Egypt Looking for Change?

[delldude]

For that we have 3,000 dead. We need to be a bit more selective in who we assist and who we back.

That will never happen. Its what they can get at the moment that rules.

"He's not that bad"

 

[Ms Tree]

That is true enough. How ever if we continue on that path then we cannot be surprised when it blows up in our face. We cannot and should not be in the business of telling other nations howbthey should operate and propping up tyrants and depots.

 

[delldude]

Drudge reporting the revolution running out of steam...maybe Hosni not that bad now.

 

[eolesen]

For that we have 3,000 dead. We need to be a bit more selective in who we assist and who we back.

The attacks on NYC have nothing to do with us supporting Bin Laden against the Soviets.

My point is that decisions made 30+ years ago can and will have unintended consequences and occasionally tragic ironies, but it doesn't mean that it was wrong to back them at the time.

Jimmy Carter is the guy who committed us to being tied up with the Sadat and Mubarak regimes, but the real impetus for gaining Egypt as an ally was to boot out the Soviets, and started with Nixon.

And how did the Soviets gain a foothold there? Johnson's refusal to help out Egypt in the mid 1960's.

The Cold War isn't that long ago, yet some of you seem to forget what it was like in the 1980's. Had the Soviets succeeded in holding onto Egypt or Afghanistan, we might have a very different world today.

 

[Ms Tree]

The attacks on NYC have nothing to do with us supporting Bin Laden against the Soviets.

My point is that decisions made 30+ years ago can and will have unintended consequences and occasionally tragic ironies, but it doesn't mean that it was wrong to back them at the time.

Jimmy Carter is the guy who committed us to being tied up with the Sadat and Mubarak regimes, but the real impetus for gaining Egypt as an ally was to boot out the Soviets, and started with Nixon.

And how did the Soviets gain a foothold there? Johnson's refusal to help out Egypt in the mid 1960's.

The Cold War isn't that long ago, yet some of you seem to forget what it was like in the 1980's. Had the Soviets succeeded in holding onto Egypt or Afghanistan, we might have a very different world today.

I am not arguing that it is a A=B but there is a distinct trail leading from US support of the mujahideen and later dropping them when they out lived their usefulness to them becoming the Taliban and taking down the towers in NYC.

I can agree with that if there were no indications that the person you are supporting is an evil despot. IN the cases of Sadam, Pahlav, Mubarak (after he was in power for a few years) Pinochet, Batista ..... I believe you are wrong. I believe it is short sighted to support people such as this because it is not a matter of if but when it will turn around and bite you in the butt. If we are going to go about the world supporting 'democracy' and nation building then we need to look long term and not settle for who ever is on our side at the time.

And once the Soviets were out it was time to encourage them to do whats right. Had we supported a popular leader in some of thee countries, perhaps the US would have been seen as a true beacon and not some selfish country that is only out for it's own self interests. If you are going to meddle, you have to walk a very fine line.

 

[delldude]

Bin Laden was cool as long as he was killing Ivan. He still hated the US then.......and we knew it....but once again, we were the enemy of his enemy and therefore his friend.

Bi Laden then was anti western which included Ivan.

You get what you can while you can.

Besides, we needed a place to test out our new technological terrors from the military/industrial complex.

 

[delldude]

I want to be rich and pretty. Who the hell cares what they want? If they can get Sharia law passed in the US then we do not deserve the democratic republic that we have.

If that were to happen, I'd recommend you find God real fast.....you have two strikes against you in that type of scenario.

 

[xUT]

Should have listened to Generals Patton and MacArthur then this would all be moot...
B)

 

[dapoes]

DOH!

Exclusive: Saudis told Obama to back Mubarak

Saudi Arabia has threatened to prop up President Mubarak if the White House tries to force a swift change of regime in Egypt. In a testy personal telephone call on January 29, King Abdullah told President Obama not to humiliate Mr Mubarak and warned that he would step in to bankroll Egypt if the US withdrew its aid programme, worth $1.5 billion annually.

 

[777 fixer]

The Arab revolution and Western decline

Carter's betrayal of the Shah brought us the ayatollahs, and will soon bring us ayatollahs with nuclear arms. The consequences of the West's betrayal of Mubarak will be no less severe. It's not only a betrayal of a leader who was loyal to the West, served stability and encouraged moderation. It's a betrayal of every ally of the West in the Middle East and the developing world. The message is sharp and clear: The West's word is no word at all; an alliance with the West is not an alliance. The West has lost it. The West has stopped being a leading and stabilizing force around the world.

Kind of a confusing article if you ask me. On one hand it talks about people in the Arab world rising up against the tyrants who have ruled for the past fifty years. On the other hand it refers to Mubarakas someone who "is loyal to the West, served stability and encouraged moderation". Is he a tyrant or not? Or was the author talking about someone other than Mubarak? AndI'm not so sure about eh moderation part. If anything he gives radicals ammunition by stamping out any sort of secular/moderate opposition. This has been seen before in places like Russia, Iran, the Philipines etc.

And if Bush's America understood the problem of repression in the Arab world then why did his administration continue to support Mubarak? Along with a lot of other Arab leaders?

 

[Ms Tree]

And if Bush's America understood the problem of repression in the Arab world then why did his administration continue to support Mubarak? Along with a lot of other Arab leaders?

Could it be because it was not in our interest to do so? The US seems to be far more concerned with money and power and less so with life and morality.

 

[delldude]

Kind of a confusing article if you ask me. On one hand it talks about people in the Arab world rising up against the tyrants who have ruled for the past fifty years. On the other hand it refers to Mubarakas someone who "is loyal to the West, served stability and encouraged moderation". Is he a tyrant or not? Or was the author talking about someone other than Mubarak? AndI'm not so sure about eh moderation part. If anything he gives radicals ammunition by stamping out any sort of secular/moderate opposition. This has been seen before in places like Russia, Iran, the Philipines etc.

And if Bush's America understood the problem of repression in the Arab world then why did his administration continue to support Mubarak? Along with a lot of other Arab leaders?

It goes back to Sadat's days and what that had to do with Israel and Daddy Bush and cheap oil.

 

[dapoes]

Mistake? Alies? Who? Thr Shah and Mubarak are dictatorso who are abusing theirbcitizens. We support pilot dictators and then wonder whyvthebpeople revolt and dont like the west. Go figure.

Foot and mouth disease strike again?

USA doles out the most in aid to help everyone for anything at anytime.

Your seething hatred for the country that gives you the most freedom, liberty and opportunity is surpassed only by your sheer stupidity and ignorance.

 

[dapoes]

Kind of a confusing article if you ask me. On one hand it talks about people in the Arab world rising up against the tyrants who have ruled for the past fifty years. On the other hand it refers to Mubarakas someone who "is loyal to the West, served stability and encouraged moderation". Is he a tyrant or not? Or was the author talking about someone other than Mubarak? AndI'm not so sure about eh moderation part. If anything he gives radicals ammunition by stamping out any sort of secular/moderate opposition. This has been seen before in places like Russia, Iran, the Philipines etc.

And if Bush's America understood the problem of repression in the Arab world then why did his administration continue to support Mubarak? Along with a lot of other Arab leaders?

Its not an black and white issue. Never has. I think the article posted previously by 7days sums it up succinctly.

The Problem of the Friendly Tyrant

Mubarak has for the most part been loyal to the west, that is undeniable. Has he also been a tyrant to his own people? Yes that is undeniable as well. But what to do? The Shah was a tyrant as well and Carter was very eager to show him the door, but look what was replaced. Something far worse.

 

[delldude]

Looking like Hosni is going to exit stage right.

The VP who was the head of the secret service is going to take control....this ought to flush real well.

Not only has Suleiman failed to engage seriously with any of the key demands of the opposition but he has begun to darkly warn that the "intolerable" protest action must be speedily brought to an end. And so the Administration has found itself having to scold and berate the man Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last weekend hailed as the leader to oversee the transition.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2048148,00.html#ixzz1DZcZYHb5