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.

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...