Riots erupt in Egypt as protesters demand end to Mubarak regime

MSgt said:

Not our problem. We support the french government. Does that mean the French owe their freedom to us or do they reserve such credit to their own culture? Why then are people so quick to allow cultures, that default to oppression, a way to escape their responsibilities?

Click to expand...

No culture "defaults to oppression," because culture itself is not an immutable fact of nature. Arab culture (and its tendency toward oppression) has been shaped by many things, including American demands for stability, Dutch Disease due to oil reserves in some countries, the Arab-Persian rivalry, and the chronic Israeli-Palestinian conflict and subsequent victimization complex.

The US has the ability to affect Arab culture itself, for better or worse. The American role in Egypt for the past 30 years has not been one of our finest decisions, and I don't blame the protesters at all for being angry with us.

Dirty Harry said:

Whoever controls the military controls the country. Thanks to the US the Egyption military is a major force.

Click to expand...

Good god.

Every two years Egypt would host a military exercise for Arab and NATO militaries called Operation: Bright Star. I attended in 2001. Thanks to the US, the Egyptian military is more proffessional than the rest and they can be a very valuable tool in dealing with Egypt's future. Their refusal to simply turn violent upon their own people should say something.

MSgt said:

Not our problem. We support the french government. Does that mean the French owe their freedom to us or do they reserve such credit to their own culture? Why then are people so quick to allow cultures, that default to oppression, a way to escape their responsibilities? Do we get to be given credit for cellular technology, which they are using to get information out? Do we get any credit what so ever for any of themodernized facilities in Egypt over the last 30 years that Egyptians rely upon and enjoy? No. But people will damn sure point out an F-16 or a gas canister.

Click to expand...

Sounds like you are perfecty content with oppressive governments using American made weapons to pacify and slaughter their civilians.

MSgt said:

Every two years Egypt would host a military exercise for Arab and NATO militaries called Operation: Bright Star. I attended in 2001. Thanks to the US, the Egyptian military is more proffessional than the rest and they can be a very valuable tool in dealing with Egypt's future. Their refusal to simply turn violent upon their own people should say something.

Click to expand...

I agree with this. I'm very thankful that the US has kept such a good relationship with Egypt's military (although our recent State Departments have really dropped the ball with supporting Mubarak for so long). The Egyptian military can and should be a force for stability in post-Mubarak Egypt. They can restore order, they can ensure that elections are truly free and fair, and if Islamists win then the military can serve as a moderating force in the nation's politics as it does in Turkey.

MSgt said:

Their refusal to simply turn violent upon their own people should say something.

Click to expand...

This revolution has just begun. We will see how long their self control lasts and to who their loyalty belongs.

Kandahar said:

No culture "defaults to oppression," because culture itself is not an immutable fact of nature. Arab culture (and its tendency toward oppression) has been shaped by many things, including American demands for stability, Dutch Disease due to oil reserves in some countries, the Arab-Persian rivalry, and the chronic Israeli-Palestinian conflict and subsequent victimization complex.

The US has the ability to affect Arab culture itself, for better or worse. The American role in Egypt for the past 30 years has not been one of our finest decisions, and I don't blame the protesters at all for being angry with us.

Click to expand...

Well, it's very true that their has been a lot of facilitation. And the US has had the ability to affect all the cultres of earth since the 1950s and "McWorld" was more than welcome. But let's be honest....

Since the "Independence Era" in this region, they have largely decided upon their own leaders. We didn't begin the "Nasser monarchy." We merely dealt with what they produced from their own culture. We didn't enthrone the House of Saud. We didn't create the Baathist Party. And we certainly never prescribed oppression, which has been a product of their own fellow Muslims being unable to bring their societies into the modern age. It is very unfair to suggest that these people have haphazardly been the victims of foriegn devils and bear no resposnibility for themselves. The harsh truth is that their religion is far to contradictory to modern governance.

And let's say that Egypt builds a perfect democracy in the next 5 years. Will we conduct business with their government? And in 15 years when things fall apart, will be blamed yet again for affecting their culture and not allowing the fanatic base to rise above their "oppressors?" I tire of the foriegn devil blame game.

MSgt said:

Well, it's very true that their has been a lot of facilitation. But let's be honest....

Since the "Independence Era" in this region, they have largely decided upon their own leaders. We didn't begin the "Nasser monarchy." We merely dealt with what they produced from their own culture. We didn't enthrone the House of Saud. We didn't create the Baathist Party. And we certainly never prescribed oppression, which has been a product of their own fellow Muslims being unable to bring their societies into the modern age.

Click to expand...

It's true that we didn't pick their leaders, but we did a lot more than just "deal with them." Dealing with them implies that we're not happy about their leadership but we'll tolerate it for the sake of diplomacy, as we do with China. But is our relationship with the Egyptian government really equivalent to our relationship with the Chinese government? Of course not. We've actively supported Mubarak, we've sold him weapons, and we've at best offered tepid criticisms of his human rights abuses and rigging elections.

MSgt said:

It is very unfair to suggest that these people have haphazardly been the victims of foriegn devils and bear no resposnibility for themselves.

Click to expand...

It's rare for a nation (in ANY culture) to transition from dictatorship to democracy without the support of major democratic powers...and our record in Egypt has not been very admirable. If the US had offered full support for democracy in the Arab world as it did in Eastern Europe and Latin America after the Cold War, we might see better results today. Instead we blame their culture.

MSgt said:

The harsh truth is that their religion is far to contradictory to modern governance.

Click to expand...

Indonesia is a Sunni Muslim democracy. Mali is a Sunni Muslim democracy.

Dirty Harry said:

This revolution has just begun. We will see how long their self control lasts and to who their loyalty belongs.

Click to expand...

In terms of American blame, it doesn't matter. We didn't cause any of this and we haven't prescribed any social behavior along the way. None of our business deals came with instructions on how to use them against their own or how to commit genocide or any other thing individuals and cultures do to themselves. We aren't talking about children who bear no responsibility for themselves. These are adults. The French tortured hundreds of thousands of Algerians and sometimes used our weapon systems in their war. Are we to blame for what they did simply because of prior business deals? But if this were a Muslim government, we get all the blame, right? Some how, Arabs are exempt from being personally responsible? And as for the next power in Egypt.....will they refuse our business on principle or will they exactly what priors did because that is the way of governments and "stability?"

If we get the credit for everything bad so easily, why then do we have to fight and struggle for any credit for the positives?

Kandahar said:

No culture "defaults to oppression," because culture itself is not an immutable fact of nature. Arab culture (and its tendency toward oppression) has been shaped by many things, including American demands for stability, Dutch Disease due to oil reserves in some countries, the Arab-Persian rivalry, and the chronic Israeli-Palestinian conflict and subsequent victimization complex.

The US has the ability to affect Arab culture itself, for better or worse. The American role in Egypt for the past 30 years has not been one of our finest decisions, and I don't blame the protesters at all for being angry with us.

Click to expand...

You missed one important element responsible for Arab Culture's tendency towards oppression -- consanguinity.

Until that aspect of Arab culture changes, it's just a case of new boss -- same as the old boss.

Dirty Harry said:

Sounds like you are perfecty content with oppressive governments using American made weapons to pacify and slaughter their civilians.

Click to expand...

It's not that I'm OK with it. It's that I'm not such a bold hypocrit. You see, we don't get to bitch and moan and complain about our government meddling into the affairs of other governments and then bitch and moan and complain that we didn't after the fact. I'm sure plenty of militaries around the globe feed their soldiers with our food and use our medical supplies too. Of course, we will stay absolutely clear of the fact that most do not oppress their own and most have benefitted their people. We'll just focus on the convenience of television and drag the country through the mud. When Egypt singed the peace deal with Israel, did peoplelike you criticize the American support towards Egypt? Did any of you bitch and complain about Mubarak a decade ago? But now, CNN and FOX gets to show you an F-16 and blame comes across theocean to the foriegn devil.

**** that.

Kandahar said:

I agree with this. I'm very thankful that the US has kept such a good relationship with Egypt's military (although our recent State Departments have really dropped the ball with supporting Mubarak for so long). The Egyptian military can and should be a force for stability in post-Mubarak Egypt. They can restore order, they can ensure that elections are truly free and fair, and if Islamists win then the military can serve as a moderating force in the nation's politics as it does in Turkey.

Click to expand...

There is nothing moderate about Islamism at all, just ask the Copts

Just ask Anwar Sadat who was Egypts most moderate president in recent times and was killed by Islamists for making peace with Israel

Ask Al Zawaheri (Al Qaeda's #2 and a former Egyptian muslim brotherhood member) if he feels any moderation
towards anyone who doesnt think like him?

Islamists in charge of Egypts military would be a disaster & may very well lead to another war.

Gray_Fox_86 said:

No......basically I am under the impression that the MB would be better for Egypt than what its like under Mubarek. And the MB is not anywhere the level of what we see in Iran or Saudi Arabia. They are moderates.

Click to expand...

Ayman al Zawahiri is from the Muslim Brotherhood. He is now no. 2 in Al Qaeda.

Yes the White Shark and the Tiger Shark are different species, but both will kill you dead.

Tashah said:

Egypt is not Jordan. Jordan is not Egypt. Why some of you folks infer that all ME nations are cookie-cutter entities is beyond me.

I highly doubt Egyptians merely seek to swap one form of tyranny (Mubarak dictatorship) for another (Islamist dictatorship).

Click to expand...

Most revolutions go through several phases. And most are coopted by the most extremist forces.

Iron Yank said:

There is nothing moderate about Islamism at all, just ask the Copts

Just ask Anwar Sadat who was Egypts most moderate president in recent times and was killed by Islamists for making peace with Israel

Ask Al Zawaheri (Al Qaeda's #2 and a former Egyptian muslim brotherhood member) if he feels any moderation
towards anyone who doesnt think like him?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you got the impression that I thought the Muslim Brotherhood was moderate?

Iron Yank said:

Islamists in charge of Egypts military would be a disaster & may very well lead to another war.

Click to expand...

Egypt is not the United States, where the democratically-elected government can be assumed to have control over the military. If Egypt elects Islamists and they want to do something stupid like go to war with Israel (which seems unlikely), the military will simply tell them no and/or stage a coup. Democratic institutions take time to build; we need not worry about Islamists controlling the military anytime soon.

kaya'08 said:

Irrelevant. Funding terrorism and then saying you are not responsible for there actions is a scapegoat and its pathetic.

Click to expand...

When were the Americans funding terrorists?

What's the BBC told you now?

Who else but terrorists are responsible for their actions? Are you personally that easily swayed to commit terrorism against innocent people.

Never mind your hyperbole and witless accusations, Let's have some facts.

Kandahar said:

I'm not sure where you got the impression that I thought the Muslim Brotherhood was moderate?



Egypt is not the United States, where the democratically-elected government can be assumed to have control over the military. If Egypt elects Islamists and they want to do something stupid like go to war with Israel (which seems unlikely), the military will simply tell them no and/or stage a coup. Democratic institutions take time to build; we need not worry about Islamists controlling the military anytime soon.

Click to expand...

When radical forces seize a revolution they always purge the officer class, and replace them. The only variation is what happened in Iran where the officer class was purged and a separate parallel revolutionary force was established, ie. the Pasdaran.

Kandahar said:

It's true that we didn't pick their leaders, but we did a lot more than just "deal with them." Dealing with them implies that we're not happy about their leadership but we'll tolerate it for the sake of diplomacy, as we do with China. But is our relationship with the Egyptian government really equivalent to our relationship with the Chinese government? Of course not. We've actively supported Mubarak, we've sold him weapons, and we've at best offered tepid criticisms of his human rights abuses and rigging elections.

Click to expand...

Well, this is where we should have criticized more over the last 30 years. I believe we should be stressing the hell out of these leaders who get our support for stability. You should know that after what I've written over the years. But in the end, how far do we meddle before people start bitching about soveriegnty? But we are up against a bigger picture here. Remember the Cold War competition for control with the Soviets? Well, in 2007 the Nigerian government negotiated a $5 million load for a train system with the World Bank. The World Bank agreed on the condition that the government clean up the notoriously corrupt railway bureaucracy before it approved the loan. Along came the Chinese government and offerred the government $9 billion loan to rebuild the entire train system - with absolutely no strings attached at all. What do you think the Nigerian government did?

In regards to Mubarak, we were delaing with a "pharaoh" system that had evolved throughout the Cold War. Washington messed up between 11/9 and 9/11 by pretending that there are no more threats and that we could withdraw from the world. My question here is what happens in future Egypt is China decides to swoop in with blank checks?

Kandahar said:

It's rare for a nation (in ANY culture) to transition from dictatorship to democracy without the support of major democratic powers...

Click to expand...

And this is why I believe we have to be active in supporting it. I believe this in the same way I believe in Iraq (where they were stuck with "our" dictator and starving to death under UN applasue.)

Kandahar said:

Indonesia is a Sunni Muslim democracy. Mali is a Sunni Muslim democracy.

Click to expand...

And as far away from the Sunni Arab heartland as possible. Ever notice how Muslims (and Christians for that matter) get more healthier the further away from this region they get? Take a look at what Turkey, Iran and even Egypt have in common. They were all converts and had a written history before Islam. The problem is the Sunni Arab in the heartland of the Middle East. Their history began with the Qu'ran. One might wonder what Chritianity in Europe might look like had there been no history before the Bible was written.

Grant said:

When were the Americans funding terrorists?

Click to expand...

It comes down to convenience. The mujahideen were hardly terrorist when we were dealing with them on the field of combat against the Soviets. They were just religious nuts. But on 9/11, when they attacked civilians for the sake of political murder (the now named Tali-ban and Al-Queda) were. Of course, Al-Queda was named a terrorist organization back when they were murdering military personnel abroad throughout the 90s but who gave a **** about that.

You see, the way this works is that if you can somehow show an American boot or check in the vicinity of today's offenders decades and decades ago then America gets the blame. God only knows what small thing today will one day pass hands, evolve, twist out, and culminate into another reason to drag the U.S. through the mud by our hypocritical critics who today look towards us to solve all the god damn problems that originally started with them.

Kandahar said:

I'm not sure where you got the impression that I thought the Muslim Brotherhood was moderate?

Click to expand...

You seem to have the nieve assumption that if the brotherhood was elected to power that all of a sudden there would be free and fair elections in the future, if the people ever wanted something different. That would never happen, once they are in power you would never have a free & fair election again.

Egypt is not the United States, where the democratically-elected government can be assumed to have control over the military. If Egypt elects Islamists and they want to do something stupid like go to war with Israel (which seems unlikely), the military will simply tell them no and/or stage a coup. Democratic institutions take time to build; we need not worry about Islamists controlling the military anytime soon.

Click to expand...

Another nieve assumption..... Look what happened in Iran....look what is slowly happening in Turkey where the secularists in the military are slowly being replaced with Islamists.

kaya'08 said:

I can assure you it raised a lot of ethical question marks on many European and probably American heads.

The Americans and Soviets played a viscous game of tug of war without any regard for the rope. Now we have a country in shatters. I dont see what is so special about Afghanistan - or special enough - that they would think funding terrorism at the expense of the local population who had been ruled by a socialist figure anyway was a necessary evil.

I do think Afghanistan is a victim of invasive meddling by many nations, not just the US.

Click to expand...

Anyone that thinks that the struggle was the USA vs the USSR is looking at life day by day or living in a vacuum and avoiding big picture thinking. The USSR had already announced intent of world domination and it had a curious habit of westward and southward expansion. Now why on earth would the Soviets be interested in a garden spot with such fantastic resources as Afghanistan? Was it just because they had an affinity for countries of the world ending in 'stan'? The reason why we had such a cozy investment with Iran and then later Iraq after Carter lost Iran is simply because we needed to maintain a land base against soviet expansion into the worlds oil fields. Not just for 'our' sake, but for everyones sake. Alliance with the rebels in Afghanistan simply made sense. It kept the Soviets fighting a virtually unwinnable war...it created a 'quagmire' for them. Much as people want to make it an ideological pissing match between communism and capitalism, it was far more than that.

Sometimes...I wish there was a way to live in a bizarro world where the US did not get involved in ANY of the affairs of Europe or Asia. I wonder what it would look like...the success of Hitler, the uprising of Stalin. Life in a bubble where others have to make the hard decisions would be nice.

kaya'08 said:

The US isn't a colonial power with major territory in Asia. Its primary goal was curbing the rise of communism and that goal had its roots in Europe and the Asia pacific region - in other words, close neighbors and areas of strategic and economic interest. The best buffer was Iran, Turkey, Germany and Arab states including those in North Africa. I still find the attention it received unjustifiable.

Click to expand...

You think that the USSR would have conquered Afghanistan and THEN be happy and not look to expand?

MSgt said:

...You see, the way this works is that if you can somehow show an American boot or check in the vicinity of today's offenders decades and decades ago then America gets the blame. God only knows what small thing today will one day pass hands, evolve, twist out, and culminate into another reason to drag the U.S. through the mud by our hypocritical critics who today look towards us to solve all the god damn problems that originally started with them.

Click to expand...

Foreign opponents and the American Left worked hand in hand to bring down traditional America. The right can use the same techniques to bring down Leftist America.

Iron Yank said:

You seem to have the nieve assumption that if the brotherhood was elected to power that all of a sudden there would be free and fair elections in the future, if the people ever wanted something different. That would never happen, once they are in power you would never have a free & fair election again.

Click to expand...

This is based on several dubious assumptions:
1. The Egyptian people will elect the Muslim Brotherhood.
2. The Muslim Brotherhood will seek to undermine future democratic elections.
3. The Muslim Brotherhood will succeed in undermining democratic elections without the military responding.
4. The Egyptian people won't take to the streets and bring down the government, just as they are doing with Mubarak.

If any of these turn out to be incorrect, then this fear is unwarranted. The Egyptian people have the right to experiment with democracy just like anyone else, and that includes making mistakes. Furthermore, any Egyptian government (including a Muslim Brotherhood government), unlike revolutionary Iran, will want to maintain a decent relationship with the United States. And it will be hard to do that if they're bludgeoning democratic protesters.

Iron Yank said:

Another nieve assumption..... Look what happened in Iran....look what is slowly happening in Turkey where the secularists in the military are slowly being replaced with Islamists.

Click to expand...

It is not as easy to replace top military officers with sycophants as you seem to believe. If it was so easy, there would be no instability in any regime anywhere in the world. It's interesting that you cite Iran as an example of this, since even there the dictatorship's grasp on power is tenuous at best. And Turkey, while not exactly a Western democracy, is hardly a dictatorship.

VanceMack said:

You think that the USSR would have conquered Afghanistan and THEN be happy and not look to expand?

Click to expand...

Well "Afghanistan" and the Russians had a very long history and the tribes within were split up to be a part of every single bordering nation. Half of these were under Soviet control. It was very much about distinctly dealing with Afghanistan. This "buffer" nation had been used between the colonial powers for a couple hundred years prior to the 1970s. Besides, the Soviet Union couldn't expand without entering into Pakistan, China, Iran, etc., which would have drew in former colonial powers (and current powers) that had claim and ties. Without looking to jump start World War III (remember how the last two started), Afghanistan was the end.

Albert Di Salvo said:

Foreign opponents and the American Left worked hand in hand to bring down traditional America. The right can use the same techniques to bring down Leftist America.

Click to expand...

Oh I hate a Leftist. Unfortunately plenty of our Democratic Left have become Leftists.