Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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?!