Federal government finally goes totally insane, bonkers, off the deep end.

[BigRob]

Oh I get it now. I don't know where you get your information, but reading about Osama's life and where he developed his radicalism might help.

Yea yea, no doubt you want to make a big stink about his ties to the Muslim Brotherhood in his formative years, but again, that is ignoring the broader concept.

Fact is that our interests aligned when it came to killing Soviets, then they parted ways when it came to Kuwait and American troops leading the effort against Saddam. Sure, you can get into the weeds of the United States often ignores reality when interests shift, but the simple fact is that they did.

Aid to Egypt (regardless of the government) is not an issue for me. I think we shouldn't hold any delusions about the end result -- it might end poorly for us. That said, Egypt is simply to important to write off, and if F-16's are what it takes to find common interests, then F-16's are a good place to deal. Egypt is going to get weapons from someone -- it might as well be us -- at least then we are able to keep a major foot in the door, and have far more leverage -- something that benefits us immediately.

 

[BigRob]

Yes, that's so. Isn't that more of an argument against arming people who might turn against us than it is one to keep giving away military hardware in the hopes that the recipient will be more on our side in the future?

No, because you can't predict the future. Everyone might turn you against you at some point, but that doesn't negate the here and now that is equally, if not more, important. We might very well give Egypt a lot of weapons, only to have them turn against us and our interests. That is entirely possible.

That said, abandoning Egypt right now will almost guarantee a far more radical country, that we posses no leverage within, and one that aligns itself with other competing powers. We don't want that for the here and now, or the future.

If a few F-16's can keep our foot in the door now, give us more leverage now, and solidify a "working relationship" with the current government (whatever form it ends up as), then I view that as a success.

Now, if we can do through some other avenue...great, but one does not seem to be as readily available.

 

[PLC1]

No, because you can't predict the future. Everyone might turn you against you at some point, but that doesn't negate the here and now that is equally, if not more, important. We might very well give Egypt a lot of weapons, only to have them turn against us and our interests. That is entirely possible.

That said, abandoning Egypt right now will almost guarantee a far more radical country, that we posses no leverage within, and one that aligns itself with other competing powers. We don't want that for the here and now, or the future.

If a few F-16's can keep our foot in the door now, give us more leverage now, and solidify a "working relationship" with the current government (whatever form it ends up as), then I view that as a success.

Now, if we can do through some other avenue...great, but one does not seem to be as readily available.

True, you can't predict the future. Their government will, no doubt, change as will ours. The Mujahadeen you mentioned earlier is a great example of allies turning on us. We once had such a "working relationship" with Saddam Hussain. Our working relationship with the former Egyptian government worked against us as the rebels there saw us as a part of the regime they were fighting.

 

[Cruella]

Our working relationship with the former Egyptian government worked against us as the rebels there saw us as a part of the regime they were fighting.

Where do you get that information? It was the pro-democracy groups that started the rebellion. The same ones who are out protesting against Morsi and calling the election rigged. Even the Muslim Brotherhood was surprised when the protests looked like they were working.

Does anyone here not think that taking out Saddam and getting a pro-democracy government in Iraq had no influence on the Arab Spring? Is that not why the Libyan rebels begged for us to come in and help unseat Gadaffi?

 

[PLC1]

Where do you get that information? It was the pro-democracy groups that started the rebellion. The same ones who are out protesting against Morsi and calling the election rigged. Even the Muslim Brotherhood was surprised when the protests looked like they were working.

Does anyone here not think that taking out Saddam and getting a pro-democracy government in Iraq had no influence on the Arab Spring? Is that not why the Libyan rebels begged for us to come in and help unseat Gadaffi?

Yes, the pro democracy groups are the ones out protesting Morsi, and they were the same ones who spoke out against Mubarak. They're the ones who blamed the US for supporting Mubarak, and the same ones who will blame us for supporting Morsi. That's what happens when you support dictators - the subjects of those dictators tend to see you as a part of the problem they're fighting, not as a great beacon of freedom and democracy.

 

[Cruella]

Yes, the pro democracy groups are the ones out protesting Morsi, and they were the same ones who spoke out against Mubarak. They're the ones who blamed the US for supporting Mubarak, and the same ones who will blame us for supporting Morsi. That's what happens when you support dictators - the subjects of those dictators tend to see you as a part of the problem they're fighting, not as a great beacon of freedom and democracy.

So why aren't the Egyptian protesters getting their democracy now under Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood? Maybe because the same thing is happening to them, that happened in Iran when their shah was ousted. Maybe it's not the United States at all, but their own radical religion and we are their conveninet scape goat.

 

[PLC1]

So why aren't the Egyptian protesters getting their democracy now under Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood? Maybe because the same thing is happening to them, that happened in Iran when their shah was ousted. Maybe it's not the United States at all, but their own radical religion and we are their conveninet scape goat.

Of course it's their radical religion. I've said before, they will never be free until they can separate church and state. Does that mean we should support their despotic governments?

 

[dogtowner]

Of course it's their radical religion. I've said before, they will never be free until they can separate church and state. Does that mean we should support their despotic governments?

Hussein separated church and state. Same old dictator. Its the nature of the beast over there.

 

[PLC1]

Hussein separated church and state. Same old dictator. Its the nature of the beast over there.

Come to think of it, he did. So, it will take more than just the separation of church and state, obviously.

 

[dogtowner]

Come to think of it, he did. So, it will take more than just the separation of church and state, obviously.

Well with islam its a built in dictatorship. Its a short trip from one dicatator to the next. Reference Libya, Egypt etc...

 

[PLC1]

Well with islam its a built in dictatorship. Its a short trip from one dicatator to the next. Reference Libya, Egypt etc...

That's how it has worked out. That's why I say that they will never be free without a separation of church and state. Islamic republics simply aren't free.