us a great reason to join the war effort in Europe as well. When we found out about the concentration camps, whoo boy that was something.

halonachos wrote:Egypt has poor human rights and will continue to have poor human rights. If only a couple thousand of people protest the current government then that means there are a couple million who will continue to do what they have been doing, beating their wives, etc.

Freedom House rates Egypt as roughly in line with the global average in terms of women's rights.

The biggest issue in Egypt isn't human rights abuse, but the absence of political rights.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:That he was actively looking for a war is dubious, and the idea that he allowed the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbour is lunacy.

When I say "looking for war" I mean "looking to involve the United States in the conflict on a military level".

It wasn't merely opposing Japanese expansion. He actively looked for a way to do an end-run around neutrality legislation, and later entered into negotiations with Churchill over direct, military involvement. Then there's his support for intervention in the fireside chats, and support for a peacetime draft.

The guy didn't want WWII to start, but he wasn't going to sit it out either.

Its actually pretty bad when you ask an Egyptian cop what he would do if they saw a man beating his wife in public and his response is, "Nothing, he has the right to beat his wife."

Don't forget the Lend Lease program. Taking perfectly good supplies and labeling them surplus to be allowed get them to the British wasn't a profit oriented decision.

He wasn't actively seeking it, but certainly was passively seeking it and actively preparing for it.

halonachos wrote:Its actually pretty bad when you ask an Egyptian cop what he would do if they saw a man beating his wife in public and his response is, "Nothing, he has the right to beat his wife."

Different culture, different rules. Also, is this from a personal conversation or do you have a source?

The only source I trust, my mom. She's been into Middle East politics since she was young and talks to all sorts of people over there.

We exchange presents with a Palestinian family just about every other year.

halonachos wrote:The only source I trust, my mom. She's been into Middle East politics since she was young and talks to all sorts of people over there.

We exchange presents with a Palestinian family just about every other year.

You could have just shortened that to, 'No, I don't have a reputable source, it's from a personal conversation.'

IAmTheWalrus wrote:

halonachos wrote:The only source I trust, my mom. She's been into Middle East politics since she was young and talks to all sorts of people over there.

We exchange presents with a Palestinian family just about every other year.

You could have just shortened that to, 'No, I don't have a reputable source, it's from a personal conversation.'

How about some nice statistics to back up the conversation, you people seem to like statistics.

defend international wrote:33% of married women report having been beaten at least once in their marriage (1995)


72% of surveyed women who experienced violence reported being beaten by their husbands, 43% by their fathers, and 37% by their brothers (1995)


80% of rural women in Egypt report beatings are common and often justified (1995)


96% of 444 women interviewed in Manshiet Nasser where ADEW works reported some kind of physical or sexual violence (2001)

http://www.defendinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=218&Itemid=49

halonachos wrote:Its actually pretty bad when you ask an Egyptian cop what he would do if they saw a man beating his wife in public and his response is, "Nothing, he has the right to beat his wife."

That gets into whether or not rights are social constructs, or objective elements of the human condition, but from the perspective of someone in the United States that's probably true.

Of course, there are places in Africa where the removal of breasts is common practice, so if you're comparing a beating to that sort of thing it doesn't seem nearly so severe.

Its important to remember that the United States is on the extreme positive end of the spectrum when it comes to women's rights. Egypt is right around the middle.

halonachos wrote:

IAmTheWalrus wrote:

halonachos wrote:The only source I trust, my mom. She's been into Middle East politics since she was young and talks to all sorts of people over there.

We exchange presents with a Palestinian family just about every other year.

You could have just shortened that to, 'No, I don't have a reputable source, it's from a personal conversation.'

How about some nice statistics to back up the conversation, you people seem to like statistics.

defend international wrote:33% of married women report having been beaten at least once in their marriage (1995)


72% of surveyed women who experienced violence reported being beaten by their husbands, 43% by their fathers, and 37% by their brothers (1995)


80% of rural women in Egypt report beatings are common and often justified (1995)


96% of 444 women interviewed in Manshiet Nasser where ADEW works reported some kind of physical or sexual violence (2001)

http://www.defendinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=218&Itemid=49

That's nice. I don't deny that domestic violence is common in Egypt, but these statistics have nothing to do with police, or police involvement in the domestic violence.

They do cut the clitoris in Egypt and that is also justified.

religioustolerance.org wrote:A 2005 report by UNICEF suggested that 97% of Egyptian women between the ages of 15 and 49 who have never been married have undergone some form of FGM or circumcision. 6

A more recent study by the Egyptian government found that 50.3% of girls aged 10 to 18 have been circumcised.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cirm3.htm

Yeah, not nice people. Mubarak's wife has openly opposed this practice according to the BBC.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

IAmTheWalrus wrote:That's nice. I don't deny that domestic violence is common in Egypt, but these statistics have nothing to do with police, or police involvement in the domestic violence.

freedomhouse.org wrote:Another problem is the reporting and investigating of an "honor crime." Police officials, especially at the local level, often do not investigate such cases with the same rigor as they might for other crimes. Families and villages may collude by not informing or assisting police. Local authorities often close investigations of "honor crimes" by labeling them as accidents or crimes perpetrated by an unknown person.

freedomhouse.org wrote:Egyptian families and government authorities, such as the police, often ignore violent acts against women. Domestic violence and marital rape are not considered crimes in Egyptian law, and women victims of rape and incest have tremendous difficulties prosecuting their perpetrators. Spousal abuse is grounds for a divorce, but the victim is required to produce medical reports of bodily harm as proof.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=172

sebster wrote:

I know everything and dismiss your opinion...
[/paraphrasing]

Is your crystal ball battery powered or solar?

I'm not gonna continue to argue this with you, because you seem to have all the answers, which is fortunate for us all.

Enjoy the rest of the thread and whatever your witty final retort will be.

CT GAMER wrote:

sebster wrote:

I know everything and dismiss your opinion...
[/paraphrasing]

Is your crystal ball battery powered or solar?

I'm not gonna continue to argue this with you, because you seem to have all the answers, which is fortunate for us all.

Enjoy the rest of the thread and whatever your witty final retort will be.

Actually Sebster usually does have his gak in tip top shape which makes it annoying to argue with him at first, but it generally makes one try harder.

halonachos wrote:They do cut the clitoris in Egypt and that is also justified.

religioustolerance.org wrote:A 2005 report by UNICEF suggested that 97% of Egyptian women between the ages of 15 and 49 who have never been married have undergone some form of FGM or circumcision. 6

A more recent study by the Egyptian government found that 50.3% of girls aged 10 to 18 have been circumcised.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cirm3.htm

Yeah, not nice people. Mubarak's wife has openly opposed this practice according to the BBC.

I doubt that statistic a great deal, as it contravenes everything else I have read. I have no doubt at all that FGM is practiced in Egypt, as it is practiced in the vast majority of places in the world, but I doubt its as common place as 97% of unmarried women, which is itself likely to be a fairly small population.

In any case, I only claimed that Egypt was about average when it came to women's rights. Simply pointing out that its worse than Western states doesn't mean anything, as almost all nations are worse than Western nations when it comes to women's rights.

Alrighty then, I found another source with some statistics.

npr wrote:"Seventy percent are victims of this practice," Khattab says. "But the good thing is that this percentage reflects a decline in the prevalence. [The percentage] used to be in the 90s."

As recently as 2003, a UNICEF survey found that well over 90 percent of Egyptian women who were or had been married had undergone circumcision.

The reason for some optimism, advocates of eradicating the practice say, lies in changing attitudes among young girls. The latest figures for girls ages 10 to 18 show circumcision rates down to 63 percent in rural areas, and down to 43 percent among urban girls. Among girls who attend urban private schools, the figure drops to 9 percent.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11767534

halonachos wrote:Alrighty then, I found another source with some statistics.

npr wrote:"Seventy percent are victims of this practice," Khattab says. "But the good thing is that this percentage reflects a decline in the prevalence. [The percentage] used to be in the 90s."

As recently as 2003, a UNICEF survey found that well over 90 percent of Egyptian women who were or had been married had undergone circumcision.

The reason for some optimism, advocates of eradicating the practice say, lies in changing attitudes among young girls. The latest figures for girls ages 10 to 18 show circumcision rates down to 63 percent in rural areas, and down to 43 percent among urban girls. Among girls who attend urban private schools, the figure drops to 9 percent.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11767534

The NPR source contradicts what the UNICEF report states in its own methodology section, which indicates that the figure of 97% was only those women who were unmarried.

The second set of statistics is closer to what I've seen, but still much higher than what is often cited by scholarly sources. Specifically the rural rate that I recall is roughly 40%, and the urban roughly 20%.

halonachos wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

sebster wrote:

I know everything and dismiss your opinion...
[/paraphrasing]

Is your crystal ball battery powered or solar?

I'm not gonna continue to argue this with you, because you seem to have all the answers, which is fortunate for us all.

Enjoy the rest of the thread and whatever your witty final retort will be.

Actually Sebster usually does have his gak in tip top shape which makes it annoying to argue with him at first, but it generally makes one try harder.

Unlike some posters here (not directed at you) he and many others like to actually understand the subject before arguing

Egypt is rioting. They'll bring down the government...and put up a supposedly democratic government...which will turn into the same as before or worse, an Islamic government...which they'll riot again...and the cycle will continue.

Its nothing new or to be excited over. We've seen middle east riots/governments replace before. Its not a 'massive historical moment in a good way' as some people describe it; because nothing will come out of it that will last. The middle east will always stay an area that lacks overall stability.

Its time like this that re-affirms that Nihilism is the right philosophy unfortunately...

Mr Hyena wrote: or worse, an Islamic government...

Good to see tolerance levels at maximum strength!

ShumaGorath wrote:

halonachos wrote:That and the leading protest group the "Muslim Brotherhood" aren't exactly the nicest people either.

They're not awful, they're sworn off violence, they don't believe islam is at war with the west, they don't want sharia law. The groups a bit more hard core outside of egypt, but it has a lot of splinters that have no real sway within the broad base of the movement. The majority of egyptians also don't want to live in a state under severe islamic law, they're just the strongest opposition party.

Yep they've sworn off violence. They sound like a bunch of hippy tree huggers to me.
http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=206130

Muslim Brotherhood: ‘Prepare Egyptians for war with Israel'
By YAAKOV LAPPIN
02/01/2011 02:00

A leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt told the Arabic-language Iranian news network Al-Alam on Monday that he would like to see the Egyptian people prepare for war against Israel, according to the Hebrew-language business newspaper Calcalist.

Muhammad Ghannem reportedly told Al- Alam that the Suez Canal should be closed immediately, and that the flow of gas from Egypt to Israel should cease “in order to bring about the downfall of the Mubarak regime.” He added that “the people should be prepared for war against Israel,” saying the world should understand that “the Egyptian people are prepared for anything to get rid of this regime.”

Ghannem praised Egyptian soldiers deployed by President Hosni Mubarak to Egyptian cities, saying they “would not kill their brothers.” He added that Washington was forced to abandon plans to help Mubarak stay in power after “seeing millions head for the streets.”

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:Alrighty then, I found another source with some statistics.

npr wrote:"Seventy percent are victims of this practice," Khattab says. "But the good thing is that this percentage reflects a decline in the prevalence. [The percentage] used to be in the 90s."

As recently as 2003, a UNICEF survey found that well over 90 percent of Egyptian women who were or had been married had undergone circumcision.

The reason for some optimism, advocates of eradicating the practice say, lies in changing attitudes among young girls. The latest figures for girls ages 10 to 18 show circumcision rates down to 63 percent in rural areas, and down to 43 percent among urban girls. Among girls who attend urban private schools, the figure drops to 9 percent.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11767534

The NPR source contradicts what the UNICEF report states in its own methodology section, which indicates that the figure of 97% was only those women who were unmarried.

The second set of statistics is closer to what I've seen, but still much higher than what is often cited by scholarly sources. Specifically the rural rate that I recall is roughly 40%, and the urban roughly 20%.

I believe that it was a small typo. Most of the Health Surveys given out by the Egyptian government ask 'ever-married' women from 15-49 years of age. It was the official Egyptian Demographic and Health Survey of 2005 that reported 96% of ever-married women from 15-49 have been circumcised. 'Ever-married' means that they were married at least once in their lives even if they are not currently married.

So I believe that there was a typo on some of the reports that changed 'ever married' to 'never married' based on the fact that the western culture hardly uses the phrase 'ever-married' in a daily circumstance but use 'never married' more often.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

halonachos wrote:That and the leading protest group the "Muslim Brotherhood" aren't exactly the nicest people either.

They're not awful, they're sworn off violence, they don't believe islam is at war with the west, they don't want sharia law. The groups a bit more hard core outside of egypt, but it has a lot of splinters that have no real sway within the broad base of the movement. The majority of egyptians also don't want to live in a state under severe islamic law, they're just the strongest opposition party.

Yep they've sworn off violence. They sound like a bunch of hippy tree huggers to me.
http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=206130

Muslim Brotherhood: ‘Prepare Egyptians for war with Israel'
By YAAKOV LAPPIN
02/01/2011 02:00

A leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt told the Arabic-language Iranian news network Al-Alam on Monday that he would like to see the Egyptian people prepare for war against Israel, according to the Hebrew-language business newspaper Calcalist.

Muhammad Ghannem reportedly told Al- Alam that the Suez Canal should be closed immediately, and that the flow of gas from Egypt to Israel should cease “in order to bring about the downfall of the Mubarak regime.” He added that “the people should be prepared for war against Israel,” saying the world should understand that “the Egyptian people are prepared for anything to get rid of this regime.”

Ghannem praised Egyptian soldiers deployed by President Hosni Mubarak to Egyptian cities, saying they “would not kill their brothers.” He added that Washington was forced to abandon plans to help Mubarak stay in power after “seeing millions head for the streets.”

And McCains on record for wanting to nuke Iran, the post you quoted stressed the fact that individual ideological demagogues with no real power say a lot of gak and then nothing happens because they don't have authority and aren't representative of the movement they report to be a part of. When you get your panties in a twist because captain McHateisrael wants to "prepare for war" against them, try to keep in mind the fact that he has no authority over the military, and is a minority view (hence why you posted one person out of some 80 million saying it). I mean, if you take every pundit and loudmouth at their word when they stated we should "prepare for war", then I'm surprised you don't live in a bomb shelter to protect you from the unified North Korean Iranian invasion of texas where they would rouse La Familia as cocaine addicted suicide bombers who only want to destroy your freedom. There are people like this in every political movement in every country, if it scares you that much stop reading israeli news.

Strawman. A leader for the entity you said was nonviolent called for preparing for war with Israel.

Frazzled wrote:Strawman. A leader for the entity you said was nonviolent called for preparing for war with Israel.

non·vi·o·lent   
[non-vahy-uh-luhnt] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
not violent; free of violence.
2.
peacefully resistant, as in response to or protest against injustice, esp. on moral or philosophical grounds.

I don't think verbal violence really makes someone violent. Didn't you hold the exact opposite view on what constitutes the call to action in the Glenn Beck thread? Kind of a double standard there buddy. I'd also like to note that if the organization has officially sworn off violence and war against the west, then a member within that organization directly contradicts that, it follows that that person would then be censured or disagreed with (as occurred all over egypt today).

But hey, you like to put people in boxes. I get it. It's cute. It makes me remember what its like to be a kid.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Strawman. A leader for the entity you said was nonviolent called for preparing for war with Israel.

non·vi·o·lent   
[non-vahy-uh-luhnt] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
not violent; free of violence.
2.
peacefully resistant, as in response to or protest against injustice, esp. on moral or philosophical grounds.

I don't think verbal violence really makes someone violent. Didn't you hold the exact opposite view on what constitutes the call to action in the Glenn Beck thread? Kind of a double standard there buddy. I'd also like to note that if the organization has officially sworn off violence and war against the west, then a member within that organization directly contradicts that, it follows that that person would then be censured or disagreed with (as occurred all over egypt today).

But hey, you like to put people in boxes. I get it. It's cute. It makes me remember what its like to be a kid.

I'll do this slowly so you get the big words.
-Glenn Beck is in charge of nothing but the voices in his head.
-This guy is the leader of an organization that has a nice habit of stabbing tourists and wants to bring down the current government. It also has thousands of members.

I'll do this slowly so you get the big words.
-Glenn Beck is in charge of nothing but the voices in his head.

And millions in stock in gold companies that he pushes on television.

-This guy is the leader of an organization that has a nice habit of stabbing tourists and wants to bring down the current government. It also has thousands of members.

No. He's not "the leader". Your article doesn't say he's "the leader". A cursory google search shows that he's not "the leader". It also shows that his comments were polar opposites from the organizations stated views on the issue. I think thats the hangup, you don't know enough about the organization in egypt to know who is and is not "the leader" much less what their views are concerning international policy.


Also, it has well more then "thousands' of members.

ShumaGorath wrote:

I'll do this slowly so you get the big words.
-Glenn Beck is in charge of nothing but the voices in his head.

And millions in stock in gold companies that he pushes on television.
***Which again has nothing to do with he topic, unless your on Gold Drillers.


-This guy is the leader of an organization that has a nice habit of stabbing tourists and wants to bring down the current government. It also has thousands of members.

*** Which has been known to say many things, but also has been known to kill people.

halonachos wrote:
I believe that it was a small typo. Most of the Health Surveys given out by the Egyptian government ask 'ever-married' women from 15-49 years of age. It was the official Egyptian Demographic and Health Survey of 2005 that reported 96% of ever-married women from 15-49 have been circumcised. 'Ever-married' means that they were married at least once in their lives even if they are not currently married.

No it wasn't. It specifically says in the article that you cited that it was the UNICEF survey, and the UNICEF survey doesn't report numbers for FGM into the 90's for those that were "ever married".

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

I'll do this slowly so you get the big words.
-Glenn Beck is in charge of nothing but the voices in his head.

And millions in stock in gold companies that he pushes on television.
***Which again has nothing to do with he topic, unless your on Gold Drillers.


-This guy is the leader of an organization that has a nice habit of stabbing tourists and wants to bring down the current government. It also has thousands of members.

*** Which has been known to say many things, but also has been known to kill people.

Point out a political entity in the mideast that that doesn't describe.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

I'll do this slowly so you get the big words.
-Glenn Beck is in charge of nothing but the voices in his head.

And millions in stock in gold companies that he pushes on television.
***Which again has nothing to do with he topic, unless your on Gold Drillers.


-This guy is the leader of an organization that has a nice habit of stabbing tourists and wants to bring down the current government. It also has thousands of members.

*** Which has been known to say many things, but also has been known to kill people.

Point out a political entity in the mideast that that doesn't describe.

Strawman. Lots of political entities aren't the social fathers of Al Qaeda.

Frazzled wrote:A leader for the entity you said was nonviolent called for preparing for war with Israel.

No, the Jerusalem Post claimed that some guy that might be a member or leader of the Muslim Brotherhood told Al Alam (an unofficial Iranian state news agency) that Egypt should be prepared for war.

I've never heard of Muhammad Ghannem (unless we're talking about the Kuwaiti soccer player), so that's a red flag right there given that the Muslim Brotherhood, especially the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, is highly publicized. I also know that Al-Alam is infamous for reporting falsehoods in order to make the Iranian state look good. For example, they "broke" the story that British sailors admitted to violating Iranian territorial waters.

The only definitive thing here is that the J-Post is fairly reputable, which explains why they noted all of the above facts in their blurb, which you conveniently chose to ignore.

dogma wrote:
The only definitive thing here is that the J-Post is fairly reputable, which explains why they noted all of the above facts in their blurb, which you conveniently chose to ignore.

Wait you're arguing I chose to ignore that the Jersualem Post is fairly repuatable. My bad, you're right the Jerusalem Post is fairly reputable.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

I'll do this slowly so you get the big words.
-Glenn Beck is in charge of nothing but the voices in his head.

And millions in stock in gold companies that he pushes on television.
***Which again has nothing to do with he topic, unless your on Gold Drillers.


-This guy is the leader of an organization that has a nice habit of stabbing tourists and wants to bring down the current government. It also has thousands of members.

*** Which has been known to say many things, but also has been known to kill people.

Point out a political entity in the mideast that that doesn't describe.

Strawman. Lots of political entities aren't the social fathers of Al Qaeda.

I didn't know we were talking about the CIA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:
The only definitive thing here is that the J-Post is fairly reputable, which explains why they noted all of the above facts in their blurb, which you conveniently chose to ignore.

Wait you're arguing I chose to ignore that the Jersualem Post is fairly repuatable. My bad, you're right the Jerusalem Post is fairly reputable.

What he's arguing that you chose to ignore is that you posted an article based on spurious and unconfirmed information sourced out of a publication that often lies for political gain. Something you still chose to ignore.

Frazzled wrote:
Strawman. Lots of political entities aren't the social fathers of Al Qaeda.

No, that wasn't a strawman. A Strawman is arguing against something other than what is being said. You said that the Muslim Brotherhood has killed people, and Shuma said that many political entities in the Middle East have killed people. He directly addressed your point.

In any case, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood are opposed to one another, and have been since extreme members of the latter group joined the former.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Wait you're arguing I chose to ignore that the Jersualem Post is fairly repuatable. My bad, you're right the Jerusalem Post is fairly reputable.

No, that's not what I said. I said that you conveniently chose to ignore the additional information provided by the Jerusalem Post.

If you didn't understand what I wrote, then there is your clarification.

If you did understand what I wrote, and chose to respond as above, then you're violating Rule 1.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Strawman. Lots of political entities aren't the social fathers of Al Qaeda.

No, that wasn't a strawman. A Strawman is arguing against something other than what is being said. You said that the Muslim Brotherhood has killed people, and Shuma said that many political entities in the Middle East have killed people. He directly addressed your point.

In any case, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood are opposed to one another, and have been since extreme members of the latter group joined the former.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Wait you're arguing I chose to ignore that the Jersualem Post is fairly repuatable. My bad, you're right the Jerusalem Post is fairly reputable.

No, that's not what I said. I said that you conveniently chose to ignore the additional information provided by the Jerusalem Post.

If you didn't understand what I wrote, then there is your clarification.

If you did understand what I wrote, and chose to respond as above, then you're violating Rule 1.

No I am just disagreeing with you. As you have a degree in nothing and I have a degree in nothing on the internet I could care less if you disagree.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean, at least you've finally dropped the pretence of having any solid argument.

Either way, Mubarak will step down.

Obama to speak regarding it sometime today. It is reputed that the United States pressured him into moving aside, which makes it likely that the US will at least help him find asylum.

Emperors Faithful wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean, at least you've finally dropped the pretence of having any solid argument.

This is the intranets. There is no such thing as a solid argument.

Rare jewels they are, this is true. But a more common occurence is a comprehensible one.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Rare jewels they are, this is true. But a more common occurence is a comprehensible one.

It isn't just the internet, most arguments made by most people are terrible.

dogma wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Rare jewels they are, this is true. But a more common occurence is a comprehensible one.

It isn't just the internet, most arguments made by most people are terrible.

Sources!

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:
I believe that it was a small typo. Most of the Health Surveys given out by the Egyptian government ask 'ever-married' women from 15-49 years of age. It was the official Egyptian Demographic and Health Survey of 2005 that reported 96% of ever-married women from 15-49 have been circumcised. 'Ever-married' means that they were married at least once in their lives even if they are not currently married.

No it wasn't. It specifically says in the article that you cited that it was the UNICEF survey, and the UNICEF survey doesn't report numbers for FGM into the 90's for those that were "ever married".

npr wrote:As recently as 2003, a UNICEF survey found that well over 90 percent of Egyptian women who were or had been married had undergone circumcision.

religious tolerance wrote:A 2005 report by UNICEF suggested that 97% of Egyptian women between the ages of 15 and 49 who have never been married have undergone some form of FGM or circumcision.

The difference between 'never married' and 'ever married' is the letter 'n'

From the 2005 UNICEF report:

UNICEF wrote:The respondents are women aged 15–49, except in Egypt, northern Sudan and Yemen, where the sample of respondents includes only women who have been married.

UNICEF wrote:According to the most recent DHS data (2003), among women aged 15–49 who are or have been married the prevalence rate is 97 per cent.

the report

So yeah dogma I have a lot of sources while you have listed absolutely none besides the fact that one of them may of had a typo in it. UNICEF reported those statistics, the Egyptian government reported those statistics, and the NPR reported those same statistics. Religious Tolerance.org reports the same statistics, but list it as 'never married' instead of 'ever married'. Like I said, probably a typo unless it takes only one written report to negate several other written reports.

dogma wrote:When I say "looking for war" I mean "looking to involve the United States in the conflict on a military level".

It wasn't merely opposing Japanese expansion. He actively looked for a way to do an end-run around neutrality legislation, and later entered into negotiations with Churchill over direct, military involvement. Then there's his support for intervention in the fireside chats, and support for a peacetime draft.

The guy didn't want WWII to start, but he wasn't going to sit it out either.

Yeah, all true, I think we're agreeing on everything here.

On a completely unrelated topic, FDR was awesome.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CT GAMER wrote:Is your crystal ball battery powered or solar?

I'm not gonna continue to argue this with you, because you seem to have all the answers, which is fortunate for us all.

Enjoy the rest of the thread and whatever your witty final retort will be.

Well that's all a bit sad really. Maybe I could have gone a little easier, but there really isn't a polite way to explain to someone their point makes no sense. Anyhow, you're happy with your view of the world, and it's a shame that we can't make you realise that your view is nonsensical, but there's not really much we can do about it if you're just going to pack up your toys and go home.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:Actually Sebster usually does have his gak in tip top shape which makes it annoying to argue with him at first, but it generally makes one try harder.

Thankyou for the compliment.

On the issue of women's rights in Egypt, I'll agree with you that they're in very poor shape, but I do wonder how that relates to political reform. If anything, the lack of social progress in women's rights only makes the case for democratic reform stronger, yeah?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Hyena wrote:Egypt is rioting. They'll bring down the government...and put up a supposedly democratic government...which will turn into the same as before or worse, an Islamic government...which they'll riot again...and the cycle will continue.

Yeah, there's always dangers to new democracies, but they can survive. The fact that you're living in a democracy is pretty strong evidence of that.

Its time like this that re-affirms that Nihilism is the right philosophy unfortunately...

No, it's just evidence that you're using your Nihilism to make Nihilist predictions, and declaring those predictions evidence of your Nihilistic worldview.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Obama to speak regarding it sometime today. It is reputed that the United States pressured him into moving aside, which makes it likely that the US will at least help him find asylum.

Obama's speach will be interesting.

I'm still calling Saudi Arabia for Mubarak's new home.

It does make the civil reform more important, but if you notice they banned FGM back in the 90's and tried before that as well. In fact they just recently dropped from 97% to in the 70% area because Mubarak's wife championed that cause.

Its starting to change, but it needs to stop.

Anywho, Mubarak plans to back down in September I guess. I think that the timeline is for the best seeing as though it will allow them to keep stability while the opposing political factions select a leader. The Egyptians need to face it, they don't have a ready leader to replace Mubarak and they need time to find one. We already saw the army start to back away from Mubarak so I can doubt that they will carry out any massacres for him.

As for Mubarak's home I'll bet Saudi Arabia or somewhere in Europe.

halonachos wrote:
So yeah dogma I have a lot of sources while you have listed absolutely none besides the fact that one of them may of had a typo in it. UNICEF reported those statistics, the Egyptian government reported those statistics, and the NPR reported those same statistics.

No, you have one source, the DHS report, that has been cited by multiple organizations; including UNICEF.

Not the Egyptian government though, they don't report this sort of data.

halonachos wrote:
Religious Tolerance.org reports the same statistics, but list it as 'never married' instead of 'ever married'. Like I said, probably a typo unless it takes only one written report to negate several other written reports.

Again, there is only one written report.

However, on closer examination, you are correct, it is a typo. That said, we don't have any insight on total rates of circumcision (which is different from mutilation). The 2009 DHS is more reliable than the 2003, but still seems to over report the practice based on what I've seen in various scholarly articles. If you want some alternative sources, just put "Egypt Women's Rights" into J-Store.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:
I'm still calling Saudi Arabia for Mubarak's new home.

I still think they might not want someone that is so unpopular amongst Arabs.

Libya might take him though.

halonachos wrote:It does make the civil reform more important, but if you notice they banned FGM back in the 90's and tried before that as well. In fact they just recently dropped from 97% to in the 70% area because Mubarak's wife championed that cause.

Its starting to change, but it needs to stop.

Sure, and I'm not saying democratisation will necessarily lead to the protection of minorities. It's just that between relying on democracy or the good will of the dictator's wife, I'd pick democracy every time.

Anywho, Mubarak plans to back down in September I guess. I think that the timeline is for the best seeing as though it will allow them to keep stability while the opposing political factions select a leader. The Egyptians need to face it, they don't have a ready leader to replace Mubarak and they need time to find one. We already saw the army start to back away from Mubarak so I can doubt that they will carry out any massacres for him.

Yeah, September elections would give time for political parties to form, and would be a good solution. The issue then becomes if Egyptians are willing to trust Mubarak will step down.

I guess we'll know that by Friday.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:I still think they might not want someone that is so unpopular amongst Arabs.

Libya might take him though.

Would Libya take someone who's so popular with Americans?

Saudi Arabia supported him through the protests so they may take him.

As far as J-Stor goes, my university has a subscription according to J-Stor but not according to my university.

Sometimes I hate state-run universities.

sebster wrote:
Would Libya take someone who's so popular with Americans?

Maybe, but I feel like Libya might have more leeway in that Qaddafi has been pretty good at extracting concessions from the West. It may well be seen as nothing more than a political turn.

No matter where he goes, he is going to run into the problem of being a Western pawn that no one in the West wants to take in.

Obama has said Mubarak must go.

Half price?

Apparently the Mubarak family has about £25 million stashed away so I wouldn't feel too sorry for them.

Depends on where they get to go.

The tried to get him to go to Riyadh, he said, "no no no"

dogma wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Rare jewels they are, this is true. But a more common occurence is a comprehensible one.

It isn't just the internet, most arguments made by most people are terrible.

Agreed. Just watch a married couple or siblings...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:The tried to get him to go to Riyadh, he said, "no no no"

So when do we start placing bets?

He's going to hell, that's my bet.

sexiest_hero wrote:He's going to hell, that's my bet.

Didn' you hear? According to Jack Chick, all you need to do is accept Jesus into your life, and you will be forgiven EVERYTHING no matter how evil you were in life!!!!!one!!!111!

Not good

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/egyptian-protestors-fear-chaos-mubarak-steps/story?id=12820590

We just got back to the hotel after trying to film on the bridge into Tahrir Square.


More Video
Watch: Egypt President Announcement
Watch: Mubarak's 30-Year Reign Ends
Watch: Obama: Transition In Egypt 'Must Begin Now'An angry mob surrounded us and chased us into the car shouting that they hate America. They kicked in the car doors and broke our windshield as we drove away.

Frazzled wrote:Not good

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/egyptian-protestors-fear-chaos-mubarak-steps/story?id=12820590

We just got back to the hotel after trying to film on the bridge into Tahrir Square.


More Video
Watch: Egypt President Announcement
Watch: Mubarak's 30-Year Reign Ends
Watch: Obama: Transition In Egypt 'Must Begin Now'An angry mob surrounded us and chased us into the car shouting that they hate America. They kicked in the car doors and broke our windshield as we drove away.

Unsurprising that the protests might turn somewhat anti American, they're been pretty coy so far. You don't support the dictator they are trying to overthrow for 30 years without catching some blame from the mobs. Mobs don't really think too logically. Hopefully they'll calm down before major clashes between protest groups.

Seeing as Mubarak has been supported by the US for so long, I'm surprised that there wasn't greater evidence of Anti-american sentiments during the protests.

Now they're actually fighting, that's great.

halonachos wrote:Now they're actually fighting, that's great.

Fighting who?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Not good

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/egyptian-protestors-fear-chaos-mubarak-steps/story?id=12820590

We just got back to the hotel after trying to film on the bridge into Tahrir Square.


More Video
Watch: Egypt President Announcement
Watch: Mubarak's 30-Year Reign Ends
Watch: Obama: Transition In Egypt 'Must Begin Now'An angry mob surrounded us and chased us into the car shouting that they hate America. They kicked in the car doors and broke our windshield as we drove away.

abc wrote:As we were trying to film on the bridge into Tahrir Square an angry mob of pro-Mubarak protesters surrounded us and chased us into the car, shouting that they hated us and America.

Wow, sort of left that bit out didn't you?

The pro-Mubarak crowd is fighting the anti-Mubarak crowd.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

halonachos wrote:Now they're actually fighting, that's great.

Fighting who?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Not good

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/egyptian-protestors-fear-chaos-mubarak-steps/story?id=12820590

We just got back to the hotel after trying to film on the bridge into Tahrir Square.


More Video
Watch: Egypt President Announcement
Watch: Mubarak's 30-Year Reign Ends
Watch: Obama: Transition In Egypt 'Must Begin Now'An angry mob surrounded us and chased us into the car shouting that they hate America. They kicked in the car doors and broke our windshield as we drove away.

abc wrote:As we were trying to film on the bridge into Tahrir Square an angry mob of pro-Mubarak protesters surrounded us and chased us into the car, shouting that they hated us and America.

Wow, sort of left that bit out didn't you?

Actually, thats at the bottom of what he posted. Please read peoples posts. I highlighted it in the hopes that you could battle your way through three sentences to see it.

Are we really surprised that they don't like America?

I mean, they have every reason to be hostile to us.

Using broad general strokes here, they hate America because of meddling. Everyone hates Americans for the meddling, but 30 years ago, it was meddling for the sake of the entire crazy unstable region there had to be some solid power bases with a strong military.

Looking at the state of things 30 years ago, America had a pretty valid reason to meddle in a region that teeters on the verge of self destructing and taking plenty of others with it in its petty, irrational primitive religious and traditional tribal feuds.

Someone has to police the region traditionally full of extremist fanatic wingnuts and corrupt violent dictators in power. Who's fault is it that that whole part of the world is unstable and cannot be trusted to police themselves in a greater international community scale where WMDs exist and armed zealots and stupid religious feuds are commonplace?

Who's fault is it that some meddling had to be done to put someone in power who would be a strong ally, and reasonable in Arab-Israel relations? Who made that necessary? If the kids were behaving back then, the parents wouldn't have had to appoint a babysitter, wasted our money creating and backing strong militarys, and yeah, getting a puppet out of it who would be flexible enough to deal with on an international politics level. The world as a whole needed some stabilizing powerful force in that region, it wasn't just the United States needing it (just the U.S. foots most of the bill, as usual, and gets all the hate for it).

Maybe el presidente was a solution to a difficult situation at the time the U.S. backed his rise to power, but 30 years ago is not today, and hating Americans for the current state of Egypt is irrational like hating England for the current state of America. It's not our fault our government is the way it is, England funded the colonies.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Actually, thats at the bottom of what he posted. Please read peoples posts. I highlighted it in the hopes that you could battle your way through three sentences to see it.

I was pointing out that the anti-American attacks were coming from a pro-Mubarak group (which in hindsight is unsurprising given Obama's call). It was in the very link he posted.

Maybe you could take a page from your own book?

yeenoghu wrote:Using broad general strokes here, they hate America because of meddling. Everyone hates Americans for the meddling, but 30 years ago, it was meddling for the sake of the entire crazy unstable region there had to be some solid power bases with a strong military.

Looking at the state of things 30 years ago, America had a pretty valid reason to meddle in a region that teeters on the verge of self destructing and taking plenty of others with it in its petty, irrational primitive religious and traditional tribal feuds.

Someone has to police the region traditionally full of extremist fanatic wingnuts and corrupt violent dictators in power. Who's fault is it that that whole part of the world is unstable and cannot be trusted to police themselves in a greater international community scale where WMDs exist and armed zealots and stupid religious feuds are commonplace?

Have you read anything, ever, on the history of the middle east? Because the reality is absolutely nothing like the one you've painted, and no half reasonable expert would ever claim US meddling has been a stabilising force in the region.

Nor did US meddling begin 30 years ago, nor did meddling begin with the US. In short, everything you wrote was entirely wrong.

Maybe el presidente was a solution to a difficult situation at the time the U.S. backed his rise to power, but 30 years ago is not today, and hating Americans for the current state of Egypt is irrational like hating England for the current state of America. It's not our fault our government is the way it is, England funded the colonies.

That doesn't make any sense. The US has 200 years of history since independance, and that was from a dispute over taxation and voting rights. You're comparing that to hostility in a country where the tyrant hasn't even been overthrown yet, and who enforced his rule through torture, and received US support and direct aid throughout.

The plain and simple truth is that it's been remarkable there's been so little anti-US sentiment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:Actually, thats at the bottom of what he posted. Please read peoples posts. I highlighted it in the hopes that you could battle your way through three sentences to see it.

Except that if you'd read the post and saw it was pro-Mubarak forces that attacked the car, then you'd have known your post about how anti-US sentiment is understandable given US support for Mubarak made little to no sense.

It's okay, you goofed. We all do it. The impressive thing now would be to put your hand up, admit it and move on.

sebster wrote:
Have you read anything, ever, on the history of the middle east? Because the reality is absolutely nothing like the one you've painted, and no half reasonable expert would ever claim US meddling has been a stabilising force in the region.

Well, Bernard Lewis would, but he is basically the Victor Davis Hanson of the Middle East.

That is to say, he knows his history, but he draws very stupid conclusions from that knowledge.

We've done some things with the whole Middle-Eastern area, but most of them involved giving weapons or training.

For example we sold weapons to both Iraq and Iran, when the Shah was removed our mechanics tore the systems out of the F-14's we had sold them. We gave the Taliban stinger missiles so they could shoot down Hind's.

We really, really need to stop that.

I heard the U.S. provides approximately 1/3 of the military budget there. I wonder who we can bill for that when people start talking about why the national debt is so high.

At least the military is behaving themselves from the (albeit few) BBC world news shorts I have seen. Through what seems to be inactive readiness instead of direct action they are showing that they are pretty much on the people's side. The question to me is what they are going to do with the power vaccuum. I heard one protester say something along the lines of "we don't care who is in power, just we want a democracy". Okay fair enough. Now what?

My take on history may be the equivalent of a U.S. high school no child left behind America First brainwashing but some things are pretty clear. That didn't work very well for the U.S.S.R. when it fell apart either. Change is great, but they kind of just thrust this on the rest of the world at a time of their chosing with a 'damn the consequences' attitude. No country that big and crucially located can ignore that the world is watching. A stable and predictable government there, no matter how bad, is better than an unstable rule of anarchy. Maybe they'll have a TV gameshow to decide who their next president should be, they have about 2 days to decide after all. If they don't have someone ready to step in, the Military would seem to be the defacto interim power. That's such a move foreward!

Incidentally, why should the U.S. not support a regime on account that it uses torture? All regimes use torture, some just invent other words for it. A policeman in Chicago recently got a whopping 4 year sentence because he was found to have used electrodes to get false confessions from people, would that mean the federal governments should disown chicago?

yeenoghu wrote:I heard the U.S. provides approximately 1/3 of the military budget there. I wonder who we can bill for that when people start talking about why the national debt is so high.

At least the military is behaving themselves from the (albeit few) news shorts I have seen. Through what seems to be inactive readiness instead of direct action they are showing that they are pretty much on the people's side. The question to me is what they are going to do with the power vaccuum. I heard one protester say something along the lines of "we don't care who is in power, just we want a democracy". Okay fair enough. Now what?

oops. That didn't work very well for the U.S.S.R. when it fell apart either.

Incidentally, why should the U.S. not support a regime on account that it uses torture? All regimes use torture, some just invent other words for it. A policeman in Chicago recently got a whopping 4 year sentence because he was found to have used electrodes to get false confessions from people, would that mean the federal governments should disown chicago?

You have no idea about the world of hurt Dogma, Shuma, and Sebster are going to bring you.

I am just bringing one guys opinion based on what I have seen in the news. Like it or dislike it, I doubt if I am the only one who feels this way and has only the facts I see presented. Maybe I'm the voice of ignorant american point of view, but if I am drawing these conclusions from the footage I get to see and the things I've been shown to read, maybe I can be the whipping boy for American ignorance I don't mind. It's only been a week since half of this country could even find egypt on a map for all I know.

yeenoghu wrote:Using broad general strokes here, they hate America because of meddling. Everyone hates Americans for the meddling, but 30 years ago, it was meddling for the sake of the entire crazy unstable region there had to be some solid power bases with a strong military.

Looking at the state of things 30 years ago, America had a pretty valid reason to meddle in a region that teeters on the verge of self destructing and taking plenty of others with it in its petty, irrational primitive religious and traditional tribal feuds.

Someone has to police the region traditionally full of extremist fanatic wingnuts and corrupt violent dictators in power. Who's fault is it that that whole part of the world is unstable and cannot be trusted to police themselves in a greater international community scale where WMDs exist and armed zealots and stupid religious feuds are commonplace?

Who's fault is it that some meddling had to be done to put someone in power who would be a strong ally, and reasonable in Arab-Israel relations? Who made that necessary? If the kids were behaving back then, the parents wouldn't have had to appoint a babysitter, wasted our money creating and backing strong militarys, and yeah, getting a puppet out of it who would be flexible enough to deal with on an international politics level. The world as a whole needed some stabilizing powerful force in that region, it wasn't just the United States needing it (just the U.S. foots most of the bill, as usual, and gets all the hate for it).

Maybe el presidente was a solution to a difficult situation at the time the U.S. backed his rise to power, but 30 years ago is not today, and hating Americans for the current state of Egypt is irrational like hating England for the current state of America. It's not our fault our government is the way it is, England funded the colonies.

Ladies and gentleman, the new fateweaver.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:We've done some things with the whole Middle-Eastern area, but most of them involved giving weapons or training.

For example we sold weapons to both Iraq and Iran, when the Shah was removed our mechanics tore the systems out of the F-14's we had sold them. We gave the Taliban stinger missiles so they could shoot down Hind's.

We really, really need to stop that.

I'm playing league of legends between bouts of homework. He's spared.

yeenoghu wrote:I am just bringing one guys opinion based on what I have seen in the news. Like it or dislike it, I doubt if I am the only one who feels this way and has only the facts I see presented. Maybe I'm the voice of ignorant american point of view, but if I am drawing these conclusions from the footage I get to see and the things I've been shown to read, maybe I can be the whipping boy for American ignorance I don't mind. It's only been a week since half of this country could even find egypt on a map for all I know.

Don't say the 'o' word, it only gets them angrier.

yeenoghu wrote:I heard the U.S. provides approximately 1/3 of the military budget there. I wonder who we can bill for that when people start talking about why the national debt is so high.

Well, US aid to Egypt is roughly half their total military budget, though it is uncertain to what degree our aid actually goes to the military.

More to the point, Egypt's military budget is only 3.6 billion dollars; meaning that our contribution is financially irrelevant to the US.

yeenoghu wrote:
That didn't work very well for the U.S.S.R. when it fell apart either.

Democracy rarely works. Most nations have been democratic at least once in their history, but most nations quickly fail to sustain such practices.

yeenoghu wrote:
Change is great, but they kind of just thrust this on the rest of the world at a time of their chosing with a 'damn the consequences' attitude. No country that big and crucially located can ignore that the world is watching. A stable and predictable government there, no matter how bad, is better than an unstable rule of anarchy.

For us, maybe, but maybe not for them. They have no reason, at the moment, to give a damn about anything that the West wants.

yeenoghu wrote:
If they don't have someone ready to step in, the Military would seem to be the defacto interim power. That's such a move foreward!

In Indonesia and Brazil, it was.

They'll be given a reason to give a damn what the west wants if the suez canal becomes an issue won't they?

yeenoghu wrote:They'll be given a reason to give a damn what the west wants if the suez canal becomes an issue won't they?

Maybe, maybe not.

Do you want to pay for the invasion?

Anyway, tracers, meaning military, currently being fired in Cairo.

Time to cancel my summer semester at AUC.

Yeah, this is going to hell in a handbasket. Attacking our reporters and now this, I wonder when we move in to get US citizens out if we have any left.

Does anyone in the U.S. get to make that decision? I didn't want to pay for Iraq or Afghanistan either but I am.

I'm not saying it's likely but what if the gameshow winner new guy decides to be "progressive" and all pro-Egypt and starts messing with the way things were to make a bigger buck off of it for his country? That canal is pretty crucial, if not the most crucial reason to care what Egypt ends up like after this, at least as far as international trade and economy is concerned.

All the holy war shiite are an issue of fighting over that just should have stopped about the same time the earth started revolving around the sun, but they are a worry to more sensible people who don't want to die in a firestorm because of other people's delusions.

Economics and shipping concerns everybody though, no matter what stories you believe or how you pronounce "god". Of course if you're an archaeologist or something you might care about the fate of Egyptian politics allowing people to see the sites or not, but mostly it's that canal that puts Egypt on the map of "places to worry about the fate of" from what I can tell.

halonachos wrote:Yeah, this is going to hell in a handbasket. Attacking our reporters and now this, I wonder when we move in to get US citizens out if we have any left.

State Department just put out the emergency call for embassy flights.

The US state department just advised all americans in Egypt to leave the country immediately.

Ninja'd I guess.

Geeze, this is pretty bad. Hopefully they can keep the extremists out of the power vacuum.

yeenoghu wrote:
I'm not saying it's likely but what if the gameshow winner new guy decides to be "progressive" and all pro-Egypt and starts messing with the way things were to make a bigger buck off of it for his country? That canal is pretty crucial, if not the most crucial reason to care what Egypt ends up like after this, at least as far as international trade and economy is concerned.

Still probably cheaper and more politically popular than war.

dogma wrote:

yeenoghu wrote:
I'm not saying it's likely but what if the gameshow winner new guy decides to be "progressive" and all pro-Egypt and starts messing with the way things were to make a bigger buck off of it for his country? That canal is pretty crucial, if not the most crucial reason to care what Egypt ends up like after this, at least as far as international trade and economy is concerned.

Still probably cheaper and more politically popular than war.

If that happens they'll kick more than just America in the nuts. They can block off the canal, but if the entire world is placing political pressure on them that attitude won't last long.

Military has still been reported as neutral. I hope they stay neutral during this. The US, although this has been said before, is now backing the push for a new government. But with the reports of tracer fire, how long before we really get this civil war going?

yeenoghu wrote:Does anyone in the U.S. get to make that decision? I didn't want to pay for Iraq or Afghanistan either but I am.

Of course they do! They're called the President and Congress.

I'm not saying it's likely but what if the gameshow winner new guy decides to be "progressive" and all pro-Egypt and starts messing with the way things were to make a bigger buck off of it for his country? That canal is pretty crucial, if not the most crucial reason to care what Egypt ends up like after this, at least as far as international trade and economy is concerned.

I'll grant that the Suez Canal is incredibly important to international trade, but if someone starts messing with that too badly Egypt is going to find themselves in a world of hurt. It probably won't end up with military intervention like in the 50's, but due to Egypt's lack of natural resources and weak economy nations could cut support or use economic pressure to convince them it's not a good idea.

All the holy war shiite are an issue of fighting over that just should have stopped about the same time the earth started revolving around the sun, but they are a worry to more sensible people who don't want to die in a firestorm because of other people's delusions.

Wait, what? Egypt is primarily a Sunni country, and according to their census there are only a few thousand Shi'a Muslims there. I fail to see the relevance.

Economics and shipping concerns everybody though, no matter what stories you believe or how you pronounce "god". Of course if you're an archaeologist or something you might care about the fate of Egyptian politics allowing people to see the sites or not, but mostly it's that canal that puts Egypt on the map of "places to worry about the fate of" from what I can tell.

You know, that and the fact that Egypt has been friendly to the West and played a leading role in Arab politics for years. They tend to be trendsetters, and have cooperated extensively with the Israeli government to safeguard the current pseudo peace.

halonachos wrote:
If that happens they'll kick more than just America in the nuts. They can block off the canal, but if the entire world is placing political pressure on them that attitude won't last long.

Who said anything about blocking it?

If I were running Egypt I would charge 5-6 times more than they currently do for usage.

Extort those Western pricks!

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:
If that happens they'll kick more than just America in the nuts. They can block off the canal, but if the entire world is placing political pressure on them that attitude won't last long.

Who said anything about blocking it?

If I were running Egypt I would charge 5-6 times more than they currently do for usage.

Extort those Western pricks!

Even if they just raise prices I'm pretty sure the world can out muscle Egypt politically. Sure the world will suffer momentarily due to increased shipping time but in the end Egypt would most likely give in when their economy hits the fan.

Nobody would want to pay that charge. May as well block it, you'll get the same reaction.

This "all Americans get out now" is pretty fresh huh? Last news of any length I saw was this morning since all the basic cable stations are going on and on about issnow in the midwest, with an occasional snippett about egypt.

Just got to ask myself, what kind of gak hears a whole room full of people screaming "hey gak, we hate you! leave our party" and wants to go get another beer from the keg?

AS far as where the gak goes for his afterparty, who cares? there's a solution for that pretty quick and final if it really becomes an issue.

Ammended the evacuation order, telling americans to wait for the curfew to end now.

And we'll have no choice but to pay it! Yay! Now my shipments from China will cost more. But hey, remember the last time they tried to nationalize/close off the canal? Suez Crisis ring a bell?

But in any case, yeah this is oging to hell....it could simply be that the military is neutral, but some civillians have gotten their hands on military weaponry of some kind. Probably not all that hard...the only problem is that this could escalate enough that the military HAS to force a crack down on the country to prevent a civil war, and given the crucial position Egypt has in both the Middle East and the world at large? The last thing we want is a civil war...military crackdown is bad, but not as bad as it could be. As dogma pointed out, sometimes the military taking power isn't a bad thing. It's a bad thing from the Western pov, but alot of things are 'bad' from the Western pov.

Edit: The only problem is that increasing prices ISN'T the same as closing it. People WILL pay it. It's either pay it, or sail around Africa, and unless you're driving a nuclear powered container ship, the fuel costs alone would make it worth paying the toll to go through the canal. Even IF you're nuclear powered, the time delay for sailing around Africa would probably make paying the new increased toll preferable.

The Suez Canal is not a bridge where if it's too expensive you go and find a nother one. It's much more important than that.

halonachos wrote:
Even if they just raise prices I'm pretty sure the world can out muscle Egypt politically. Sure the world will suffer momentarily due to increased shipping time but in the end Egypt would most likely give in when their economy hits the fan.

Most of their economy is derived from internal consumption, and trade with the Arab world.

They can, and should, raise prices for canal use.

I'm all for states refusing to allow Western extortion.

The news seems to be hinting that the US is preparing to let the military do its thing. Civilians may have gotten military hardware. This needs to end before friday, or it goes to hell in a handbasket real fast.

Why? charging for the fact of their location on the map? The nations they would be effecting can pretty well blow them off the map if they really want to get possessive about it. I wonder if declaring the canal as International Waters for the greater posterity of the whole world could be an option on the table.

Happygrunt wrote:The news seems to be hinting that the US is preparing to let the military do its thing. Civilians may have gotten military hardware. This needs to end before friday, or it goes to hell in a handbasket real fast.

So is the tracer fire military or civilians with military hardware

Happygrunt wrote:The news seems to be hinting that the US is preparing to let the military do its thing. Civilians may have gotten military hardware. This needs to end before friday, or it goes to hell in a handbasket real fast.

Nah, the military is probably siding with Mubarak. This is an old Mugabe trick. The military "stands by" while plain clothes soldiers do the kicking.

The US Department of State is, apparently, trying to sway the military by threatening the removal of aid. We're very clearly siding with the protesters now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yeenoghu wrote:Why? charging for the fact of their location on the map? The nations they would be effecting can pretty well blow them off the map if they really want to get possessive about it. I wonder if declaring the canal as International Waters for the greater posterity of the whole world could be an option on the table.

Sure, just like subjecting US soldiers to the ICC is on the table.

If only Mubaraks current location could mysteriously explode while an F22 mysteriously loses fuel. It would be so much easier if we could kill tyrants who war on their own people.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if he doesn't see saturday. It sure would simplify the thing, and he hasn't gone into a cave or anything yet.

I don't claim to know the minds of Egyptian soldiers, but from what I have seen, it really seems that they want no part of it, which means to me that they are with the people, but have to maintain their honor of their uniform by being 'ready' as is their duty, instead of just violently putting down the civil unrest. Doing nothing looks to me like sympathy.

Uh, the violence has been from the pro-Mubarak crowd, and the soldiers are letting it happen.

That basically means state endorsement.

yeenoghu wrote:Why? charging for the fact of their location on the map? The nations they would be effecting can pretty well blow them off the map if they really want to get possessive about it. I wonder if declaring the canal as International Waters for the greater posterity of the whole world could be an option on the table.

Because they CAN. States have never been the most....altruistic of actors, and tend to act for whats in their best interests. Additionally....what purpose would blowing up Egypt serve? Not only will it make the world hate whichever country did it, but they'll likely damage the canal as well destroying any benefits the most.

And yeah, like dogma said it's POSSIBLE in the sense that it is POSSIBLE that this world is just a game of Sims 500000000000000 running on some guys computer a few hundred years in the future. It's extremely unlikely, what benefit would they get? ....Nothing. What do they lose? Money! Guess which way they're likely to go, no matter who's in charge?

Edit:

dogma wrote:Uh, the violence has been from the pro-Mubarak crowd, and the soldiers are letting it happen.

That basically means state endorsement.

Or it could mean, extremely unlikely though, given the nature of the Egyptian Military, that the military has its own problems right now.

From what CNN is saying the plain clothes officers are indeed beating the hell out of protestors for the low price of some viagra, not sure about the viagra thing though.

Now they're throwing molotovs and the news is saying that they're actually tearing up the roads for throwing material.

I do believe this qualifies as 'hell in a handbasket'. I'd almost welcome a military crack down now....

I have seen plainclothes in a riot before, specifically doing stuff when a camera is rolling and cops are nearby, to give police a good excuse and news a good way of rationalizing them. That's here in the United States too. I wouldn't be a bit surprised. All it takes is one guy to make the rest of them look dangerous.

ChrisWWII wrote:I do believe this qualifies as 'hell in a handbasket'. I'd almost welcome a military crack down now....

Yeah, when you start using infrastructure as a weapon you've hit...rock bottom.

Yep, cavalry charge.

dogma wrote:


Yep, cavalry charge.

They have camels too.

I have been to Cairo (Family vacation). I hope that they dont attack the artifacts there. The police were the real problem weren't they? They attacked everyone? Military presence was actually welcomed.

They've already attacked the museum IIRC.

What are a bunch of horses being ridden by civilians doing in a city? hmmmm. Last I checked, not many urban dwellers have an easy time owning a horse.

If you're interested in a first-hand account a friend of mine just got evacuated from Cairo. His accounts are pretty good and offer a little more insight than the common crap you'll get on the news.

http://professionalscoundrel.wordpress.com/2011/02/02/the-days-of-rage-13/

I'm left wondering what happens if Mubarak keeps power? Particularly in terms of his relationship with the US. Do they all just pretend this didn't happen?

dogma wrote:Well, Bernard Lewis would, but he is basically the Victor Davis Hanson of the Middle East.

That is to say, he knows his history, but he draws very stupid conclusions from that knowledge.

Oh there's certainly a few around, which is why I added 'half reasonable' in front of 'expert'. I should note there's plenty of entirely unreasonable scholars who blame everything on Western interference as well, which I guess is the problem with any academic field so closely tied to modern politics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:We've done some things with the whole Middle-Eastern area, but most of them involved giving weapons or training.

For example we sold weapons to both Iraq and Iran, when the Shah was removed our mechanics tore the systems out of the F-14's we had sold them. We gave the Taliban stinger missiles so they could shoot down Hind's.

You also put the Shah in power in the first place. Before then Iran had something of young but developing democracy, but they nationalised oil that the US and UK wanted, so that was the end of that.

Selling the stingers wasn't a mistake, if you ask me. Leaving the local population without any support after the war, with a young and militant population, that was probably the bigger mistake.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yeenoghu wrote:I heard the U.S. provides approximately 1/3 of the military budget there. I wonder who we can bill for that when people start talking about why the national debt is so high.

When it comes to Egypt you basically bought their loyalty with military aid, which was hugely important to Israeli stability. Exactly why the US spends so much on protecting Israel when Israel is entirely capable of looking after themselves, and basically gives you nothing in return is one of the great mysteries of US history.

Change is great, but they kind of just thrust this on the rest of the world at a time of their chosing with a 'damn the consequences' attitude. No country that big and crucially located can ignore that the world is watching. A stable and predictable government there, no matter how bad, is better than an unstable rule of anarchy.

First up, revolutions just happen. They are unpredictable, and rely on enough people saying the government is so bad that damn the consequences, we're going to see change. It produced a lot of the democracies you see around the world, including your own.

Second up, are you saying that Egypt is too important for them to decide what happens in their own country? The US is also very big and important, do you think it would be right for any other nation to say 'sorry, you're too big and important to have another chaotic change of government, so we're going to pick your government for you? It's their country, like it or lump, it's their decision.

Incidentally, why should the U.S. not support a regime on account that it uses torture? All regimes use torture, some just invent other words for it. A policeman in Chicago recently got a whopping 4 year sentence because he was found to have used electrodes to get false confessions from people, would that mean the federal governments should disown chicago?

I would say 'we imprison government employees that we find torturing people' and 'we tell government employees to torture people' are pretty much exact opposites.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yeenoghu wrote:They'll be given a reason to give a damn what the west wants if the suez canal becomes an issue won't they?

If you can summon the political will for an invasion, and doing so is easier than remaining on friendly terms with the new government, then sure.

I really doubt that such a thing will happen, unless we're looking at a year or more of ongoing instability with no movement to new political factions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yeenoghu wrote:Does anyone in the U.S. get to make that decision? I didn't want to pay for Iraq or Afghanistan either but I am.

Both relied on popular support. No government would surrender power to go to into a really unpopular war.

I'm not saying it's likely but what if the gameshow winner new guy decides to be "progressive" and all pro-Egypt and starts messing with the way things were to make a bigger buck off of it for his country? That canal is pretty crucial, if not the most crucial reason to care what Egypt ends up like after this, at least as far as international trade and economy is concerned.

The most likely result is Egypt will get more out of the canal, while some trade will be redirected. The US and France tried to stop an Egyptian government from asserting greater control over the canal once before. It ended in the complete humiliation of the UK and France.

Economics and shipping concerns everybody though, no matter what stories you believe or how you pronounce "god". Of course if you're an archaeologist or something you might care about the fate of Egyptian politics allowing people to see the sites or not, but mostly it's that canal that puts Egypt on the map of "places to worry about the fate of" from what I can tell.

Sure, but very few people like the idea of sending their troops off to war over economic concerns. So instead they dress the issues up with 'so and so is a very bad man who tortures people' and 'so and so is building WMDs'. Then people inclined to believe such silliness believe it, and they argue with the people who don't believe it.

But it'd be pretty hard to make up that kind of stuff about a new democratic Egypt. And any other possible government would be entirely dependant on the US to gain power, so would be very unlikely to start acting up, at least not at first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Most of their economy is derived from internal consumption, and trade with the Arab world.

Huh. I read that and thought 'surely tourism would be very important' so I looked it up. Tourism in Egypt is about 2.5% of GDP, which is pretty damn small. I mean, it's still more than ten billion dollars as a straight cash injection into the economy and that's nice and all, but it's about standard for world tourism. I never would have guessed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yeenoghu wrote:Why? charging for the fact of their location on the map? The nations they would be effecting can pretty well blow them off the map if they really want to get possessive about it. I wonder if declaring the canal as International Waters for the greater posterity of the whole world could be an option on the table.

Because stability has more important elements for the world than keeping the same governments in power. The precedent that a nation owning a resource is not allowed to use it as it sees fit, less bigger countries will swoop in and make them use it another way is very dangerous. How can business plan when deals it makes with a government over, say, iron resources, might be nullified because another country disapproves?

I'm left wondering what happens if Mubarak keeps power? Particularly in terms of his relationship with the US. Do they all just pretend this didn't happen?

That would be disastrous politically for Obama and highly damaging for international interests. My bet is a preliminary round of sanctions and the cutting of aid. Mubarak can't keep the military in line without our funds, especially not in a situation a great many of them probably feel very uneasy about.