Recently Active Forum Topics:

Page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 28, 29, 30 Next

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male

Posted: Jun 13, 2013 - 1:00pm

sirdroseph wrote:

Point 1: Yes that is exactly what I am saying in fact. As much as you would like to compare Egypt's government to ours, you cannot. Of course there are secular intellectuals and general supporters of democracies in all Arab countries and these people have very little voice and virtually no power in their governments as always which as I said earlier is the driving force of the Arab spring uprisings. In the context of government relations and where foreign aid goes, I am sorry but at this time for all intents and purposes the Muslim Brotherhood is all there is. Who do you think controls the 1.3 billion we just gave them, the citizens on the street, the secular intellectuals???? Uh.....no.

Point 2: As far as my remarks regarding Syria, although I did not clarify I was more thinking aloud considering that this strategy of course will not be employed so I did not even feel the need to clarify. I made these remarks more out of frustration of the building effort in Washington towards considering arming the Sunni rebels and how much a mistake this would be. In reality, what I would really like is to do is absolutely nothing. Most of these countries are already sick of us intervening clearly in support of our own interests or worse, the interest of Israel and I support them in this disgust. My overall argument is to let these countries have complete autonomy to decide whatever they want to do even if that includes blowing each other up. The only true deterrent of keeping it all from getting out of hand is the nuclear capability of Russia, China, US and Israel. Even WHEN not if, Iran joins this group it is doubtful they would actually deploy the weapons because of this. We really have no control or say ultimately in anything else as much as we would like to think so.

Point 3: Regarding of who I think matters and who doesn't. In my personal opinion, I only care about the common man on the street in any country including ours and especially now in this region where they seem to have always had Monarchies or Facist governments that have not served the citizens of these countries best interest and I see no signs of that changing anytime soon. As a matter of fact Islamic theocracies seem to be waiting in the wings to fill any power vacuum left over from any overthrow. Islamic theocracies are the prevailing power and in any type of government to government relationship that we have with most of the countries in this region, that is who we have to deal with. Now, unofficial and backdoor relations are a different story but that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about official US aid to the Morsi government and possible arms and money shipments to the Sunni rebels in Syria. Just where are the secularists true democracy supporters involved in these transactions?
Final point: Morsi = Muslim Brotherhood Assad = Hezbollah. I see no distinction in regards to these governments, you may. That is fine we are all entitled to our opinions.

I'm not going to jump in between you two on this, but I will say that I see it your way.

On point number 2, since I did fully support your remarks in question and stated so at the time, I'll add that your rebuttal is consistent with my views. What you stated above is what I read into your original remarks on the matter.

sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Not here, I tell you wat
Gender: Male

Posted: Jun 13, 2013 - 11:04am

Lazy8 wrote:

1. You seem to be saying (it's kinda hard to tell) that a country is nothing more than its ruling faction. In 2008 the US didn't switch from being a Republican country to a Democratic country, it's the same country ruled by Democrats rather than Republicans. Egypt, whether you're willing to admit it or not, is more than the Muslim Brotherhood. We have ideological allies there as well as enemies; if you want to dismiss them it would be useful to see some justification. Libya is more than the people who attacked our embassy. Iran has pro-democratic/more-secularist factions as well; in 2009 they were out in the streets—before the Tunisian revolt that most credit as the start of the Arab spring. Had they succeeded in toppling the regime Iran would be a very different country now, probably one significantly less hostile.

You seem to see these revolts as nothing but threat to our interests. They are an opportunity. When a dictator is overthrown (especially by a leaderless revolution like those that occurred in north Africa and now the Arab world) the situation is always fluid; the country can take many paths. One dictator can be replaced by another, or a pluralistic society can emerge. Look at eastern Europe. Poland, the Czech Republic, some pieces of the former Yugoslavia have become vibrant democracies. The middle east could become like the Czech Republic...or it could become like Russia or Albania. The Islamists have reliable foreign backers, the secularists not so much.

Your statement about secular monarchies accepting oil money might apply to countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (if they were secular, which they aren't), but not to Egypt. It hasn't been a monarchy since the 1950s and it doesn't have enough oil reserves to meet its own needs, let alone export.

My insinuation isn't so much racism as chauvinism: there appear to be people (and their interests) who matter and people who don't. Since you asked I backscrolled a bit and found this gem from your recent posts:

There was a time when we engaged in realpolitik this cynical, but I had hoped it was behind us. It's too late to prop up this brutal regime in the name of stability; at this point an intervention like this would be a move to restore a mostly-fallen dictatorship.

The people of Syria (almost 100,000 of whom have died in this revolt) aren't disposable pawns in some great game. They deserve the same shot at a future that you do, but imagine the benefit to our interests if we move to put Assad back in power and they win anyway. Might cause some hard feelings maybe. I'd rather those hard feelings were reserved for Assad's current allies, Russia and Iran. Who we would then be in bed with. If we shouldn't back the rebels because one faction of the rebels is Islamist how exactly does it make sense to back the regime, whose allies are entirely hostile?

I've tried to parse the sentence about Hezbollah over and over and I can't figure out what you're arguing, so I won't take issue with it. As for setting off WWIII: if invading Iraq and Afghanistan didn't do the trick then the fuse on that powderkeg is wet...or the keg is an empty metaphor.

Point 1: Yes that is exactly what I am saying in fact. As much as you would like to compare Egypt's government to ours, you cannot. Of course there are secular intellectuals and general supporters of democracies in all Arab countries and these people have very little voice and virtually no power in their governments as always which as I said earlier is the driving force of the Arab spring uprisings. In the context of government relations and where foreign aid goes, I am sorry but at this time for all intents and purposes the Muslim Brotherhood is all there is. Who do you think controls the 1.3 billion we just gave them, the citizens on the street, the secular intellectuals???? Uh.....no.

Point 2: As far as my remarks regarding Syria, although I did not clarify I was more thinking aloud considering that this strategy of course will not be employed so I did not even feel the need to clarify. I made these remarks more out of frustration of the building effort in Washington towards considering arming the Sunni rebels and how much a mistake this would be. In reality, what I would really like is to do is absolutely nothing. Most of these countries are already sick of us intervening clearly in support of our own interests or worse, the interest of Israel and I support them in this disgust. My overall argument is to let these countries have complete autonomy to decide whatever they want to do even if that includes blowing each other up. The only true deterrent of keeping it all from getting out of hand is the nuclear capability of Russia, China, US and Israel. Even WHEN not if, Iran joins this group it is doubtful they would actually deploy the weapons because of this. We really have no control or say ultimately in anything else as much as we would like to think so.

Point 3: Regarding of who I think matters and who doesn't. In my personal opinion, I only care about the common man on the street in any country including ours and especially now in this region where they seem to have always had Monarchies or Facist governments that have not served the citizens of these countries best interest and I see no signs of that changing anytime soon. As a matter of fact Islamic theocracies seem to be waiting in the wings to fill any power vacuum left over from any overthrow. Islamic theocracies are the prevailing power and in any type of government to government relationship that we have with most of the countries in this region, that is who we have to deal with. Now, unofficial and backdoor relations are a different story but that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about official US aid to the Morsi government and possible arms and money shipments to the Sunni rebels in Syria. Just where are the secularists true democracy supporters involved in these transactions?

Final point: Morsi = Muslim Brotherhood Assad = Hezbollah. I see no distinction in regards to these governments, you may. That is fine we are all entitled to our opinions.

Lazy8

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male

Posted: Jun 13, 2013 - 10:00am

sirdroseph wrote:

There's a lot packed into this, most of it wrong, so it's hard to know where to start.

You seem to be saying (it's kinda hard to tell) that a country is nothing more than its ruling faction. In 2008 the US didn't switch from being a Republican country to a Democratic country, it's the same country ruled by Democrats rather than Republicans. Egypt, whether you're willing to admit it or not, is more than the Muslim Brotherhood. We have ideological allies there as well as enemies; if you want to dismiss them it would be useful to see some justification. Libya is more than the people who attacked our embassy. Iran has pro-democratic/more-secularist factions as well; in 2009 they were out in the streets—before the Tunisian revolt that most credit as the start of the Arab spring. Had they succeeded in toppling the regime Iran would be a very different country now, probably one significantly less hostile.

You seem to see these revolts as nothing but threat to our interests. They are an opportunity. When a dictator is overthrown (especially by a leaderless revolution like those that occurred in north Africa and now the Arab world) the situation is always fluid; the country can take many paths. One dictator can be replaced by another, or a pluralistic society can emerge. Look at eastern Europe. Poland, the Czech Republic, some pieces of the former Yugoslavia have become vibrant democracies. The middle east could become like the Czech Republic...or it could become like Russia or Albania. The Islamists have reliable foreign backers, the secularists not so much.

Your statement about secular monarchies accepting oil money might apply to countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (if they were secular, which they aren't), but not to Egypt. It hasn't been a monarchy since the 1950s and it doesn't have enough oil reserves to meet its own needs, let alone export.

Now, for your a-rab comment the only thing that the Arabs have to do with this whole subject in regards to my personal sentiment is that this issue takes place in an Arab country dealing with our foreign policy towards...wait for it...Arabs. Of course the Iranians are Persians, but we are not talking about them right now. I could care less what nationality or skin color they are, irrelevant to me and for you to insinuate by your use of the semantic that I am somehow racists I defy you to peruse every......single.......post I have ever made hear for any tinge of racism towards anyone or even supporting any policy that includes any unfair treatment towards ANY minority group, instead you will find that I have consistently supported every issue that is on the side of equal rights for all regardless of skin color, gender or sexuality. You may see me as an ignorant, backwards southerner, but I see you as a person that I am responding to about an issue in a forum and nothing else.

My insinuation isn't so much racism as chauvinism: there appear to be people (and their interests) who matter and people who don't. Since you asked I backscrolled a bit and found this gem from your recent posts:

Just watching the news and had a brilliant idea. We should blow everyone's mind and support Assad. Think about it, no question Assad remaining in power is the safest move. The devil you know scenario. Stabilization is key and Assad status quo is the only way to achieve this imo. We should work with Russia, having a common goal with improve our relationship as well. I even think that Israel fares better with the Shia as opposed to the Sunni. There is a precarious and precise balance of different factions all opposing each other holding this thing together and a Sunni takeover of Syria not only would leave Islamic extremists who hate America and Israel more than the Shia in control, it would preclude doing so by defeating not only Assad but Hezbollah itself. You're talking about a powder keg that could literally set off WWIII. {#Eek}

Oh and it is the only way to stop the killing of innocent civilians, there is that too.

There was a time when we engaged in realpolitik this cynical, but I had hoped it was behind us. It's too late to prop up this brutal regime in the name of stability; at this point an intervention like this would be a move to restore a mostly-fallen dictatorship.

The people of Syria (almost 100,000 of whom have died in this revolt) aren't disposable pawns in some great game. They deserve the same shot at a future that you do, but imagine the benefit to our interests if we move to put Assad back in power and they win anyway. Might cause some hard feelings maybe. I'd rather those hard feelings were reserved for Assad's current allies, Russia and Iran. Who we would then be in bed with. If we shouldn't back the rebels because one faction of the rebels is Islamist how exactly does it make sense to back the regime, whose allies are entirely hostile?

I've tried to parse the sentence about Hezbollah over and over and I can't figure out what you're arguing, so I won't take issue with it. As for setting off WWIII: if invading Iraq and Afghanistan didn't do the trick then the fuse on that powderkeg is wet...or the keg is an empty metaphor.

sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Not here, I tell you wat
Gender: Male

Posted: Jun 12, 2013 - 4:56pm

Lazy8 wrote:

sirdroseph wrote:

And all of this information makes the Egyptian government more trustworthy and friendly to us in what way exactly? The whole point is that Morsi's government is no more our friend than Iran and we need to stop playing games with all sides trying to get ahead because it does nothing but come back to bite us in the patookas. History backs that up.

Not trying to get you to suddenly swoon with affection for them a-rabs, just trying to keep the conversation honest.

Back when Mubarak had his boot on the throat of the country we funneled him billions (much of which is now in Swiss banks)—Egypt was our single biggest foreign aid recipient for decades. We used that money to buy a safer neighborhood for Israel. Now we're trying again, but the voices of opposition in Egypt are freer to speak, and we''re hearing what had always been said in private.

Buying friends never works, not for long anyway. But Egypt isn't a monolithic seething mass of anti-American rage. Islamists are the biggest faction in Egypt's infant democracy but not the only faction. They will find support in the Arab world. If we abandon Egypt we leave the secularists high and dry.

We're spending too much in Egypt, and we're going about it clumsily...because we're Americans, and that's how we roll. If you object to that fine, you'll find I'm mostly in agreement. But keep the conversation honest or you won't convince anybody who's paying attention, and you'll alienate many who might eventually agree.

Unfortunately what Egypt is as a whole is sadly almost irrelevant which is the whole point of the Arab spring rising. The old secular monarchies cozy with the West accepting oil money while keeping their boots on the country ala Mubarak and yes, now Morsi while the majority of the citizens were kept down have now become Islamic theocracies virtually doing the same thing. The revolution clearly has brought a meet the new boss same as the old boss situation in Egypt, the Muslim brotherhood has taken over for the most part and they are not our friends. The secularists are high and dry with or without our help and helping the Muslim Brotherhood does not seem like "help" to me. Now, for your a-rab comment the only thing that the Arabs have to do with this whole subject in regards to my personal sentiment is that this issue takes place in an Arab country dealing with our foreign policy towards...wait for it...Arabs. Of course the Iranians are Persians, but we are not talking about them right now. I could care less what nationality or skin color they are, irrelevant to me and for you to insinuate by your use of the semantic that I am somehow racists I defy you to peruse every......single.......post I have ever made hear for any tinge of racism towards anyone or even supporting any policy that includes any unfair treatment towards ANY minority group, instead you will find that I have consistently supported every issue that is on the side of equal rights for all regardless of skin color, gender or sexuality. You may see me as an ignorant, backwards southerner, but I see you as a person that I am responding to about an issue in a forum and nothing else.

Lazy8

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male

Posted: Jun 12, 2013 - 4:16pm

sirdroseph wrote:

Not trying to get you to suddenly swoon with affection for them a-rabs, just trying to keep the conversation honest.

Back when Mubarak had his boot on the throat of the country we funneled him billions (much of which is now in Swiss banks)—Egypt was our single biggest foreign aid recipient for decades. We used that money to buy a safer neighborhood for Israel. Now we're trying again, but the voices of opposition in Egypt are freer to speak, and we''re hearing what had always been said in private.

Buying friends never works, not for long anyway. But Egypt isn't a monolithic seething mass of anti-American rage. Islamists are the biggest faction in Egypt's infant democracy but not the only faction. They will find support in the Arab world. If we abandon Egypt we leave the secularists high and dry.

We're spending too much in Egypt, and we're going about it clumsily...because we're Americans, and that's how we roll. If you object to that fine, you'll find I'm mostly in agreement. But keep the conversation honest or you won't convince anybody who's paying attention, and you'll alienate many who might eventually agree.

sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Not here, I tell you wat
Gender: Male

Posted: Jun 12, 2013 - 3:25pm

Lazy8 wrote:

sirdroseph wrote:

Just in case anyone thinks that any Arab government is our friend and any aid or diplomacy is appreciated or used in any way to serve ours or Democracies interests: Now, given this warm felt appreciation for the 1.3 billion we just very quietly gave to Egypt, is everyone now ready to give some guns to the Libyan opposition? Hmmmmm anyone?

Hot Mic Catches Egyptian Politician Discussing ‘War’ with ‘Enemies’ Israel and America

...and of course a hot mic in our congress would never catch anyone saying outrageous or provocative things, no sir!

This guy is head of a minor party in Egypt which has all of one seat (out of 498) in the assembly. Casting this as representative of political thought in Egypt is dishonest as well as silly. It wouldn't take ten minutes of googling to find something equally outrageous in this session's Congressional Record.

Lazy8

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male

Posted: Jun 12, 2013 - 1:32pm

sirdroseph wrote:

Hot Mic Catches Egyptian Politician Discussing ‘War’ with ‘Enemies’ Israel and America

sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Not here, I tell you wat
Gender: Male

Posted: Jun 12, 2013 - 11:02am

Hot Mic Catches Egyptian Politician Discussing ‘War’ with ‘Enemies’ Israel and America

R_P

Gender:

Posted: Nov 27, 2012 - 7:11pm
oldslabsides wrote: back to square one... If at first you don't succeed...

Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar

Location: Dumbf*ckistan

Posted: Nov 27, 2012 - 7:06pm
RichardPrins wrote: Egyptians stage mass anti-Morsi rally - Middle East - Al Jazeera English back to square one...

R_P

Gender:

Posted: Nov 27, 2012 - 7:04pm
Egyptians stage mass anti-Morsi rally - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

Monkeysdad

Monkeysdad Avatar

Location: Simi Valley, CA
Gender: Male

Posted: Nov 26, 2012 - 8:31pm
RichardPrins wrote: Context matters. If you say so. I think all that matters in your world is what you think matters. Should've known not to crawl out from under my rock. ((shrug))

R_P

Gender:

Posted: Nov 26, 2012 - 7:28pm
Monkeysdad wrote: So, by your postings of late...WW II is closer in your rearview?! I mean, considering that in comparison it was a long while ago and all...... Context matters.

R_P

Gender:

Posted: Nov 26, 2012 - 7:26pm

kurtster wrote:

Well now, pretty cold blooded.

Diplomacy has no stature in your world.

Anarchy is obviously your answer for everything then or pure dictatorship.

Lots of straw men and oversimplification there, kurtster.

Genuine diplomacy has plenty of stature in my world. However, that's quite a different subject from the fact that a few Americans got killed, one which happens to be an Ambassador. Or the brouhaha that followed. Or an exaggerated sense of self-worth.

Where do I say anarchy (a distinctly anti-government ideology) or pure dictatorship (a totalitarian government) are the answer for everything?

Monkeysdad

Monkeysdad Avatar

Location: Simi Valley, CA
Gender: Male

Posted: Nov 26, 2012 - 7:13pm
RichardPrins wrote: As far as it is now. So, by your postings of late...WW II is closer in your rearview?! I mean, considering that in comparison it was a long while ago and all......

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male

Posted: Nov 26, 2012 - 7:08pm
RichardPrins wrote: As far as it is now. Well now, pretty cold blooded. Diplomacy has no stature in your world. Anarchy is obviously your answer for everything then or pure dictatorship.

R_P

Gender:

Posted: Nov 26, 2012 - 7:02pm
Monkeysdad wrote: Wow. That was pretty dismissive, RP. How far would the incident be in your rearview mirror if the ambassador/staff been say...Dutch, or even Canadian?! As far as it is now.

Monkeysdad

Monkeysdad Avatar

Location: Simi Valley, CA
Gender: Male

Posted: Nov 26, 2012 - 6:58pm
RichardPrins wrote: Mostly accurate if you read the rest of the article and considering the time it was posted. Still stuck on... a few Americans that got killed a while ago? Wow. That was pretty dismissive, RP. How far would the incident be in your rearview mirror if the ambassador/staff been say...Dutch, or even Canadian?!

R_P

Gender:

Posted: Nov 26, 2012 - 6:20pm

kurtster wrote:

Posted: Sep 12, 2012 - 8:24am
RichardPrins wrote:

How an Obscure Video Sparked International Protests

The US ambassador to Libya was killed last night in an attack on the American Consulate sparked by a video mocking Mohammed, Islam’s prophet. The video itself was hardly seen at all by anyone in the United States, but a translation to Arabic posted on YouTube suddenly incited anger and violence in the Muslim community.

Ooops, guess this theory didn't work out very well.

Mostly accurate if you read the rest of the article and considering the time it was posted. Still stuck on... a few Americans that got killed a while ago?

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male

Posted: Nov 26, 2012 - 6:10pm

Posted: Sep 12, 2012 - 8:24am
RichardPrins wrote:

How an Obscure Video Sparked International Protests

The US ambassador to Libya was killed last night in an attack on the American Consulate sparked by a video mocking Mohammed, Islam’s prophet. The video itself was hardly seen at all by anyone in the United States, but a translation to Arabic posted on YouTube suddenly incited anger and violence in the Muslim community.

Ooops, guess this theory didn't work out very well.

Page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 28, 29, 30 Next