• 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!

Riots erupt in Egypt as protesters demand end to Mubarak regime

The US has not "kept the hell out of it" for the past 30 years. Anything other than full-throated support for the protesters will and should be interpreted as American support for the tyrant.

That wouldn't be a good idea, since there's no confirmation that this is actually a, "democratic", uprising. Obama would look foolish for supporting the instalation of a government that is worse than Mubaracks.
 
What's the point of immediately adopting a hostile attitude? Whoever is in the next government of Egypt, we will need to work with them and do our best to develop a workable relationship with them. Threatening them when they haven't done **** to us is hardly the diplomatic thing to do.

Truth is the first casualty in war, all wars, has been since the Romans, so don't expect any kind of logical processes or solutions, especially in the middle of a hostile political climate.

ricksfolly
 
I doubt very seriously that Mubarack is stepping aside, because Obama said so.

Well regardless of WHY he's stepping aside, al-Arabiya is reporting that he IS stepping aside...at least after the next election. I highly doubt he lasts that long.
 
Last edited:
The US has not "kept the hell out of it" for the past 30 years. Anything other than full-throated support for the protesters will and should be interpreted as American support for the tyrant.

That's probably true. Abandoning Mubarak will send a bad message to other country leaders too. It's a no win situation.
 
That's probably true. Abandoning Mubarak will send a bad message to other country leaders too. It's a no win situation.

Aside from Jordan (which is admirably making some democratic reforms on its own in the wake of protests), what other countries are we worried about? Yemen's president is too weak to help us much anyway. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States are in no danger of collapsing because they're awash in oil. Iraq and Lebanon, as quasi-democratic states, are somewhat immune to democratic protests. Algeria and Morocco are not particularly relevant to US interests. And I'd welcome the collapse of Syria, Sudan, or Libya.
 
Last edited:
The US has not "kept the hell out of it" for the past 30 years. Anything other than full-throated support for the protesters will and should be interpreted as American support for the tyrant.

The can of tear gas with "Made in USA" clearly displayed on it on TV, erased all doubts, especially since our obliging reporter showed it twice during one interview.

ricksfolly
 
For one thing, we have an iranian who posts on this board who's still involved. It's underground, not in the streets, but the desire of the Iranian people for freedom and democracy continues to exist.

If you can't identify him or her, he or she doesn't exist.
 
Actually, no. I supported it initially. I'm not anti-war and I felt there were legitimate reasons to remove Hussein from power. However, i feel that the aftermath was poorly executed and planned, and I'm not a fan of Bush's position on torture.

Are you a fan of Obama's policy of indirect torture through extraordinary rendition? What is the difference between torture performed by Americans and torture performed at the request of Americans?
 
The can of tear gas with "Made in USA" clearly displayed on it on TV, erased all doubts, especially since our obliging reporter showed it twice during one interview.

ricksfolly

Those M1A1 Abrams Tanks in the streets and F-16s buzzing the crowds are kind of a giveaway too.
 
Are you a fan of Obama's policy of indirect torture through extraordinary rendition? What is the difference between torture performed by Americans and torture performed at the request of Americans?

I am not a fan of torture under any circumstances.
 
In a straight up/one-on-one battle with Egypt's current military, I agree.

But the longer term and larger term, wider, geo=strategic situation for Israel is not good, abd defsnsibel only in a retalaitory/MAD sense.

While Egypt won't become part of the 'Shia crescent', this could 'close the circle'on Israel. With Iran to the West, Syria and Iran-backed Hezbollah to the North, and now a possibly Egypt and Egypt-supported Hamas to the West.

Even without Egypt Israel was/is vulnerble to a large and sumultaneous [even] non-nuclear missile attack. Raining thousand of high-explosive or other damaging payloads on it with Minutes. Staring with only a few minutes warning in the case of Syria, and over with 20-30 with missles from Iran. Add in a motivated Egypt and Arabs could destroy most of tiny Israel that counts quickly.
Coventional warafre you speak of would only be a remnant in this case.

I see the above scenario possible and within 2-3 years. There really is no defense except 'MAD'.

More later -posting with with weal travelling mobile onnection.

Israel faced the same situation in 1967. It struck first by surprise.
 
That's just silly. Why don't you do some research and see if you can figure it out.

That's not an answer and you know it. I know that many Iranians would like to change their regime. So what? They don't have the power. Their hopes and dreams are inchoate. Many American Indians would like to return to an earlier era. That won't happen because the correlation of forces in the world will not permit it. Reality is a hard edged thing.
 
I am not a fan of torture under any circumstances.

Well, indirect torture is the Obama method. No one on the right complains because they don't have a problem with torture. No one on the left complains because they are hypocrites only interested in supporting Obama over principle.
 
Well, indirect torture is the Obama method. No one on the right complains because they don't have a problem with torture. No one on the left complains because they are hypocrites only interested in supporting Obama over principle.

Everyone on the right supports torture? Really?
 
Well, indirect torture is the Obama method. No one on the right complains because they don't have a problem with torture. No one on the left complains because they are hypocrites only interested in supporting Obama over principle.

Well, since I'm neither on the right or left, I have no problems with saying that I think that Obama sucks on this issue, almost as much as Bush did.

Does that help? Can we get back on topic now?
 
That's not an answer and you know it. I know that many Iranians would like to change their regime. So what? They don't have the power. Their hopes and dreams are inchoate. Many American Indians would like to return to an earlier era. That won't happen because the correlation of forces in the world will not permit it. Reality is a hard edged thing.

It took over a year for the Shah to be removed from power. I believe that there is a majority of people in Iran who want freedom, and that they will eventually have it.
 
I think this is a good article:

BBC News - Cairo: Relaxed crowd, stern message

On a street corner I met Sama Sadurhi, the dapper-looking former Egyptian ambassador to Sweden.

"We need pressure from America and Europe to make Mubarak go," he told me. "The West always talks about human rights. Now is the time for Obama to say: leave. All people here are against him."

Alla, from Cairo, put it more bluntly.

"We do not hate America," he told me. "But we have spent 30 years under the boot of Mubarak. If America continues to support Mubarak we will hate America."

Regarding successors:

"We do not support ElBaradei," another man told me.

"We have made these events ourselves. We own this. We will choose our own leaders ourselves, not have them imposed on us by others."

They're right, you know. And we should give them verbal and UN support in doing so.

From andrewsullivan.com:

BBC's Kim Ghattas reports:

I just spoke to a senior U.S. official, who confirmed that Frank Wisner met President Mubarak and told him he should not seek re-election or put forward his son, Gamal, as his successor. The Americans are now waiting for an answer. However, the official also said that even if Mr Mubarak did not seek re-election, it was no longer enough. My understanding is that although they have not gone back to Mr Mubarak to say he must stand down immediately, they are hoping he has figured that out on his own.
 
Last edited:
Mubarak has announced that he's not going to run in the next elections.
That doesn't mean that the Egyptians are going to have a Democracy of course, simply that the dictator would not be Mubarak anymore.
Mubarak being as old as he is, that was bound to happen anyway, but the change that has occurred due to this revolting is that his son will not be the one to continue his regime.

I wonder if the protests are going to end now.
 
As I said earlier in this thread, the Mubarak regime cannot survive without the support of the United States.

Not really. Its in the interests of both nations to support each other. They have the oil and the US has the guns.
 
Back
Top Bottom