Egypt's Revolution (Poll added)

[patches70]

There has to date been no election in Egypt, much less an election won by the MB. The protests were not launched by the Islamic brotherhood, they have simply jumped on the bandwagon in the last couple of days.

You are wrong, look into it. Egypt has regular Parliamentary elections. Mubarak allowed less restrictions on elections and allowed multiple candidates to run for Presidential elections. This was in 2005, the Referendum Year. Egyptians, not really trusting in democracy, had a horrible voter turnout percentages.

The elections of 2006 saw the Muslim Brotherhood*, won 88 seats of the parliamentary
elections. The Muslim Brotherhood, since those elections, is the largest opposition bloc in the Egyptian parliament.

*The Muslim Brotherhood "party" is not recognized as a party by the Egyptian government. Muslim brotherhood candidates ran as independents.

For the allied cause? or because they had been invaded?

Stalin was perfectly happy to watch Hitler invade western Europe.

My point, though you didn't seem to get it, was that even if a country is "democratic", doesn't mean it will view the world the same as we do where as a tyrant may be more open for co operation on various issues. Just because two countries are "democratic" doesn't mean they will help each other.

Hamas is in charge of only the Gaza strip and that after launching a coup. Any election held under their authority is highly suspect.

Any elections under Hamas control will no doubt be called "democratic" for all intensive purposes. Also, in 2005 Hamas boycotted the Presidential election but in 2006 during the Legislative elections, Hamas crushed Fatah completely. No real reports of corruption in those 2006 elections, Hamas won fair and square it seems.

Man I wonder why all these democracies are unhapy with the us? I wonder if it has anything to do with propping up corrupt dictatorships like Mubaraks regime? nahh must just be because they hate America.

It is a far more complex situation than you are making it out to be. Those countries moving away from us towards Iranian sphere of influence, I could argue that it is in those countries best interest. We for all intensive purposes, shown that we can't be counted on to stand up to aggression and protect our allies, like we once used to be counted on.

What would you propose we do with those countries with Tyrants? Do like we did with Cuba? Just cut em off completely? How have the Cuban people themselves fared under such conditions? It is an option, but it leads to even more suffering. Maybe that is the best option, but it didn't bring down Castro like we thought it would and we are beginning now to normalizing relations with Cuba. So it is not nearly as cut and dry as you would make it out to be.

It is for the People of a particular country to decide to ban together and establish a new government. And not one bit should we feel required to send our soldiers to fight and die while those people work out how that change will come.

[Timminz]

*intents and purposes

[Woodruff]

OP asked if we should send troops. Of course we shouldn't. Unless we are attacked or seriously believe Egypt is about to attack us, then we shouldn't be sending troops no matter how bad the Egyptians get to each other. It is none of our business.

Yes, history has certainly proven that isolationism works.

Imagine if other countries during the 60's as the students at Kent were getting gunned down, tried to send troops to our soil to help the hippies?

As bad as the Kent State Massacre was, it hardly compares to what is going on in Egypt. Even the national uproar that resulted from it doesn't in the least compare.

How would we have reacted if during the civil rights movement the Soviet Union sent troops to force the US government to enact civil rights legislation?

Aside from the irony, you mean?

As for other support for Egypt, we already send them $2 billion a year in foreign aid, what more should we do?

How much of that $2b makes it to the populace of Egypt, do you imagine?

And if we actually think Egypt would move to being a democracy, which is a stretch considering the history in the region, why would we think that would be better for the US?

Does it have to be better for the US to be the right thing to do?

It is not in our National Interest to be sending troops into Egypt.

I certainly agree, as things currently stand. Yet, whether that remains the case or not is yet to be seen.

[patches70]

Does it have to be better for the US to be the right thing to do?

That is just the thing, who is to say if it is the right thing to do?

I mean, if you advocate sending in American Troops into Egypt to install a Democratically elected Government, then you certainly would not have a problem with Bush invading Iraq and doing the same thing?

I don't know, we invaded Iraq because we were told they were a threat to our National Security because of their WMD programs, and after it was found out they had none, then we were there to bring democracy. Which Bush took untold amounts of bashing and criticism for and still does to this day.

Egypt has been moving to more democratic (albeit slowly) processes, and what did it give them? The International organization, Muslim Brotherhood as the largest opposition party in Egypt.

I have little doubt that if full and open elections were to take place, The Muslim Brotherhood would certainly take power of Parliament and Administration. I also believe once accomplishing that they would dismantle the democratic process or subvert it to stay in power and spread their brand of Islamic tyranny. THEN we could well find ourselves with a real need to send troops into Egypt one day.

I don't think very many here on this forum really appreciate or understand the dynamics going on in Egypt right now. The different factions seeking to use this for their own purposes.

Our military forces are supposed to be used to protect our Country. What is happening right now in Egypt is not a direct threat to our country and thus there is no justification to send troops in any way. If the Egyptians need foreign peace keepers, then they can appeal to the UN and go from there. But hell no do not send one single US soldier there because some fools think "It is the right thing to do".

[Woodruff]

Does it have to be better for the US to be the right thing to do?

That is just the thing, who is to say if it is the right thing to do?

As with any decision, you rarely can know if a major decision is the right thing to do or not in advance. You can only do what your information at the time leads you to believe is the right thing to do.

I mean, if you advocate sending in American Troops into Egypt to install a Democratically elected Government, then you certainly would not have a problem with Bush invading Iraq and doing the same thing?

Don't make presumptions about what I advocate. Mostly, I try to play Devil's Advocate.

Egypt has been moving to more democratic (albeit slowly) processes, and what did it give them? The International organization, Muslim Brotherhood as the largest opposition party in Egypt.

Is that a bad thing? It seems to me that if their democratic processes are legitimate, then that is what the people want.

I have little doubt that if full and open elections were to take place, The Muslim Brotherhood would certainly take power of Parliament and Administration. I also believe once accomplishing that they would dismantle the democratic process or subvert it to stay in power and spread their brand of Islamic tyranny. THEN we could well find ourselves with a real need to send troops into Egypt one day.

Why would we need to send troops there one day? I don't really foresee any reason why we would, short of their being invaded by another nation or something along those lines.

Our military forces are supposed to be used to protect our Country. What is happening right now in Egypt is not a direct threat to our country and thus there is no justification to send troops in any way.

I agree, and have said so. By the same token, we know that isolationism does not work.

But hell no do not send one single US soldier there because some fools think "It is the right thing to do".

Because doing the right thing is foolish?

[patches70]

I agree, and have said so. By the same token, we know that isolationism does not work.

You think that refraining from the use of military force except in direct defense of our nation = Isolationism?

We don't have to send our troops anywhere, but we can certainly trade and do business with any nation.

Besides, we couldn't do a darn thing about Egypt anyway, militarily, as stretched as we are now. The people of Egypt will sort all this out on their own in their own time, to whatever outcome.

[Baron Von PWN]

There has to date been no election in Egypt, much less an election won by the MB. The protests were not launched by the Islamic brotherhood, they have simply jumped on the bandwagon in the last couple of days.

You are wrong, look into it. Egypt has regular Parliamentary elections. Mubarak allowed less restrictions on elections and allowed multiple candidates to run for Presidential elections. This was in 2005, the Referendum Year. Egyptians, not really trusting in democracy, had a horrible voter turnout percentages.

The elections of 2006 saw the Muslim Brotherhood*, won 88 seats of the parliamentary
elections. The Muslim Brotherhood, since those elections, is the largest opposition bloc in the Egyptian parliament.

*The Muslim Brotherhood "party" is not recognized as a party by the Egyptian government. Muslim brotherhood candidates ran as independents.

Sorry I should have specified free and fair elections. Egypt has not had one of those in a very long time.

For the allied cause? or because they had been invaded?

Stalin was perfectly happy to watch Hitler invade western Europe.

My point, though you didn't seem to get it, was that even if a country is "democratic", doesn't mean it will view the world the same as we do where as a tyrant may be more open for co operation on various issues. Just because two countries are "democratic" doesn't mean they will help each other.

In other words the US should support Tyrants because they are easier to bribe?

My point was the autocratic regimes you mentioned didn't give two shits about the allied cause and pitched in only because they had been invaded.

Hamas is in charge of only the Gaza strip and that after launching a coup. Any election held under their authority is highly suspect.

Any elections under Hamas control will no doubt be called "democratic" for all intensive purposes. Also, in 2005 Hamas boycotted the Presidential election but in 2006 during the Legislative elections, Hamas crushed Fatah completely. No real reports of corruption in those 2006 elections, Hamas won fair and square it seems.

North Korea calls its elections democratic, doesn't make it so. Hamas won after years of autocratic rule by Fatah.

Man I wonder why all these democracies are unhapy with the us? I wonder if it has anything to do with propping up corrupt dictatorships like Mubaraks regime? nahh must just be because they hate America.

It is a far more complex situation than you are making it out to be. Those countries moving away from us towards Iranian sphere of influence, I could argue that it is in those countries best interest. We for all intensive purposes, shown that we can't be counted on to stand up to aggression and protect our allies, like we once used to be counted on.

Yes invading anyone you feel like and proping up dictators while talking about how awesome and free you are may have had something to do with eroding that influence.

What would you propose we do with those countries with Tyrants? Do like we did with Cuba? Just cut em off completely? How have the Cuban people themselves fared under such conditions? It is an option, but it leads to even more suffering. Maybe that is the best option, but it didn't bring down Castro like we thought it would and we are beginning now to normalizing relations with Cuba. So it is not nearly as cut and dry as you would make it out to be.

I get your point. For reasons of Realpolitk the US should deal with Tyrants and dictators, fine I agree. Don't expect me to be even remotely chagrined when their own people throw the bastards out though.I agree,a democracy will not always act in the full interests of another democracy, of course they wont, neither will a dictatorship.

Overall a democracy is far more likely to be in the best interests of other democracies though.

It is for the People of a particular country to decide to ban together and establish a new government. And not one bit should we feel required to send our soldiers to fight and die while those people work out how that change will come.

Agreed, I've said elsewhere that would be inappropriate and was never making that argument. I was merely reacting to your disgusting position of "We shouldn't be happy they are winning their freedom because this dictator happens to be in our pocket"

[patches70]

I was merely reacting to your disgusting position of "We shouldn't be happy they are winning their freedom because this dictator happens to be in our pocket"

Hey man, I could care less if a tyrant is able to keep power or not, regardless of if he is "in our pocket". I just don't want to sacrifice American Lives to end up just establishing another form of tyranny. If the people of Egypt want to establish a democracy, More power to them I say. I wish them the best of luck.

If the people of Egypt want to toss Mubarak out and establish an Islamic Theocracy, More power to them I say. I wish them the best of luck.

If the people of Egypt say "Come help us fight to throw this dictator out", I say, "Ummm, No thanks, it is none of our business, but best of luck to you!"

Whatever rises out of the ashes, well, we cross that bridge when we get to it. What ever the Egyptian people decide to do is what they decide, just don't involve the US military since this has nothing to do with our National Security at all.

From the point of view of official US government policy, we shouldn't feel happy or sad what is going on in Egypt. We just deal with the consequences. As an individual, one may feel happy if they wish, or wish not to, it doesn't matter. Just don't go calling for other Americans to go join the fight.

My position is that I am skeptical of the calls for Democracy. I will believe it when I see it I suppose. Other than that, it is solely an Egyptian problem, one they will work out themselves one way or another. The idea of using the US Military to "spread Democracy" by the point of a bayonet is a Neo-Con policy of which the premise I reject categorically.

[Baron Von PWN]

I was merely reacting to your disgusting position of "We shouldn't be happy they are winning their freedom because this dictator happens to be in our pocket"

Hey man, I could care less if a tyrant is able to keep power or not, regardless of if he is "in our pocket". I just don't want to sacrifice American Lives to end up just establishing another form of tyranny. If the people of Egypt want to establish a democracy, More power to them I say. I wish them the best of luck.

If the people of Egypt want to toss Mubarak out and establish an Islamic Theocracy, More power to them I say. I wish them the best of luck.

If the people of Egypt say "Come help us fight to throw this dictator out", I say, "Ummm, No thanks, it is none of our business, but best of luck to you!"

Whatever rises out of the ashes, well, we cross that bridge when we get to it. What ever the Egyptian people decide to do is what they decide, just don't involve the US military since this has nothing to do with our National Security at all.

From the point of view of official US government policy, we shouldn't feel happy or sad what is going on in Egypt. We just deal with the consequences. As an individual, one may feel happy if they wish, or wish not to, it doesn't matter. Just don't go calling for other Americans to go join the fight.

My position is that I am skeptical of the calls for Democracy. I will believe it when I see it I suppose. Other than that, it is solely an Egyptian problem, one they will work out themselves one way or another. The idea of using the US Military to "spread Democracy" by the point of a bayonet is a Neo-Con policy of which the premise I reject categorically.

My apologies then, I misunderstood you.

[HapSmo19]

Why the f*ck are we sending them 2b a year again?

[Ray Rider]

Why the f*ck are we sending them 2b a year again?

Good question, especially when the US is collapsing economically.

As thousands gathered in the streets, unmolested by patient troops in their American-built tanks...
Egypt’s sprawling armed forces — the world’s 10th biggest and more than 468,000-strong — have been at the heart of power since army officers staged the 1952 overthrow of the king. It benefits from about $1.3 billion a year in U.S. military aid.
Egypt’s military appears to be showing restraint and there is no talk at this time about halting U.S. aid to Egypt, Clinton told ABC on Sunday.

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/ ... z1CXPMqiqn

[Woodruff]

I agree, and have said so. By the same token, we know that isolationism does not work.

You think that refraining from the use of military force except in direct defense of our nation = Isolationism?

It certainly is one form of it, yes...without question.

We don't have to send our troops anywhere, but we can certainly trade and do business with any nation.

When I refer to isolationism, I am not referring to trade isolation. I am referring to the idea that "if it's not directly affecting us, we shouldn't care"...which can easily fail, given that just because something isn't directly affecting us now doesn't mean that it's not setting up conditions which WILL directly affect us and for which we could be acting in a way to mitigate those affects now.

Besides, we couldn't do a darn thing about Egypt anyway, militarily, as stretched as we are now.

Oh, I agree in this case, as I have said...this is not a time for us to send to troops to Egypt at all. I'm speaking in more of a general sense.

[CreepersWiener]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DohG-tk7 ... ture=feedu

[patches70]

I agree, and have said so. By the same token, we know that isolationism does not work.

You think that refraining from the use of military force except in direct defense of our nation = Isolationism?

It certainly is one form of it, yes...without question.

Woodruff-

[ ] Understands the meaning of "isolationism"
[X] Has made up his own definition of "isolationism"

I believe you have confused "isolationism" with "non-intervention".

[esiemer]

Why the f*ck are we sending them 2b a year again?

I've been wondering this too, and really wishing someone could find a breakdown of what that money is used for.
Do we just send them cash? Or billions of dollars worth of weapons? Or billions of dollars of food? Or what?

All of this info should be on a USA.gov website for the public to see.

[Woodruff]

I agree, and have said so. By the same token, we know that isolationism does not work.

You think that refraining from the use of military force except in direct defense of our nation = Isolationism?

It certainly is one form of it, yes...without question.

Woodruff-
[ ] Understands the meaning of "isolationism"
[X] Has made up his own definition of "isolationism"
I believe you have confused "isolationism" with "non-intervention".

I believe you didn't read the words "one form of it" in my statement.

"Isolationism" is refusing to make agreements or committments with other nations. Period. My statement absolutely fits under that definition. I would suggest that it is you who needs to grab that dictionary.

[patches70]

I agree, and have said so. By the same token, we know that isolationism does not work.

You think that refraining from the use of military force except in direct defense of our nation = Isolationism?

It certainly is one form of it, yes...without question.

Woodruff-
[ ] Understands the meaning of "isolationism"
[X] Has made up his own definition of "isolationism"
I believe you have confused "isolationism" with "non-intervention".

I believe you didn't read the words "one form of it" in my statement.

"Isolationism" is refusing to make agreements or committments with other nations. Period. My statement absolutely fits under that definition. I would suggest that it is you who needs to grab that dictionary.

We are taking a non-intervention line in regards to Egypt.

Look at the statements of our Leaders in the US-

We're not advocating any specific outcome-----on the side of the people------keep on the message we've been on, convey it publicly and privately, and stand ready to help-------We do not want to send any message about backing forward or backing back---------peaceful protest ... and then a process of national dialogue that will lead to the changes the Egyptian people seek and deserve-------We have been very clear that we want to see a transition to democracy, and we want to see the kind of steps taken that will bring that about. But we also want to see an orderly transition. There are many, many steps along the journey that has been started by the Egyptian people themselves.

I don’t have any criticism of President Obama or Secretary Clinton at this point, they know full well that they can’t give the Egyptians advice about who their leadership is, that’s beyond the reach of the United States.

And we haven't made any agreements or commitments to the Egyptians? Seriously?

Egypt has been an extraordinary ally of ours … we hope that at the end of the day … we’ll still have an important ally

We have plenty of agreements with Egypt, just no agreements to interfere with their own internal spats. Why should we?


We are practicing non-intervention, we are not practicing any form of isolationism in regards to Egypt and never have. We are hip deep in their problems. We have military aid package deals with Egypt, economic deals with Egypt, trade agreements with Egypt, moral support for the protesters. Exactly what "isolationism" are you referring to? What more would you expect the US to do?

It is just stupid to make the situation worse by sending in US troops, especially unilaterally.

[Woodruff]

It is just stupid to make the situation worse by sending in US troops, especially unilaterally.

You keep repeating this at me over and over, and I keep agreeing with you on it. Why do you keep repeating it at me as if we're disagreeing on it?

[spurgistan]

Why the f*ck are we sending them 2b a year again?

I've been wondering this too, and really wishing someone could find a breakdown of what that money is used for.
Do we just send them cash? Or billions of dollars worth of weapons? Or billions of dollars of food? Or what?

All of this info should be on a USA.gov website for the public to see.

It's mostly arms, I think. We've been pretty scared of something like this happening.

[saxitoxin]

Why the f*ck are we sending them 2b a year again?

1 - US bleeds their population with taxes
2 - US sends billions of tax revenue to Israel
3 - Israel uses US billions to arm themselves to the teeth
4 - Egypt is freaked that Israel is armed to the teeth while they're putting around the Sinai in vintage T-62's
5 - US assuages Egyptian freakedness by arming them to the teeth as well
6 - Egyptians and Israel both spend their windfalls on US weapons
7 - Lockheed-Martin gets $ from F-16 contracts, Machinists Union gets $ from F-16 manufacturing jobs
8 - Lockheed and Machinists transfer 10% of their profits to US politicians that initiated Step 1

In New Jersey this is called "money laundering." In foreign affairs it's called "achieving strategic balance."

= White House playing both sides of the coin to hedge their bets so the money keeps flowing regardless what happens ... i.e., Biden praising Mubarak and saying he hopes he stays in power, Obama calling for reform/change

[patches70]

It is just stupid to make the situation worse by sending in US troops, especially unilaterally.

You keep repeating this at me over and over, and I keep agreeing with you on it. Why do you keep repeating it at me as if we're disagreeing on it?

The disagreement is-
You said we are using a form of "isolationism", I said the contrary.

You said Isolationism doesn't work, I said we are not using a policy of isolationism, but rather using non-intervention.
But you said I need to read a dictionary.

Since you think isolation doesn't work and that we are practicing a form of military isolation, then you must think our current policy doesn't work.
This leads to intervention, military intervention, which I say won't work, as do you.
But you said I need to read a dictionary.

But you can't take that position and the position of a form of military isolation doesn't work. Even though we are practicing no sort of isolationism in the first place.

I say we have intervened already far too much as it is. We have been nothing near isolationist in regards to Egypt in the past, not by a long shot.
But you said I need to look at a dictionary.

So, which is it? Are we really being isolationist? Do I need to read a dictionary after all?

We need to keep our nose out of Egypt's business. Not intervening militarily in the internal affairs of other nations works just fine for nations to get along and practice trade and commerce, regardless of who is in charge.

[esiemer]

Why the f*ck are we sending them 2b a year again?

1 - US bleeds their population with taxes
2 - US sends billions of tax revenue to Israel
3 - Israel uses US billions to arm themselves to the teeth
4 - Egypt is freaked that Israel is armed to the teeth while they're putting around the Sinai in vintage T-62's
5 - US assuages Egyptian freakedness by arming them to the teeth as well
6 - Egyptians and Israel both spend their windfalls on US weapons
7 - Lockheed-Martin gets $ from F-16 contracts, Machinists Union gets $ from F-16 manufacturing jobs
8 - Lockheed and Machinists transfer 10% of their profits to US politicians that initiated Step 1

In New Jersey this is called "money laundering." In foreign affairs it's called "achieving strategic balance."

= White House playing both sides of the coin to hedge their bets so the money keeps flowing regardless what happens ... i.e., Biden praising Mubarak and saying he hopes he stays in power, Obama calling for reform/change

I think you are exaggerating about #1- US tax rates are at some of their lowest levels in history, and when compared with other nations we are on the lower end of the spectrum too..

The rest of your post makes a lot of sense. I can't say I really like Obama and Biden's hedging bets either, but I will judge them on their results.

so, yeah, we agree on most things, wanna shotgun a beer with my assistant while we watch a revolution?

[Woodruff]

It is just stupid to make the situation worse by sending in US troops, especially unilaterally.

You keep repeating this at me over and over, and I keep agreeing with you on it. Why do you keep repeating it at me as if we're disagreeing on it?

The disagreement is-
You said we are using a form of "isolationism", I said the contrary.

I said nothing of the sort. If that is the basis for your disagreement with me, then your entire premise falls apart right here. I already asked you once in this thread not to assume what I am advocating - you seem to have ignored that advice.

But you said I need to read a dictionary. Do I need to read a dictionary after all?

I was wrong. You don't need a dictionary. Because before you can use that dictionary effectively, you're going to need to take some reading comprehension classes. You should get right on that.

[esiemer]

from BBC:

2032 Egyptian opposition politician Ayman Nour - an opponent of Hosni Mubarak who spent over three years in jail - tells al-Jazeera TV he and his allies have agreed to co-operate with Mohamed ElBaradei and the movement against Hosni Mubarak.
2033 Negotiations will not be conducted with the government but with the army, Mr Nour tells al-Jazeera. They will push the army to try and help them in their cause, he tell the channel.

Call me an optimist, but this is hopeful. Egyptian leaders standing together to help a transition to democracy. Them only negotiating with the army is a good idea b/c the old gov't has no credibility. Now if only Ayman Nour and Mohamed ElBaradei and whoever else emerges can resist the temptation to seize power, Egypt may actually pull this off.

[Ray Rider]

lol @ Woodruff and Patches, you guys are so busy trying to prove the other person wrong that you've forgotten what you're arguing about Just like a couple of three year olds...