Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain and revolution in MENA

• I Wear Pants

  I disagree Writer, you can promote sanity and stability while not supporting dictators.
• O-Trap

  

  I Wear Pants;657757 wrote:I disagree Writer, you can promote sanity and stability while not supporting dictators.

  
  I agree.
  
  The problem with taking unscrupulous bedfellows is that you make it much easier for them to slip you one in the pooper, and they're the ones more likely to do it.
  
  It's the frog and the scorpion story.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  I Wear Pants;657757 wrote:I disagree Writer, you can promote sanity and stability while not supporting dictators.

  
  You can maintain your principles, but you'll have no say or influence on what happens in those regions. Are you telling me you'd rather have a regime run by Islamic fanatics in Egypt rather than a military backed dictatorship that has proven to be mostly benign?
  
  During the cold war, the US was forced to back a lot of penny ante dictatorships in S. America rather than let them fall to Communism. It was nasty, dirty stuff, and some of it got folks in a lot of trouble. But aside from Cuba, Communism never took hold in this hemisphere, and I'd say getting in bed with some not so savory characters had a lot to do with it.
  
  You can sit back in hindsight and be hyper critical of such a strategy, but the fact is it staved off the threat of communism until communism itself began to burn out from the inside.
  
  I call that a successful in foreign policy.
• I Wear Pants

  That's a long damned time ago. I'm talking past ten years. There is no reason to be supporting people like Mubarak today or at least no reason to not put some intense pressure on them to stop with the civil rights violations.
• O-Trap

  

  Writerbuckeye;657776 wrote:You can maintain your principles, but you'll have no say or influence on what happens in those regions. Are you telling me you'd rather have a regime run by Islamic fanatics in Egypt rather than a military backed dictatorship that has proven to be mostly benign?
  
  During the cold war, the US was forced to back a lot of penny ante dictatorships in S. America rather than let them fall to Communism. It was nasty, dirty stuff, and some of it got folks in a lot of trouble. But aside from Cuba, Communism never took hold in this hemisphere, and I'd say getting in bed with some not so savory characters had a lot to do with it.
  
  You can sit back in hindsight and be hyper critical of such a strategy, but the fact is it staved off the threat of communism until communism itself began to burn out from the inside.
  
  I call that a successful in foreign policy.

  
  It has been successful, so long as they don't sting you. The U. S. also supported a group of anti-Communist Afghans, the Afghan Mujahideens during the Cold War era so that they could fight against the Afghan Marxists.
  
  Too, they backed a young revolutionary to overthrow Zaldivar in Cuba in the early '60s.
  
  It's a crap shoot, either way, but I think you make yourself more vulnerable when you DO play ball with guys you wouldn't trust with your little sister.
  
  If you get into bed with them, and they don't burn you, then you win. If they do, you lose. The question then comes: Can you TRUST them not to burn you?
  
  If you can't say yes, GTFO.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  I Wear Pants;657777 wrote:That's a long damned time ago. I'm talking past ten years. There is no reason to be supporting people like Mubarak today or at least no reason to not put some intense pressure on them to stop with the civil rights violations.

  
  Not so long and it proves my point, which is why you're trying to dismiss it as out of date. It's not.
  
  The threat today is just as real as communism was back then and maybe even more so, because at least with communism you had another country that was worried whether the US would use a first strike attack, too, and there was some rational through going into the policies.
  
  With Islamofascism the threat could come from anywhere, any time, with no central government to retaliate against. It's a culture that isn't afraid to use violence against the most innocent people, and willing to kill themselves because they believe life will be better if they go out as a martyr to their cause.
  
  Like it or not, some of the same strategies used in the Cold War are going to be used today to try and maintain stability in regions that might otherwise go up in flames. I happen to believe European malaise and its ridiculous immigration and state benefits packages have set that continent up to fall to Islamic radicals sooner rather than later. They are ripe for the picking and it's been done from the inside -- much like communism hoped to do when it was waging its war against democratic countries.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;657777 wrote:That's a long damned time ago. I'm talking past ten years. There is no reason to be supporting people like Mubarak today or at least no reason to not put some intense pressure on them to stop with the civil rights violations.

  
  Look I don't like Mubarak. I hope he goes. I hope a good guy is elected by the people to take his place. I hope the people of Egypt seek peace with their neighbors especially Israel. Writerbuckey's point is valid in that I would rather Egypt be ruled by a benign dictator than a freely elected trouble maker.
  
  The fact is Egypt has control of a vital piece of real estate. Unhindered, safe, and open shipping through the Suez canal is in the interests of many nations. The last times the Egyptians played games with the Suez Canal it resulted in war that came dangerously close to touching off WWIII.
  
  So far Obama is doing the right thing. He has to temper his words until this plays out a little further. After Biden's outburst the muzzle should be put on that clown.
• I Wear Pants

  How would you feel about a freely elected ruler who is good to his people but doesn't like cooperating with us?
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;657827 wrote:How would you feel about a freely elected ruler who is good to his people but doesn't like cooperating with us?

  
  I would be ok with that. It would save us a lot of cash. As long as he does not play games with the Canal and will guarantee safe passage of any vessel through it. Also he must not stir up hostilities with Israel. We do not want the Suez Canal to be a war zone. The price of oil just went up because of instability in the region which costs all of us money. I wish the Egyptians peace and freedom but if they toy with the canal they will get neither.
• I Wear Pants

  Not trying to be dumb here but can you define "play games with the canal"? I'm assuming you mean with access or prices but I've been wrong before (you guys know this all too well).
• majorspark

  

  It is in our national interest that those that secure and control the canal have the means and ability to prevent any harm coming to any vessel that sails through the Suez Canal. As you can see in the pictures below they are quite vulnerable.
  
  Any trouble with international warships or commercial vessels in the canal can spark a war. Any new Egyptian government has to understand the economic value they have with the canal and use it wisely. Egypt has resources going for them. The Suez Canal, tourism, some of the best coral reefs, ancient history, temperate climate, etc...
  
  A government that allows their people to freely use their entrepreneurial spirit to individually profit off these resources will benefit all, and that is what is needed.
  
  
  
  
  
  
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;657844 wrote:Not trying to be dumb here but can you define "play games with the canal"? I'm assuming you mean with access or prices but I've been wrong before (you guys know this all too well).

  Yes. But not just access and prices but as pointed out in my previous post, security. The Suez Canal can be a dangerous place if not secured. Any Egyptian government must realize that the security of the Canal is at the top of their national interest. Because of the vulnerability of the canal they must prevent radical individuals from using it as a means of attacking international vessels.
• Footwedge

  Fox News should be absolutekly ashamed of themselves for the fear-mongering regarding Egypt. To state that radical extremists are trying to overtake the Egyption government is disgusting. Good Gawd people...how can anyone watch that channel?
  
  Standing up to a virtual dictator defaults one to jihadist status? SMFHBAF.
• I Wear Pants

  majorspark;657858 wrote:Yes. But not just access and prices but as pointed out in my previous post, security. The Suez Canal can be a dangerous place if not secured. Any Egyptian government must realize that the security of the Canal is at the top of their national interest. Because of the vulnerability of the canal they must prevent radical individuals from using it as a means of attacking international vessels.

  I agree with this.
  
  And if Fox is portraying the Egypt events as jihadist or extremist then they definitely should be ashamed.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Footwedge;657869 wrote:Fox News should be absolutekly ashamed of themselves for the fear-mongering regarding Egypt. To state that radical extremists are trying to overtake the Egyption government is disgusting. Good Gawd people...how can anyone watch that channel?
  
  Standing up to a virtual dictator defaults one to jihadist status? SMFHBAF.

  
  I haven't watched one second of Fox, but even NBC is talking about how Islamic extremists have joined the protests and are attempting to take the lead. It's a real concern for all the world that those extremists do not gain the upper hand in this. The origin of the protests was students wanting Democratic reforms -- but it has since been co-opted by other groups, including the extremists.
  
  NBC ran a piece the other night about the Muslim Brotherhood, I believe, and its connections to other radical Islamic groups in the region.
  
  I think you're letting your bias against Fox color the reality that this is a major concern.
• believer

  

  Writerbuckeye;658002 wrote:I haven't watched one second of Fox, but even NBC is talking about how Islamic extremists have joined the protests and are attempting to take the lead. It's a real concern for all the world that those extremists do not gain the upper hand in this. The origin of the protests was students wanting Democratic reforms -- but it has since been co-opted by other groups, including the extremists.
  
  NBC ran a piece the other night about the Muslim Brotherhood, I believe, and its connections to other radical Islamic groups in the region.
  
  I think you're letting your bias against Fox color the reality that this is a major concern.

  I agree and I, too, have heard the other networks at least touching on the topic of Islamic extremist influence in this nasty situation including the Muslim Brotherhood. To ignore the possibility is naive.
  
  Perhaps Fox News may be pushing the issue somewhat but let's not pretend that radical Islam is not eying this situation with keen interest.
• BGFalcons82

  

  believer;658007 wrote:I agree and I, too, have heard the other networks at least touching on the topic of Islamic extremist influence in this nasty situation including the Muslim Brotherhood. To ignore the possibility is naive.
  
  Perhaps Fox News may be pushing the issue somewhat but let's not pretend that radical Islam is not eying this situation with keen interest.

  
  Hhmmm....let's see here....could it be that Fox News had this information about the Muslim Brotherhood as early as the lame stream media had it? Could it be that in an effort to provide all sides to the issue and not just the liberal viewpoint, they were 1st to divulge this story? Could it be, that the other networks are now cognizant of the fact there are extremists in the Mid East (SHOCKING!!!!) and they have to report the same things Fox did...because...well...ummm....uhhh.....it's the truth?
• believer

  

  BGFalcons82;658035 wrote:Could it be, that the other networks are now cognizant of the fact there are extremists in the Mid East (SHOCKING!!!!) and they have to report the same things Fox did...because...well...ummm....uhhh.....it's the truth?

  That is an annoying thing about Fox News isn't it?
• dwccrew

  

  I could easily see Islamic extremists taking advantage of an unruly and unhappy people. They could use the fact that the US supports an unpopular government and leader as a way to get people that otherwise didn't have a disdain for the US to now join the extremists. It's part of the collateral damage of supporting foreign governments. It is what happened with Iran when the Ayatollah took over (after the Shah was overthrown) and it could possibly happen in Egypt.
  
  I understand the need for supporting governments and leaders like Mubarak, but I don't have to agree with it. And if we are to support such a foreign leader, we have to be ready to handle the consequences. If the extremists do succeed at taking advantage of this situation and getting people to join their side because of this, we will have to deal with this consequence.
  
  I truly hope this doesn't happen, but I would not rule it out. Ideally, the people will get a chance to establish a government and leader that they support. Isn't that what we always say we have wanted for that region? For them to elect their own leaders? By propping up and supporting unpopular leaders like Mubarak, we are being hypocrits. Let them elect a leader and then try to establish diplomatic relations with that leader.
• Footwedge

  Writerbuckeye;658002 wrote:I haven't watched one second of Fox, but even NBC is talking about how Islamic extremists have joined the protests and are attempting to take the lead. It's a real concern for all the world that those extremists do not gain the upper hand in this. The origin of the protests was students wanting Democratic reforms -- but it has since been co-opted by other groups, including the extremists.
  
  NBC ran a piece the other night about the Muslim Brotherhood, I believe, and its connections to other radical Islamic groups in the region.
  
  I think you're letting your bias against Fox color the reality that this is a major concern.

  It is no concern whatsoever. None. It is nothing but fearmongering and absolutely nothing else.
  
  Let's review....
  
  Chinese dissidents risew up in mob strength in defiance of their government......The mob is labeled "good".
  Iranian students gather in mob strenthgs in defiance of the government.... The mob is labeled "good".
  Egyptian dissidents rise up in mob strength in defiance of the government.....And the mob is labeled "Islamic extremists".
  
  In all 3 scenarios, the political uprising has the same common denominators. Only Fox News is oh so blatant to color this as something more than it is. Neoconsewrvatives will never be satisfied until their is a full blown, international religious war between the Dhristians and the Muslims....and Fox News is the biggest imflamer of all the news agencies.
• FatHobbit

  

  BGFalcons82;656943 wrote:If I'm not mistaken, doesn't Lord Obama want this same power in times of "crisis"...whatever the fuck a "crisis" is defined to be?

  
  That's a bad idea.
• Al Bundy

  Footwedge;658171 wrote:It is no concern whatsoever. None. It is nothing but fearmongering and absolutely nothing else.
  
  Let's review....
  
  Chinese dissidents risew up in mob strength in defiance of their government......The mob is labeled "good".
  Iranian students gather in mob strenthgs in defiance of the government.... The mob is labeled "good".
  Egyptian dissidents rise up in mob strength in defiance of the government.....And the mob is labeled "Islamic extremists".
  
  In all 3 scenarios, the political uprising has the same common denominators. Only Fox News is oh so blatant to color this as something more than it is. Neoconsewrvatives will never be satisfied until their is a full blown, international religious war between the Dhristians and the Muslims....and Fox News is the biggest imflamer of all the news agencies.

  The mob aren't extremists, but they could unintentionally create a situation that extremists could take advantage of.
• believer

  

  Al Bundy;658200 wrote:The mob aren't extremists, but they could unintentionally create a situation that extremists could take advantage of.

  Exactly. But Footwedge's erection for Fox News blurs that fact. Everything I'm hearing out of all the networks INCLUDING Fox News is that Islamic extremists could quite easily capitalize on this very bad situation. But I'm not really seeing Fox News accusing the protesters as Islamic extremists. C'mon Footie...really?
  
  I agree with dwccrew's views on it.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  believer;658217 wrote:Exactly. But Footwedge's erection for Fox News blurs that fact. Everything I'm hearing out of all the networks INCLUDING Fox News is that Islamic extremists could quite easily capitalize on this very bad situation. But I'm not really seeing Fox News accusing the protesters as Islamic extremists. C'mon Footie...really?
  
  I agree with dwccrew's views on it.

  
  Now there's a shocker.
  
  As for the comments that this is what you might get for having supported someone like Mubarak all those years (extremists will use it to take power)...you're forgetting that while the government in Egypt has been more modern in its approach (as opposed to Sharia Law), most of the citizens who live there still believe in Muslim punishments for certain things.
  
  I saw one set of numbers where they polled Egyptians about punishments and over 70 percent (some into the 80s) favored things like stoning for adultery, cutting off the hands of thiefs, and death to Muslims who chose to change their religion!
  
  With basic beliefs like these in a vast majority of the people, it would be easy for extremists to take control if they get a foothold.
  
  Here's a link to those poll results. http://www.examiner.com/offbeat-news-in-national/poll-75-of-muslims-egypt-pakistan-favor-stoning-people-for-adultery
• believer

  

  Writerbuckeye;658255 wrote:Now there's a shocker.
  
  As for the comments that this is what you might get for having supported someone like Mubarak all those years (extremists will use it to take power)...you're forgetting that while the government in Egypt has been more modern in its approach (as opposed to Sharia Law), most of the citizens who live there still believe in Muslim punishments for certain things.
  
  I saw one set of numbers where they polled Egyptians about punishments and over 70 percent (some into the 80s) favored things like stoning for adultery, cutting off the hands of thiefs, and death to Muslims who chose to change their religion!
  
  With basic beliefs like these in a vast majority of the people, it would be easy for extremists to take control if they get a foothold.
  
  Here's a link to those poll results. http://www.examiner.com/offbeat-news-in-national/poll-75-of-muslims-egypt-pakistan-favor-stoning-people-for-adultery

  Aw crap, WB. You're starting to sound like those fear-mongers at Fox News.