• 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

Seven whole years, eh? You think America put democracy into place in seven years?

I think you misunderstood the post, she is not saying we did.

It takes decades to put in place what we have, and there's still only about a 10 percent chance it will take root. (in that part of the world, probably 1 percent or less of a chance)

What right do we have to use our military might to force a country to our way of government in the first place?
 
What right do we have to use our military might to force a country to our way of government in the first place?

Okay, then we should support Mubarak then, right?
 
This is the only chance they have. We're going to build them an economy while we protect them military during the process.

The United States is so evil.

Yes how lucky they are that we killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians, displaced millions from their country, wrecked their infrastructure, and militarily took over control of their property.

The United States is so wonderful!
 
Okay, then we should support Mubarak then, right?

No, and we should never have supported Mubarak in the first place. Just as we should never have supported Saddam. Supporting ruthless dictators has a way of coming back to bite you.
 
No, and we should never have supported Mubarak in the first place. Just as we should never have supported Saddam. Supporting ruthless dictators has a way of coming back to bite you.

So who should we support in the Middle East?
 
What right do we have to use our military might to force a country to our way of government in the first place?

For the good of the world community.
 
So who should we support in the Middle East?

With the exception of humanitarian aid in some cases, no one until we get our own house in order. Have you noticed the size of our national debt?
 
For the good of the world community.


That's the same justification used by terrorists when they kill people for their beliefs.

I think we have the potential to be better than the terrorists.
 
That's the same justification used by terrorists when they kill people for their beliefs.

I think we have the potential to be better than the terrorists.

The Commies used that justification, too. The difference is, we're right and they're wrong. Just like the brotherhood is wrong.

If we sit back and do nothing, allowing orgs like al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Taliban to grow and tighten their grip, then we aren't any better than the terrorists.
 
How are we supporting them?

This is how.

Multiple reports suggest that the United States has been in quiet contact with the banned group for years and that the Obama White House is growing more open to the Muslim Brotherhood having a role in a new government, once Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak steps aside.

White House walks fine line on Muslim Brotherhood

On Monday, in what analysts said was a clear reference to the Brotherhood, the White House said a new government in Egypt should “include a whole host of important non-secular actors.”

It Begins… Obama Administration Opens Door to Muslim Brotherhood Islamist Group | The Gateway Pundit


Reporting from Washington —
The Obama administration said for the first time that it supports a role for groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, a banned Islamist organization, in a reformed Egyptian government.

Egypt and U.S.: U.S. sees a role for Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt - latimes.com
 
"Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days.

The US government has been involved in drawing up the law, a draft of which has been seen by The Independent on Sunday. It would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972."
Western Oil Companies a Step Away from Iraq's 'Prize' | World | AlterNet

That article is from January 7, 2007. As I recall, the Iraqi committee that determined which companies got contracts, did not give them to US firms.

From Time 2009

Those who claim that the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 to get control of the country's giant oil reserves will be left scratching their heads by the results of last weekend's auction of Iraqi oil contracts: Not a single U.S. company secured a deal in the auction of contracts that will shape the Iraqi oil industry for the next couple of decades. Two of the most lucrative of the multi-billion-dollar oil contracts went to two countries which bitterly opposed the U.S. invasion — Russia and China — while even Total Oil of France, which led the charge to deny international approval for the war at the U.N. Security Council in 2003, won a bigger stake than the Americans in the most recent auction. "[The distribution of oil contracts] certainly answers the theory that the war was for the benefit of big U.S. oil interests," says Alex Munton, Middle East oil analyst for the energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie, whose clients include major U.S. companies. "That has not been demonstrated by what has happened this week."

In one of the biggest auctions held anywhere in the 150-year history of the oil industry, executives from across the world flew into Baghdad on Dec. 11 for a two-day, red-carpet ceremony at the Oil Ministry, broadcast live in Iraq. With U.S. military helicopters hovering overhead to help ward off a possible insurgent attack, Oil Minister Hussein Al-Shahrastani unsealed envelopes from each company, stating how much oil it would produce, and what it was willing to accept in payment from Iraq's government. Rather than giving foreign oil companies control over Iraqi reserves, as the U.S. had hoped to do with the Oil Law it failed to get the Iraqi parliament to pass, the oil companies were awarded service contracts lasting 20 years for seven of the 10 oil fields on offer — the oil will remain the property of the Iraqi state, and the foreign companies will pump it for a fixed price per barrel.

Far from behaving like the war-ravaged, bankrupt country that it is, Iraq heavily weighted the contracts in its own favor, demanding a low per-barrel price and signing bonuses of up to $150 million. Only one U.S. company, Occidental Petroleum Corp., joined the bidding last weekend, and lost. (ExxonMobil had hoped to land the lucrative Rumaila field, but lost out to an alliance between the Chinese National Petroleum Company and BP because it declined the Iraqi government's $2-a-barrel fee.)

Russia's Lukoil, CNPC, and RoyalDutchShell accepted fees of between $1.15 and $1.40 for every barrel they produce — that's about 2% of Friday's oil futures price of $73 a barrel. "No one thinks it will be easy to make money on these contracts," says Samuel Ciszuk, Middle East energy analyst at IHS Global Insight, an economic forecasting company in London. "Companies have been willing to come in very, very low just to get their foot in the door in Iraq."
 
Last edited:
The Commies used that justification, too.

So you are saying we are no better than the terrorists and the commies? That doesn't make me feel a whole lot better.

The difference is, we're right and they're wrong

I don't think that just because we kill more innocent people makes us right, it just makes us more powerful and immoral.

Just like the brotherhood is wrong.

From all reports, the brotherhood is a very small contingent in the Egyptian opposition to Mubarak's dictatorship.

If we sit back and do nothing, allowing orgs like al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Taliban to grow and tighten their grip, then we aren't any better than the terrorists.

My imagination is not as quickly filled with the fear expressed in that statement evidently. This revolution is about human rights, I side with human rights.
 
That article is from January 7, 2007. As I recall, the Iraqi committee that determined which companies got contracts, did not give them to US firms.

From Time 2009

Yeah, I didn't work out quite they way planned but Western oil is back in Iraq for the first time in 36 years which they were completely locked out of until our war and occupation. No longer can Saddam withhold oil to drive up prices.
 
So you are saying we are no better than the terrorists and the commies? That doesn't make me feel a whole lot better.

No, that's not what I'm saying. It's what you say I'm saying. Two different things, entirely.

If we want to be better than the terrorists, we need to take an aggressive stance against the terrorists and actively participate in their destruction. If we sit back, do nothing and allow them to kill innocent people, then we're no better than they are.



I don't think that just because we kill more innocent people makes us right, it just makes us more powerful and immoral.

Terrorists aren't innocent people. We are well within our rights to kill them.


From all reports, the brotherhood is a very small contingent in the Egyptian opposition to Mubarak's dictatorship.

And, from all reports, they're running the show.

Egypt's largest opposition group, the Muslim Brotherhood, said it would begin talks Sunday with the government to try to end the country's political crisis but made clear it would insist on the immediate ouster of longtime authoritarian President Hosni Mubarak.

Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood to hold talks with government as protests enter 13th day - 2/6/2011 3:53:01 AM | Newser

Is there anyone that is in a position to submit input to the situation saying that the the MB shouldn't be allowed to have a part in a new government?



My imagination is not as quickly filled with the fear expressed in that statement evidently. This revolution is about human rights, I side with human rights.

Me too, which is why I think our government should be very vocal in their opposition to the MB having a single thing to do with a new government in Egypt.
 
Yeah, I didn't work out quite they way planned but Western oil is back in Iraq for the first time in 36 years which they were completely locked out of until our war and occupation. No longer can Saddam withhold oil to drive up prices.

A good thing, for everybody. Right?
 
This is how.

Your first link refers to rumors of reports, that's it.

Your second link refers to the news story in your first link.

Your third link regards the White House saying they are not going to exclude segments of Egypt's population in the formation of the new government.


Your case is very weak if you are expecting Americans to get all feared up about this.
 
A good thing, for everybody. Right?

It was the whole purpose of the war. For us it is very good, we are no longer have the threat of gas price spikes due to Iraq witholding oil. We get to continue in our exploitation of the world's resources. To the tens of thousand of innocent civilians we killed, the millions we displaced from their country, and the remainder of the people who saw us destroy their infrastructure and want us the hell out, not so good.
 
It was the whole purpose of the war. For us it is very good, we are no longer have the threat of gas price spikes due to Iraq witholding oil. We get to continue in our exploitation of the world's resources. To the tens of thousand of innocent civilians we killed, the millions we displaced from their country, and the remainder of the people who saw us destroy their infrastructure and want us the hell out, not so good.

Damn it, Catawba, we did not kill tens of thousands or cause displacement. The insurgents did that. Blame the right people.
 
Your first link refers to rumors of reports, that's it.

Your second link refers to the news story in your first link.

Your third link regards the White House saying they are not going to exclude segments of Egypt's population in the formation of the new government.


Your case is very weak if you are expecting Americans to get all feared up about this.

Got anything to refute what I'm saying?
 
Damn it, Catawba, we did not kill tens of thousands or cause displacement. The insurgents did that. Blame the right people.

The US caused it

The US did invade Iraq, the insurgents did not
 
If we want to be better than the terrorists, we need to take an aggressive stance against the terrorists and actively participate in their destruction. If we sit back, do nothing and allow them to kill innocent people, then we're no better than they are
.


We already are killing more innocent people than the terrorists are. What are you frightened of?


Terrorists aren't innocent people.

I am talking about the tens of thousand of innocent civilians we killed in Iraq.


And, from all reports, they're running the show.

What reports?



Is there anyone that is in a position to submit input to the situation saying that the the MB shouldn't be allowed to have a part in a new government?

If you are to have a democratic government, you cannot exclude segments of the population. Are you for a Democratic government or a continuation of the dictatorship?
 
With the exception of humanitarian aid in some cases, no one until we get our own house in order. Have you noticed the size of our national debt?

Until liberals let us drill our own oil, what options do we have?
 
Got anything to refute what I'm saying?

I'll let you know as soon as you explain how you can have a Democratic government by excluding a segment of the population.
 
Back
Top Bottom