• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Brotherhood's Morsi Claims Victory in Egypt Election

Prof. Peabody said:
I do agree with you. Then again I'm a partial isolationist. if they want to kill each other, more power to ya. Just don't involve us.
Click to expand...

We've tried that approach and it cost us nearly a half million American lives.
 
apdst said:
We didn't do that during the 30's, either. Why repeat history?
Click to expand...

Man you're loving some Godwin right now.

It's not, and should not be, our place to determine what people get to elect democratically. What you're suggesting is that somehow Democracy should be something the United States has a right to...and every other country should essentially be bestowed upon them a Dictatorship where they are ruled over by the United States in defacto fashion since we should remove any government elected fairly and lawfully from power if we don't like them.

Forgive me, but your pathetic scare mongering doesn't actually work on me. For every legitimate threat we'd potentially remove by taking such an ignorant and egotistical stance we'd remove numerous individuals wrongfully and to the determinant of their people and do unquestionable harm to the very spirit and notion of Democracy. It also ignorantly assumes that the only way in which for the attrocities of the 1930's to have not occured would've been for direct military intervention from the moment that we were unhappy Hitler came to power, which is just absolutely ridiculous. Not to mention that the world stage in terms of military might is no where near where it is in 1930.
 
Zyphlin said:
Man you're loving some Godwin right now.
Click to expand...

You love using pathetic excuses when your argument fails.

It's not, and should not be, our place to determine what people get to elect democratically. What you're suggesting is that somehow Democracy should be something the United States has a right to...and every other country should essentially be bestowed upon them a Dictatorship where they are ruled over by the United States in defacto fashion since we should remove any government elected fairly and lawfully from power if we don't like them.
Click to expand...

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Forgive me, but your pathetic scare mongering doesn't actually work on me. For every legitimate threat we'd potentially remove by taking such an ignorant and egotistical stance we'd remove numerous individuals wrongfully and to the determinant of their people and do unquestionable harm to the very spirit and notion of Democracy. It also ignorantly assumes that the only way in which for the attrocities of the 1930's to have not occured would've been for direct military intervention from the moment that we were unhappy Hitler came to power, which is just absolutely ridiculous. Not to mention that the world stage in terms of military might is no where near where it is in 1930.
Click to expand...

I remember being call a fear mongerer last year when I said that the MB would control the Egyptian government, too. Now look.

Let us know how you feel about all that democracy when the MB creates a dictatorial regime and elections are outlawed.
 
Prof. Peabody said:
So you would support a Theocracy that abuses women, human and gay rights?
Click to expand...

Versus a military dictatorship that abuses everyone? It's a **** sandwich no matter they choose, but in this instance choosing the military would be far worse.
 
Prof. Peabody said:
I do agree with you. Then again I'm a partial isolationist. if they want to kill each other, more power to ya. Just don't involve us.
Click to expand...

I don't go quite that far.

We're a far more connected world than we were in the past. We can't just hunker down and assume what happens around us doesn't affect us. It does. We do, and by all rights will continue to, interact in a plethora of ways with other nations. With hold aid, push for sanctions, place trade embargos, provide support to those who would be more friendly to our interest that are lawfully opposing the government, and giving aid to our allies when they're threatened by the government in question are all things I think are legitimate actions to take when a LEGITIMATELY democratically elected government takes control and ACTUALLY does things that are counter to America's interests. I'm not suggesting to treat Egypt with any different gloves than I would suggest a Democracy 100 years old electing a potentially hostile government into power should be treated.

What I don't agree with however is the notion that we need to somehow, through force, change or restrict or rescind what lawfully happened through the democratic process simply because we don't like the results. That is the antithesis of Deomcracy and frankly is the antithesis of what America is. There's nothing saying we need to prop up, support, or help out governments we believe will be...or show to be...hostile to our goals and ends and I don't think we should. But not propping up is different than actively removing.
 
TheNextEra said:
Versus a military dictatorship that abuses everyone? It's a **** sandwich no matter they choose, but in this instance choosing the military would be far worse.
Click to expand...

When was the last time they stoned a women in Egypt for infidelity?
 
TheNextEra said:
Versus a military dictatorship that abuses everyone? It's a **** sandwich no matter they choose, but in this instance choosing the military would be far worse.
Click to expand...

six of one...half dozen of another.
 
apdst said:
You love using pathetic excuses when your argument fails.
Click to expand...

My argument hasn't failed, that's where you're mistaken.

I remember being call a fear mongerer last year when I said that the MB would control the Egyptian government, too. Now look.
Click to expand...

I saw people say the MB would control the Egyptian government last year. I didn't say they were "fear mongering" because I didn't think it would happen. It was definitely a possability. I said it was fear mongering because it was typically used to suggest why we should either 1) support a Dictator over Democracy 2) why Egyptians shouldn't have democracy. Both are bogus. Democracy is something with its risks and its benefits, but if we truly believe it is the best system then it must be accepted in full. Trying to scare people that someone they won't like may come to power as a means of suggesting why people should not be allowed to win Democracy for themselves is ridiculous. That's why I would have called such people fear mongering. Not because I didn't think it was possible...but because it was irrelevant to the notion of whether or not Egypt should be able to become a Democracy.

Let us know how you feel about all that democracy when the MB creates a dictatorial regime and elections are outlawed.
Click to expand...

And should that happen I would view it as I do most other dictatorial regimes. Revoke all aid if that dictatorial regime is hostile to US interests, give aid to our allies if they're threatened by them, promote a movement to Democracy lawfully if the regime is not hostile to the US and if it is hostile to the US then give aid in various ways to those groups within working to win over Democracy. Just as I felt about Iran, just as I felt about Egypt.

However, at the point that they become a dictatorial regime and elections are outlawed they no longer are a Democracy so those earlier statements of mine would no longer apply. The seeming difference between you and I is you seem to wish to give up on Deomcracy from the onset and deem that the Egpytian people should live under the dictatorship of the United States...I believe they have the right to democractically decide their own government even if we don't like the results and even if those results may wind up with a Dictatorship at some point.
 
apdst said:
I mean that there was no seperation between Germans and Nazis.
Click to expand...

Albert Einstein was German.

Unless you're specifically meaning German Citizens...in which case, please explain to me how all Muslims are Egyptian citizens.

Prove it.
Click to expand...

Prove what? That you said it? Sure. Look at your post at #20.

Prove that there was no seperation? Sorry apdst, but you're ignorance of fallacies isn't my fault. One, you're asking me to prove a negative. Two, you're the one that made the initial POSTIVE assertion that there was no seperation between Nazis and Germans. YOU have to prove it.

I can point to the load of German people in the U.S. during the time that were not arrested, rounded up, and even helped the war effort to identify clearly that there was a seperation between Nazi's and Germans.
 
Prof. Peabody said:
When was the last time they stoned a women in Egypt for infidelity?
Click to expand...

Not sure, but I have heard of 900 protestors killed due to a dictatorship that you support. Or what Saddam had done as a dictator. Shall I continue on the list of deaths due to dictators?
 
Zyphlin said:
Man you're loving some Godwin right now.

It's not, and should not be, our place to determine what people get to elect democratically. What you're suggesting is that somehow Democracy should be something the United States has a right to...and every other country should essentially be bestowed upon them a Dictatorship where they are ruled over by the United States in defacto fashion since we should remove any government elected fairly and lawfully from power if we don't like them.

Forgive me, but your pathetic scare mongering doesn't actually work on me. For every legitimate threat we'd potentially remove by taking such an ignorant and egotistical stance we'd remove numerous individuals wrongfully and to the determinant of their people and do unquestionable harm to the very spirit and notion of Democracy. It also ignorantly assumes that the only way in which for the attrocities of the 1930's to have not occured would've been for direct military intervention from the moment that we were unhappy Hitler came to power, which is just absolutely ridiculous. Not to mention that the world stage in terms of military might is no where near where it is in 1930.
Click to expand...

Please explain to me Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador as related to us not interfering in the affairs of foreign Nations. As recently as Honduras and Zelaya. See who pays the bills in these countries.
 
What does what I think we should be doing and what the US is actually doing have to do with each other.
 
QUOTE]....another person caught up in the BS. If America was against freedom and democracy, why didn't it rush to support Mubarak or Gaddafi? Why would America dare go through the trouble of a democracy in Iraq or Afghanistan when a handy dandy dictator would have been easier? QUOTE]....


We, the USA, were the reason Mubarak was able to stay in power. We financed him to protect Israel, among other things. So we were involved in the Egypt issue. We, the USA, armed the rebels and supported the Islamsts in Libya and killed Qaddaffi. We are stirring crap in Syria and we do not have a democracy in Iraq. Maliki did not win the election. If you think the toady in Afghanistan is democratically elected, then you a true believer. We have dope growing increased by 30 times since we have been in Afghanistan. That is a fact. Very good business at a Corporate level. War is good business. War is good for Corporate bottom lines and has little to do with freedom, democracy, liberty and justice. Damn shame!
 
I think that this is one of the few cases in history where a military dictator is preferable to most of the world as opposed to the so called democratically elected government. Of course if the Brotherhood did gain control and immediatly went to war with Israel, they could do the world a favor and send a good bunch of these fanatics exactly where they want to go......to Allah. With a lot less Brotherhood Islamists around to vote, the Liberals & moderates (if they even exist in Egypt) would have a better chance at the ballot box.
 
Zyphlin said:
Albert Einstein was German.

Unless you're specifically meaning German Citizens...in which case, please explain to me how all Muslims are Egyptian citizens.



Prove what? That you said it? Sure. Look at your post at #20.

Prove that there was no seperation? Sorry apdst, but you're ignorance of fallacies isn't my fault. One, you're asking me to prove a negative. Two, you're the one that made the initial POSTIVE assertion that there was no seperation between Nazis and Germans. YOU have to prove it.

I can point to the load of German people in the U.S. during the time that were not arrested, rounded up, and even helped the war effort to identify clearly that there was a seperation between Nazi's and Germans.
Click to expand...

I made a comment. You say I'm wrong. The ball is in your court, sir.
 
DaveFagan said:
Please explain to me Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador as related to us not interfering in the affairs of foreign Nations. As recently as Honduras and Zelaya. See who pays the bills in these countries.
Click to expand...

The Cold War. The U.S. could ill-afford to allow the USSR and Soviet proxies free rein in its hemisphere. If opposing Soviet meddling meant interference, that was a lesser problem when compared to the significant U.S. interests at stake. During the Cold War, there were numerous cases where commitment to the principle of democracy conflicted with imperatives driven by national interests. The U.S. gave priority to its interests as any rational sovereign would do. It had to choose practical reality over idealistic hopes. In the post-Cold War world, such conflicts can still arise, though they arguably have not been as numerous as they were during the Cold War. Today, for instance, were a civil war to erupt in El Salvador, there would be no compelling case for the U.S. to intervene, as the element of Soviet-Cuban support for one of the factions in such a conflict would be absent.
 
Zyphlin said:
What I don't agree with however is the notion that we need to somehow, through force, change or restrict or rescind what lawfully happened through the democratic process simply because we don't like the results. That is the antithesis of Deomcracy and frankly is the antithesis of what America is. There's nothing saying we need to prop up, support, or help out governments we believe will be...or show to be...hostile to our goals and ends and I don't think we should. But not propping up is different than actively removing.
Click to expand...

I agree. I don't believe that the U.S. should have gone beyond stating its longstanding support for reform and avoiding unnecessary violence during the uprising against President Mubarak. Instead, it lurched from respecting the domestic sovereignty of Egypt to open support of the anti-Mubarak uprising, losing support of the military and creating suspicions among the anti-Mubarak movement of expediency.

Similarly, at this point in time, I don't believe the U.S. should do more than restate its commitment for a transition to democratic governance, leaving the details and timing to the Egyptians. Whatever the outcome in Egypt--and I suspect that one will likely see a combination of representative government coupled with a strong military role under which the military would act as a constraint against radicalization--I believe the U.S. should focus on maintaining its strategic relationship with Egypt. It should leave the details of governance and transition to the Egyptians.

A policy of oscillating from one faction to the other wins the support of neither. A consistent policy, even if it falls short of the maximum desires of one faction or the other, provides at least some meaningful basis for a working relationship with regard to shared interests.
 
apdst said:
I made a comment. You say I'm wrong. The ball is in your court, sir.
Click to expand...

Correct. You made a comment, providing ZERO proof

I stated that comment was incorrect, providing proof of a German who was most assuredly and unquestionably seperated from being viewed as a Nazi.

So far I've actually presented SOME form of proof by pointing out an example contrary to your claim. You've provided......well, you've provided nothing. So you're now asking me for further "proof" to disprove your claim that you've never once backed up.

Sorry, game doesn't work that way. You made a dumb statement, I gave you an example of why its dumb, you've provided jack and ****. Pony up something that even hints towards your asinine statement being legitimate and we can go from there. Otherwise, I already demonstrated why your comment was dumb.
 
Zyphlin said:
Correct. You made a comment, providing ZERO proof
Click to expand...

I can't prove a negative.

I stated that comment was incorrect, providing proof of a German who was most assuredly and unquestionably seperated from being viewed as a Nazi.

So far I've actually presented SOME form of proof by pointing out an example contrary to your claim. You've provided......well, you've provided nothing. So you're now asking me for further "proof" to disprove your claim that you've never once backed up.

Sorry, game doesn't work that way. You made a dumb statement, I gave you an example of why its dumb, you've provided jack and ****.
Click to expand...

Einstein was an American citizen. Speaking of dumb statments.

Pony up something that even hints towards your asinine statement being legitimate and we can go from there. Otherwise, I already demonstrated why your comment was dumb.
Click to expand...

Bombing of Dresden in World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bombing of Bremen in World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bombing of Cologne in World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bombing of Wilhelmshaven in World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bombing of Stuttgart in World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shall I keep going?

When one looks at the bombing campaign against Germany, it's painfully obvious that there was no distinction made--by Allied commanders--between the Nazis and the German people.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
I can't prove a negative.
Click to expand...

I'm not asking you to prove a negative. YOU made a positive assertion there was no seperation between German People and Nazi's

Einstein was an American citizen. Speaking of dumb statments.
Click to expand...

American citizen perhaps, but he was German none the less. You didn't specify German CITIZENS.

Now, if you want to specifiy German CITIZENS rather than simply german people...be my guest.

If you do that...then it goes back to the issue of you equating that to this issue where you're condemning all muslims as "terrorists" despite them not being citizens of Egypt.

Bombing of Dresden in World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bombing of Bremen in World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bombing of Cologne in World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bombing of Wilhelmshaven in World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bombing of Stuttgart in World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shall I keep going?
Click to expand...

Lack of significant concern for civilian causalities does not equate to there being no seperation between German people and Nazi's, simply an indiciation of acceptable causalties of war. If there was truly no seperation between German People and Nazi's then german's the world over would have been arrested and/or killed en masse.

When one looks at the bombing campaign against Germany, it's painfully obvious that there was no distinction made--by Allied commanders--between the Nazis and the German people.
Click to expand...

No distinction made specifically in BOMBING CAMPAIGNS while IN GEMRANY is significantly different than no seperation between nazi's and german people.

You're speaking of a specific military scenario, in terms of bombing campaigns, in a specific location, germany. That is hardly an indication of no seperation between nazi's and german people.

Again, if you want to change or clarify this debate as being towards "German Citizens" be my guest...I'll just blow your hate filled bigoted statement out of the water based on your new statement instead of the old.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom