Middle East

[randolph]

By Ian Flecher
The revolts in the Middle East, however they ultimately turn out, are a stunning repudiation of the Bush Doctrine.
President Bush, if you recall, told us that our ultimate aim in invading places like Iraq and Afghanistan was to transition these and similar nations to democracy. Because making the world democratic was, supposedly, the only ultimately reliable way to make them friendly to us and thus keep us secure.
The problem, of course, is that even if democracy is a good thing, shoving it down somebody's throat at gunpoint is extremely likely to make them gag--simply because someone is shoving it down their throat.


The dramatic events in the Middle East demonstrate how our policies of supporting authoritarian regimes while spouting democracy is ultimately counter productive. If Egypt goes the way of Iran we are going to be in deep s--t. Saudi Arabia may be next.

[The Conquistador]

Turn the Middle East into one giant glass parking lot.

[smc]

You cannot speak of U.S. policy with respect to any particular Arab regime without putting it in the context of Israel. Egypt and Mubarak are "allies" of the United States only in exchange for being a bulwark against Arab League opposition to Israel. Meanwhile, each and every authoritarian Arab regime stokes the fires of passion for the Palestinian cause on the streets of their own countries (and in Iran, too) precisely because so long as people in the Arab world have this issue before them, they can be easily manipulated to avoid confronting the roots of their own oppression -- namely, their own dictators (and, in many cases, the U.S. government that backs, to greater or lesser degrees, those regimes).

Solve the Palestinian "problem" and these Arab regimes will collapse like houses of cards.

And lest anyone get the wrong impression of my view of Israel, this Jew (yes, I am Jewish) believes it has no legitimate claim to exist as a country, and that Zionism (the political ideology) is, in fact, the main progenitor of anti-Semitism in the world today.

[randolph]

You cannot speak of U.S. policy with respect to any particular Arab regime without putting it in the context of Israel. Egypt and Mubarak are "allies" of the United States only in exchange for being a bulwark against Arab League opposition to Israel. Meanwhile, each and every authoritarian Arab regime stokes the fires of passion for the Palestinian cause on the streets of their own countries (and in Iran, too) precisely because so long as people in the Arab world have this issue before them, they can be easily manipulated to avoid confronting the roots of their own oppression -- namely, their own dictators (and, in many cases, the U.S. government that backs, to greater or lesser degrees, those regimes).

Solve the Palestinian "problem" and these Arab regimes will collapse like houses of cards.

And lest anyone get the wrong impression of my view of Israel, this Jew (yes, I am Jewish) believes it has no legitimate claim to exist as a country, and that Zionism (the political ideology) is, in fact, the main progenitor of anti-Semitism in the world today.

The Palestinian question is no doubt a major issue in the Middle East. However, the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt seem to have little to do with Palestine. They are grassroots frustrations with the youths in these countries with the lack of opportunities for a decent life in an open society.
Also, it appears that some of these regimes are falling without dealing with the Palestinian problem.
Let's hope that responsible leaders come forward to lead the uprisings. Otherwise, We could have more Taliban style fundamentalist, anti West governments to deal with. For years we have been pouring billions of dollars into Egypt to try to keep the lid on things. So much for that policy.

[smc]

The Palestinian question is no doubt a major issue in the Middle East. However, the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt seem to have little to do with Palestine. They are grassroots frustrations with the youths in these countries with the lack of opportunities for a decent life in an open society.
Also, it appears that some of these regimes are falling without dealing with the Palestinian problem.
Let's hope that responsible leaders come forward to lead the uprisings. Otherwise, We could have more Taliban style fundamentalist, anti West governments to deal with. For years we have been pouring billions of dollars into Egypt to try to keep the lid on things. So much for that policy.

I said "U.S. policy" -- which is what you wrote of in your initial post. Further, I stated that the Palestinian question has been used to keep Arabs focused on something other than their own regimes; this does not mean that they are incapable of so focusing, as the uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen demonstrate.

In Egypt specifically, while the demonstrators clamor for human rights, economic justice, and so on, the position of their government -- i.e., its power, the arms it posses thanks to billions in U.S. military aid each year, etc. -- are directly linked to the Palestinian question.

So, they cannot be teased apart so simply.

[randolph]

I said "U.S. policy" -- which is what you wrote of in your initial post. Further, I stated that the Palestinian question has been used to keep Arabs focused on something other than their own regimes; this does not mean that they are incapable of so focusing, as the uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen demonstrate.

In Egypt specifically, while the demonstrators clamor for human rights, economic justice, and so on, the position of their government -- i.e., its power, the arms it posses thanks to billions in U.S. military aid each year, etc. -- are directly linked to the Palestinian question.

So, they cannot be teased apart so simply.

No question the Middle east is a sea of complex issues. I suspect we desperately want Mubarak to hang in there. If he bails it will provide a powerful motivation for the youth in other Middle East countries to rise up.
Did we ever realize that the cellphone, facebook and the internet would replace our foreign policy?
"Power to the people!"

[The Conquistador]

You cannot speak of U.S. policy with respect to any particular Arab regime without putting it in the context of Israel. Egypt and Mubarak are "allies" of the United States only in exchange for being a bulwark against Arab League opposition to Israel. Meanwhile, each and every authoritarian Arab regime stokes the fires of passion for the Palestinian cause on the streets of their own countries (and in Iran, too) precisely because so long as people in the Arab world have this issue before them, they can be easily manipulated to avoid confronting the roots of their own oppression -- namely, their own dictators (and, in many cases, the U.S. government that backs, to greater or lesser degrees, those regimes).

Solve the Palestinian "problem" and these Arab regimes will collapse like houses of cards.

And lest anyone get the wrong impression of my view of Israel, this Jew (yes, I am Jewish) believes it has no legitimate claim to exist as a country, and that
Zionism (the political ideology) is, in fact, the main progenitor of anti-Semitism
in the world today.

C'mon smc! What is so wrong about the Jews having some beachfront property? ;)

It's interesting that you bring up the effects that Israel and Zionism have had on the Middle East. It seems that before the emergence of the Hebrew state in the Middle East(pre-1940's), it was a pretty cool and adventureous place to visit. After reading the works of T.E. Lawrence and others who chronicled their trips to the Middle East, there was no mention of Jihadism, radical Islam, anti-Semitism or anti-western sentiment. It seems all that came about after the the foundation of Israel and was a response to the spread of Zionism in the region.

I am neither for nor against the Jews. This is purely my observation.

[randolph]

He took us 40 years through the desert in order to bring us to the one spot in the Middle East that has no oil! Golda Meir.

If the Arabs had no oil, they would still be herding sheep and being camel jockeys. Opposition to israel would have been minimal. Its oil that's made the Middle East a hot bed of policical turmoil. Would we have poured billions of dollars into the Middle East if there was no oil there?
We would have treated the area much as we have much of Africa and other areas without the resources we want.

[Trogdor]

To me, I say stay out of it. I say if the Egyptians want that guy out of there, I say go for it. And given the fact that the government cut off the internet (which the US government better not do if its citizens get angry) and are defying the curfew that has been set.....they are still telling the government to fuck off and want that guy out of there. This is history in the making, folks. People are always complaining about their government, these folks are actually doing something about it.:respect:

And I say let the Jews and the Muslims fight each other, and may the best side win....of Israel gets rubbed off the map, that's just too bad....I think Israel has been nothing but trouble since the beginning (I got nothing against the Jews, but when you're stuck in the middle of an Arab land and stick out like a sore thumb, someone's gonna take notice...which is the problem. Also, manly orthodox Jews I know said that the real holy land will be created by their own messiah) And you wanna keep the Middle East from getting insanely powerful from oil....then it's long overdue for something other than that overrated black crud for fuel, oil's to useful (though I am a huge believer of the avionic oil theory) to be burnt.

[Trogdor]

Did we ever realize that the cellphone, facebook and the internet would replace our foreign policy?
"Power to the people!"

Internet=access to knowledge=power.


If the day comes the American government cuts off or even just limits the internet, I hope the American public puts up one hell of a fight.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Golda Meir.

If the Arabs had no oil, they would still be herding sheep and being camel jockeys. Opposition to israel would have been minimal. Its oil that's made the Middle East a hot bed of policical turmoil. Would we have poured billions of dollars into the Middle East if there was no oil there?
We would have treated the area much as we have much of Africa and other areas without the resources we want.

Oh yes? Africa, that great bastion of political stability...

Political tensions in the middle east have as much to do with the proxy wars as they do oil. The USA supported Saddam because he killed communists, they also supported the Shah in Iran for the same reason. The Shah was overthrown by a popular uprising, and so the US encouraged Saddam to go to war with them, this war helps the already dominant Islamist faction within Iran consolidate power and they crush the last of the socialists and other progressives that were part of the overthrow of the Shah, rewriting history calling the revolution, the Islamic Revolution. Meanwhile, Saddam is left penniless after fighting the USAs war for them, so he invades Kuwait for the oil wonga. In Afghanistan I'm sure you all know what went on there, I'm sure you all get a good chuckle like I do when you see The Living Daylights or Rambo 3, seeing Bond and Rambo hanging out with thier bestest buddies the Mujahideen. :P trying to use religious fanatics for a proxy war is probably the only thing dumber than propping up tinpot dictators.

Anyway, lets just hope that Tunisa and Egypt come out good from this and don't end up just getting new repressive rulers like Iran did after the Shah was overthrown.

p.s. neither Tunisia or Egypt are middle eastern, they are African.

[Enoch Root]

Oh yes? Africa, that great bastion of political stability...

Political tensions in the middle east have as much to do with the proxy wars as they do oil. The USA supported Saddam because he killed communists, they also supported the Shah in Iran for the same reason. The Shah was overthrown by a popular uprising, and so the US encouraged Saddam to go to war with them, this war helps the already dominant Islamist faction within Iran consolidate power and they crush the last of the socialists and other progressives that were part of the overthrow of the Shah, rewriting history calling the revolution, the Islamic Revolution. Meanwhile, Saddam is left penniless after fighting the USAs war for them, so he invades Kuwait for the oil wonga. In Afghanistan I'm sure you all know what went on there, I'm sure you all get a good chuckle like I do when you see The Living Daylights or Rambo 3, seeing Bond and Rambo hanging out with thier bestest buddies the Mujahideen. :P trying to use religious fanatics for a proxy war is probably the only thing dumber than propping up tinpot dictators.

Anyway, lets just hope that Tunisa and Egypt come out good from this and don't end up just getting new repressive rulers like Iran did after the Shah was overthrown.

p.s. neither Tunisia or Egypt are middle eastern, they are African.

Oh my god. Don't you know you shouldn't say these things because the USA is the greatest freest country in the world and therefore does no wrong? The USA (and England) totally have the right to exploit the citizens of the world and their resources.

[randolph]

Anna p.s. neither Tunisia or Egypt are middle eastern, they are African.

Geographically true but politically they are well connected to the Middle East. Remember the Arab League and the United Arab Republic.

[smc]

C'mon smc! What is so wrong about the Jews having some beachfront property? ;)

It's interesting that you bring up the effects that Israel and Zionism have had on the Middle East. It seems that before the emergence of the Hebrew state in the Middle East(pre-1940's), it was a pretty cool and adventureous place to visit. After reading the works of T.E. Lawrence and others who chronicled their trips to the Middle East, there was no mention of Jihadism, radical Islam, anti-Semitism or anti-western sentiment. It seems all that came about after the the foundation of Israel and was a response to the spread of Zionism in the region.

I am neither for nor against the Jews. This is purely my observation.

Being against Zionism has nothing to do with being against Jews. It's the Zionists who deliberately confound the two because it serves their interests. Think of how much easier it is to win sympathy when you can cry "anti-Semite" at those who oppose Zionism, as opposed to if it was always clear that it was about colonialism and oppression.

Zionism is the main cause of anti-Semitism in the world today. And that statement comes from a Jew.

[randolph]

Well, the news from Washington amply demonstrates the hypocrisy of our foreign policy. Obama talked Democracy on his trip to the Middle east, now it's the "D" word. No body in Washington is talking Democracy. Everybody is holding their breath and hoping the uprisings will blow over and we can keep our authoritarian buddies happy. The uprisings are an early warning, our policies are doing nothing but encouraging radical Islam. We will ultimately pay a very high price for our hypocrisy.

[Enoch Root]

It is quite telling when a country that never ceases to claim it is democratic does not support democratic movements as in Egypt's case. That should be the default position of a free society.

[smc]

It is quite telling when a country that never ceases to claim it is democratic does not support democratic movements as in Egypt's case. That should be the default position of a free society.

The explanation lies in the difference between democracy and what we have in the United States -- bourgeois democracy.

It is the democracy of the rich. Think about it:

-- We have so-called "universal suffrage," but there are all manner of qualifications and requirements for voting that are used to suppress democracy when it serves the interests of all or some of those who truly control the country. In the meanwhile, the system perpetuates the illusion of true democracy.

-- We have those in power deciding who can or cannot run for office (decisions exercised through ballot access rules that preclude the formation of alternatives that can challenge the parties owned by the rich).

-- There is a inexorable link, politically and financially, between those in power and those who disseminate information.

These are but a few of the "conditions" of our bourgeois democracy, which exists because those in power find it convenient as a means of retaining relative social peace. Have no illusions that it would remain should genuine challenges to the rule of the rich be mounted. Be it in the name of national security, or a terrorist threat, or some kind of "emergency," what few democratic rights we do enjoy will be taken away -- or at least, the attempt will be made -- in an effort to ensure the continuation of bourgeois rule.

[Enoch Root]

Brain food! Yummy.

[smc]

It is quite telling when a country that never ceases to claim it is democratic does not support democratic movements as in Egypt's case. That should be the default position of a free society.

To my earlier post in response to this should be added that the lack of genuine support for democratic movements such as in Egypt is precisely linked to the economic interests of the ruling rich in this country. "Democracy" elsewhere serves no useful purpose for them unless it is the only way to ensure the social stability that they need to exploit the resources of another country, or to ensure that another country plays its particular assigned role in a region, and so on. Dictatorships are no problem; they can always be excused for their "strategic" importance, for their "necessity to U.S. interests" (interests that, you can probably discern, are not really yours and mine).

[Enoch Root]

A second helping!

[Trogdor]

The Egyptian are not happy yet, they want that clown out now, not at the end of his term.:coupling:

[Enoch Root]

The gall of the man, eh? I won't step down but I will get rid of my cabinet. As if it made a fucking difference.

I don't even want him to leave Egypt. I want the people to throw him in jail and make of him an example.

[Trogdor]

The gall of the man, eh? I won't step down but I will get rid of my cabinet. As if it made a fucking difference.

I don't even want him to leave Egypt. I want the people to throw him in jail and make of him an example.

Let them get the clown out of there first, getting the form of government they want, and then put him on trial according to that new government.

[randolph]

The behavior of the army is critical in this situation. In Iran, the Shah ordered the military to fire on the protesters and they killed thousands. This empowered the radical elements and Iran ended up with the Islamic Militents led by Kohemeni (sic).
We have a huge amount at stake here. Hopefully, we have enough influence with the military to keep the lid on things.

[Enoch Root]

Let them get the clown out of there first, getting the form of government they want, and then put him on trial according to that new government.

I didn't mean leave him in power. I meant that the people should do all they can to keep him from leaving Egypt to whatever safe harbors people like him have waiting for them in such circumstances. Throw him in jail.

And build a government where the people are truly in power as opposed to keeping the structure they have now or imitating the false democracy, false freedom of the US.

[ila]

To those that advocate the overthrow and jailing of the President of Egypt there are some facts which no one seems to be taking into consideration.

Why do you want the president thrown in jail? What laws has he broken? If he has not broken any laws then throwing him in jail is tantamount to anarchy. What possible good can come from that?

The protestors have no plan other than to get rid of Mubarak. After that they don't know what they want. The major opposition force right now is the Islamic Brotherhood which is a militant organization. It is possible that they have links to Al Qaeda. If they do and they gain power then the middle east will be thrown into complete turmoil where no one will be safe; not Moslems, not Christians, and not Jews. Militant Islam's goal is to make everyone subject to their version of Islamic law and their interpretation of the Koran. So to those that want Mubarak out I would like to know what your plan is. How do you propose to keep people safe? How do you propose to keep people safe, whose religion is far older than Islam, safe from extremist.

I would suggest that people do some deep thinking and some soul searching before the advocate for something of which they little understanding.

[randolph]

The situation in Egypt is critical. The population has skyrocked the past 40 years. Egypt is running out of oil and can no longer export and now has to import oil. For years it has subsidized food and oil costs but it is descending deeper into debt. For years, we have poured money into to the country (80% of it to the military). Second only to Israel.
Ostensibly, Egypt is a secular Democracy, however, Mubarak and the military run the place. Opposition is severely repressed and no opposition party exists in a democratic sense.
Ila is right, if Mubarak leaves there could be a power vacuum leaving an opening for radicals. There are potential leaders out there but if the country descends into chaos all hell could break loose in the Middle East.

[smc]

To those that advocate the overthrow and jailing of the President of Egypt there are some facts which no one seems to be taking into consideration.

Why do you want the president thrown in jail? What laws has he broken? If he has not broken any laws then throwing him in jail is tantamount to anarchy. What possible good can come from that?

The protestors have no plan other than to get rid of Mubarak. After that they don't know what they want. The major opposition force right now is the Islamic Brotherhood which is a militant organization. It is possible that they have links to Al Qaeda. If they do and they gain power then the middle east will be thrown into complete turmoil where no one will be safe; not Moslems, not Christians, and not Jews. Militant Islam's goal is to make everyone subject to their version of Islamic law and their interpretation of the Koran. So to those that want Mubarak out I would like to know what your plan is. How do you propose to keep people safe? How do you propose to keep people safe, whose religion is far older than Islam, safe from extremist.

I would suggest that people do some deep thinking and some soul searching before the advocate for something of which they little understanding.

One point, and I want to make clear that this point is made not in any way to support the Muslim Brotherhood. But that group (its name is not Islamic Brotherhood) has very publicly criticized Al-Qaeda and the number-two guy in Al-Quaeda, who is Egyptian. The Brotherhood has not been linked to any terrorism for decades, except by Mubarak, who has always used the Muslim Brotherhood to say to the U.S.: "Your choice is me or these Islamic terrorists." Notably, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood has been very vocal in the past few days to distance the group from violence and has said that they want to help create a democratic arena in Egypt in which they can then participate.

This could all be bullshit, but we should no more rush to judgment about the Muslim Brotherhood than we should take any other positions without giving it some critical thought and analysis.

[ila]

One point, and I want to make clear that this point is made not in any way to support the Muslim Brotherhood. But that group (its name is not Islamic Brotherhood) has very publicly criticized Al-Qaeda and the number-two guy in Al-Quaeda, who is Egyptian. The Brotherhood has not been linked to any terrorism for decades, except by Mubarak, who has always used the Muslim Brotherhood to say to the U.S.: "Your choice is me or these Islamic terrorists." Notably, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood has been very vocal in the past few days to distance the group from violence and has said that they want to help create a democratic arena in Egypt in which they can then participate.

This could all be bullshit, but we should no more rush to judgment about the Muslim Brotherhood than we should take any other positions without giving it some critical thought and analysis.

My mistake. It is the Muslim Brotherhood.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

One good sign is that the military stated early on that they would not fire on protesters. They appear to be distancing themselves from Mubarak and the protesters don't see them as the enemy. This could be fairly crucial to the whole thing. If Mubarak goes soon, and the military support new elections, then they can keep the peace and keep the country stable and secure. The state apparatus in Egypt does have everything in place for being run democratically, all that really needs to change is for the elections not to be rigged. The crucial thing will be how long Mubarak takes before he gives in, the longer it is strung out, the more things will deviate from the normal running of things and the more unstable the country will get. Chaos is unlikely as long as the military continue to distance themselves from Mubarak and start to support democratic government. If the military and the people come to confrontation then there will be big trouble and definite chaos, but that isn't happening so far.

[randolph]

I am currently reading "The Middle East" by Bernard Lewis. He gives some perspective on what is now going on. The middle East has been a hot bed of wars for millenia. The biggest threat to Europe and Christianity was during the Ottoman empire centered in Turkey. they ruled much of the Middle east including Egypt for a time. Iran (Persia) remained independent. The Ottomans were primarily Sunni Muslims while the Persians were Shia. Interestingly, many Jews that were persecuted in Christian Europe went to Turkey and were accepted into the Ottoman empire and were treated better by the Muslims than by the Christians. The Ottomans repeatedly laid siege to Vienna but failed to break through. If they would have succeeded, we would all be Muslims.

[Enoch Root]

I am currently reading "The Middle East" by Bernard Lewis. He gives some perspective on what is now going on. The middle East has been a hot bed of wars for millenia. The biggest threat to Europe and Christianity was during the Ottoman empire centered in Turkey. they ruled much of the Middle east including Egypt for a time. Iran (Persia) remained independent. The Ottomans were primarily Sunni Muslims while the Persians were Shia. Interestingly, many Jews that were persecuted in Christian Europe went to Turkey and were accepted into the Ottoman empire and were treated better by the Muslims than by the Christians. The Ottomans repeatedly laid siege to Vienna but failed to break through. If they would have succeeded, we would all be Muslims.

And if Napoleon had nuclear subs we would all be speaking French.

[randolph]

And if Napoleon had nuclear subs we would all be speaking French.

Yes, and if the Nazis had nuclear subs we would all be dead.

Speaking of nuclear. As far as I know,Egypt has no nuclear stuff. Israel, Pakistan and India have bombs and Iran wants one. I worry more about Pakistan than any of the others. An uprising there is likely to result in a radical Islamic takeover with abombs and rockets at there disposal.
Our drones popping off a terrorist here and there aren't going to be much help if that happens.

[shehim]

i bilieve that the usa and Europe should stop this hypocrasy when dealing with the arabic east dectatorship and tyrany regiems in one hand they talk day and nigfht about human rights and wemen rights and all thies beautifull princiblies but in the other hand they support with all the power they have experied dectators belonging to the middle ages ,like qaddafi and all those kings and princes in the gulf,we should see things not just from our intrests or from the eyes of israel but also from the real human rights bases:rolleyes:

[smc]

i bilieve that the usa and Europe should stop this hypocrasy when dealing with the arabic east dectatorship and tyrany regiems in one hand they talk day and nigfht about human rights and wemen rights and all thies beautifull princiblies but in the other hand they support with all the power they have experied dectators belonging to the middle ages ,like qaddafi and all those kings and princes in the gulf,we should see things not just from our intrests or from the eyes of israel but also from the real human rights bases:rolleyes:

I could not agree more! :respect:

[randolph]

i bilieve that the usa and Europe should stop this hypocrasy when dealing with the arabic east dectatorship and tyrany regiems in one hand they talk day and nigfht about human rights and wemen rights and all thies beautifull princiblies but in the other hand they support with all the power they have experied dectators belonging to the middle ages ,like qaddafi and all those kings and princes in the gulf,we should see things not just from our intrests or from the eyes of israel but also from the real human rights bases:rolleyes:

There is an old saying "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". That is our foreign policy in a nutshell.

[TracyCoxx]

To those that advocate the overthrow and jailing of the President of Egypt there are some facts which no one seems to be taking into consideration.

Why do you want the president thrown in jail? What laws has he broken? If he has not broken any laws then throwing him in jail is tantamount to anarchy. What possible good can come from that?

The protestors have no plan other than to get rid of Mubarak. After that they don't know what they want. The major opposition force right now is the Islamic Brotherhood which is a militant organization. It is possible that they have links to Al Qaeda. If they do and they gain power then the middle east will be thrown into complete turmoil where no one will be safe; not Moslems, not Christians, and not Jews. Militant Islam's goal is to make everyone subject to their version of Islamic law and their interpretation of the Koran. So to those that want Mubarak out I would like to know what your plan is. How do you propose to keep people safe? How do you propose to keep people safe, whose religion is far older than Islam, safe from extremist.

I would suggest that people do some deep thinking and some soul searching before the advocate for something of which they little understanding.

Right Ila, that's the problem. The Muslim Brotherhood has already started talking about war with Israel, and rule under them would not be democratic.

[TracyCoxx]

There is an old saying "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". That is our foreign policy in a nutshell.

True randolf. What is Obama's foreign policy though? I'm not being a smartass, I really can't tell.

[randolph]

True randolf. What is Obama's foreign policy though? I'm not being a smartass, I really can't tell.

Hey Tracy I'm back! Thanks for the complement.

I can't tell either. Hillary and Obama are being extremely wishywashy regarding this Egyptian uprising. It must be incredibly embarassing to preach Democracy and then waffle when the people demand it.
Osam bin laden (if he is still alive) must be delighted. However, I think there is a good chance that Egypt can become an open Democratic society and resist Islamic fundamentalism. The behavior of most of the protesters suggest that.

[Be_my_nude]

The state of affairs which has occurred again and again over the years was succinctly summarised by shehim in the following post :

http://forum.transladyboy.com/showpost.php?p=174281&postcount=34

As has already been observed, the hiatus which follows either war or revolution invariably leads to a crisis or a succession of crises exploitable by any sufficiently ruthless extremist group to install their own ideological dictator or oligarchy. This was starkly the the case following the Allied occupation and redefinition of Palestine in the aftermath of the Second World War. Sadly there was no available Arabic representation in reaching the ' refoundation ' of a Jewish State in the Middle East, a decision designed to relieve the acute European refugee problem while at the same time inserting a pro-West long-term power base in the area.

It seems that the growth of extreme ' Islamism ' increase exponentially from that point.

Now I am no Historian, but I suspect that Arabs are a lot more capable of handling their own affairs and interstate relationships than many politicians in the West would have us believe.

The only way to find out is to ' suck it and see ' and assist Arab states in developing economies other than Oil, while keeping a neutral posture over the existence of Israel.

This will require really true Statesmanship from all concerned.

[smc]

I fear what will happen next in Cairo. Regardless of which side you may "support," bloodshed seems likely. Mubarak did not resign, but instead transferred authority to his hand-picked vice president. Mubarak vowed to stay in Egypt and be buried in Egypt. Despite that the Army earlier told demonstrators that all their aspirations and demands would be met, the Army has also blockaded the presidential palace. There is talk of a "military coup" if the protests don't end. Meanwhile, the bus drivers have just gone on strike -- probably the precursor to a general strike that will bring what little economic activity remaining in the country to a halt.

Is the shooting of demonstrators next? Last week, Mubarak unleashed thugs on the protestors, who had been peaceful. It was clearly designed to provoke a violent response so that he could say that he was staying to maintain stability and avoid chaos. And that's what he did. But now, the stakes have grown higher.

The situation overnight will be tense, to say the least.

[randolph]

The 15% raise did not dissuade government employees from joining the uprising. I think Mubarak is trying to precipitate violence to force the army to move to suppress it as a way of staying in power. Hopefully, the army will force Mubarak out.

[ila]

The arrogance of the US president is absolutely galling to me. How dare he tell Mubarak to step down. How would Obama like it if a politician from another country phoned him and told him to step down?:frown:

(And yes, I know Mubarak has already stepped down.)

[Enoch Root]

The arrogance of the US president is absolutely galling to me. How dare he tell Mubarak to step down. How would Obama like it if a politician from another country phoned him and told him to step down?:frown:

(And yes, I know Mubarak has already stepped down.)

Are you being sarcastic or...

[ila]

Are you being sarcastic or...

No, I am not being sarcastic. Egypt's internal affairs are for Egyptians to solve and not for politicians from other countries telling the leader of Egypt what he should or should not do, especially since advice was not solicited.

Obama should sort out his own country and problems before spouting off about what other countries and leaders should do. It's sheer bloody arrogance to for one to stick his nose into the affairs of another country.

[smc]

The arrogance of the US president is absolutely galling to me. How dare he tell Mubarak to step down. How would Obama like it if a politician from another country phoned him and told him to step down?:frown:

(And yes, I know Mubarak has already stepped down.)

No, I am not being sarcastic. Egypt's internal affairs are for Egyptians to solve and not for politicians from other countries telling the leader of Egypt what he should or should not do, especially since advice was not solicited.

Obama should sort out his own country and problems before spouting off about what other countries and leaders should do. It's sheer bloody arrogance to for one to stick his nose into the affairs of another country.

I agree with you, ila, that the United States should keep its nose out of the affairs of other countries. However, Egypt has been a "client state" of the United States for three decades. The Egyptian government and military are bought and paid for by the United States. In a sense, isn't Obama simply requesting the resignation of an employee of the United States, for cause? I mean that with seriousness.

Now, when the United States blockades a country and demands its leader go, as with Cuba, or intervenes via the CIA to overthrow an elected president, as in Chile, or ... any number of other actions ... I think that's even worse.

I'm not defending Obama, but simply pointing to the reality of the boss-employee relationship.

[ila]

I agree with you, ila, that the United States should keep its nose out of the affairs of other countries. However, Egypt has been a "client state" of the United States for three decades. The Egyptian government and military are bought and paid for by the United States. In a sense, isn't Obama simply requesting the resignation of an employee of the United States, for cause? I mean that with seriousness.
Now, when the United States blockades a country and demands its leader go, as with Cuba, or intervenes via the CIA to overthrow an elected president, as in Chile, or ... any number of other actions ... I think that's even worse.

I'm not defending Obama, but simply pointing to the reality of the boss-employee relationship.

The US did not buy the government and military of Egypt. The US paid bribe money to Egypt to maintain friendly relations with Israel. Egypt was at one time a regional leader and as such the US policy was to find an Arab country that would be friendly towards the US. It was also a chance to lure away a country that was on friendly terms and in fact under the influence of the Soviet Union. To describe the US-Egypt relationship as an employer-employee relationship is wrong.

[smc]

The US did not buy the government and military of Egypt. The US paid bribe money to Egypt to maintain friendly relations with Israel. Egypt was at one time a regional leader and as such the US policy was to find an Arab country that would be friendly towards the US. It was also a chance to lure away a country that was on friendly terms and in fact under the influence of the Soviet Union. To describe the US-Egypt relationship as an employer-employee relationship is wrong.

You are correct, ila, but so am I. It is not as simple as I expressed it, nor as simple as did you. The truth lies in a combination of the two. At first, "luring" was the strategy. But once the bait was set, I think it became something very different. By the way, every leader of the Egyptian military was trained at a U.S. service academy. The United States provides all the military hardware for Egypt.

The more important point in my post was about what constitutes interference in the internal affairs of another country. For the United States, the methods are myriad.

[randolph]

Prior to WWII we were strongly isolationist as a country. the attack in Pearl Harbor changed that. As the war concluded it became obvious that the Soviet Union was becoming a threat to Western countries. Some of our generals proposed war to destroy that threat.
As an alternative, John Foster Dulles, Eisenhower's Sec. of State established the "containment" plan to surround the Soviet Union with military bases in countries friendly to us. This was the beginning of the cold war. We now have military bases in over fifty countries. We quickly realized this policy was an excellent way to make those countries dependent on military equipment and training. It also facilitated control over their economies that favored American companies. So we have economic tentacles around the world. The Soviet empire was contained but more importantly, the US empire controlled the world economically.
I am sure SMC can point out historically, that we treat out client states rather harshly if they don't toe the line and favor our corporate interests. The banana trade is a classic example. Destruction of any government that doesn't conform to our economic policies has been routine policy.
The revolution in Egypt is bound to have major effect on our policies. It demonstrates the hypocrisy of our words. And the fragility of our client states. It's about time we really support Democracy not just empty rhetoric.

[randolph]

Any of you guys remember this?

Most Baby Boomers probably remember a song that captured the widespread, out-of-control feelings that for many defined the Sixties. The anthem was about the nuclear threat hanging over the world (then as now):
Merry Minuet

They're rioting in Africa (whistling)
They're starving in Spain (whistling)
There's hurricanes in Flo-ri-da (whistling)
And Texas needs rain
The whole world is festering with unhappy souls
The French hate the Germans, the Germans hate the Poles
Italians hate Yugoslavs, South Africans hate the Dutch
AND I DON'T LIKE ANYBODY VERY MUCH!!
But we can be tranquil and thankful and proud
For man's been endowed with a mushroom-shaped cloud
And we know for certain that some lovely day Someone will set the spark off
AND WE WILL ALL BE BLOWN AWAY!!
They're rioting in Africa (whistling)
There's strife in Iran
What nature doesn't so to us
Will be done by our fellow "man"
Originally written by Broadway lyricist Sheldon Harnick, who also wrote Fiddler on the Roof and Fiorello!, She Loves Me with composer Jerry Bock. This satire was introduced by Orson Bean in the 1953 revue John Murray Anderson 's Almanac.

... by the Kingston Trio in a live performance recorded for their first in-concert album From the Hungry i LP 1959

[TracyCoxx]

Prior to WWII we were strongly isolationist as a country. the attack in Pearl Harbor changed that. As the war concluded it became obvious that the Soviet Union was becoming a threat to Western countries. Some of our generals proposed war to destroy that threat.
As an alternative, John Foster Dulles, Eisenhower's Sec. of State established the "containment" plan to surround the Soviet Union with military bases in countries friendly to us. This was the beginning of the cold war. We now have military bases in over fifty countries.
I take it you are not for this policy? Then would you have supported the other alternative - war with the Soviet Union? Or to just ignore the problem?

The revolution in Egypt is bound to have major effect on our policies. It demonstrates the hypocrisy of our words. And the fragility of our client states. It's about time we really support Democracy not just empty rhetoric.For now the revolution in Egypt has brought in military rule. Their other alternative is the Muslim Brotherhood. I doubt either option is a democracy. Remember the Lesson of Barack: Change isn't always good.

If the protests in Libya succeed they will almost certainly change their government for the better.

[randolph]

I take it you are not for this policy? Then would you have supported the other alternative - war with the Soviet Union? Or to just ignore the problem?

For now the revolution in Egypt has brought in military rule. Their other alternative is the Muslim Brotherhood. I doubt either option is a democracy. Remember the Lesson of Barack: Change isn't always good.

If the protests in Libya succeed they will almost certainly change their government for the better.

We shoulda nuked them when we had the chance (not really). The containment worked and set the stage for the cold war. Was there an alternative? With Stalin in power, I doubt it. Russia was held together with brute force and massive insane purges of millions of Russians. Also, paranoia regarding the U.S.

We are entering a period of extreme uncertainty. Africa and the Middle East are coming unglued. People want freedom and equal rights. Can they get it or will one despot be replaced with another? It depends a lot on whether leaders emerge from the mob. The uprisings seem to consist primarily young people that are savvy on communicating and want a secular democratic government, i.e. a western style government. They are not a bunch of religious fanatics(thank God). Military rule may provide temporary control and stability. However, it is very tempting for generals to hang on to power. It is essential that there is joint civilian military leadership during the transition to full civilian leadership.
The critical question is the Western democracies are up to the task of helping these countries make the transition? History is not promising in this regard.

[TracyCoxx]

We shoulda nuked them when we had the chance (not really). The containment worked and set the stage for the cold war. Was there an alternative? With Stalin in power, I doubt it. Russia was held together with brute force and massive insane purges of millions of Russians. Also, paranoia regarding the U.S.Well you go on and on about the "military industrial complex" and here you're saying there wasn't really any other way. :confused:

[franalexes]

We shoulda nuked them when we had the chance (not really). The containment worked and set the stage for the cold war. Was there an alternative? With Stalin in power, I doubt it. Russia was held together with brute force and massive insane purges of millions of Russians. Also, paranoia regarding the U.S.

.

Hindsight is always 20-20. I'm so pleased that six months ago Hillary said the mis-east countries were so stable.
Whatever comes from the mid-east, it will not be to our favor.

[randolph]

Hindsight is always 20-20. I'm so pleased that six months ago Hillary said the mis-east countries were so stable.
Whatever comes from the mid-east, it will not be to our favor.

Hindsite is better than foresite by a damnsite

The impression I have is that the Obama administration is in a state of shock. Fifty years of foreign policy is going down the drain and they(we) have no idea what to do about it.
Oh wait, we just approved 50 billion for refueling planes to feed strike fighters. Yes indeed this will help us against our enemies. Err, lets see, what enemies will strike fighters protect us against? Oh, well we will think of somebody, just give us a little time.

[TracyCoxx]

While the UN is about to condemn Qaddafi, the UN's Human Rights Council is about to release a report praising Lybia's human rights record.

This is while Lybia's citizens risk death to protest against their ruler and try to over throw him.

This speaks volumes about the UN's legitimacy.

[randolph]

While the UN is about to condemn Qaddafi, the UN's Human Rights Council is about to release a report praising Lybia's human rights record.

This is while Lybia's citizens risk death to protest against their ruler and try to over throw him.

This speaks volumes about the UN's legitimacy.

The revelations coming out of Libya show how clueless the UN was regarding it's human rights. We need to take out Gaddafi immediately before he causes any more damage.

[Buddy]

The UN does have legitimate purpose, like bringing in the "Good" drugs through diplomat pouches. Throughout History, WAR is the way you get things done, and without war, world peace is a poker game with 5200000cards. This is a great opportunity to take Ghadaffi out, and I think you'll see a no fly zone put on Labia{sic} if the UN palms get greased.
History is a product of the glands, don't sweat it. Ignore this message.

[smc]

The UN does have legitimate purpose, like bringing in the "Good" drugs through diplomat pouches. Throughout History, WAR is the way you get things done, and without war, world peace is a poker game with 5200000cards. This is a great opportunity to take Ghadaffi out, and I think you'll see a no fly zone put on Labia{sic} if the UN palms get greased.
History is a product of the glands, don't sweat it. Ignore this message.

It's tough to ignore your message when you insult an entire nation and its people with your asinine and crass "Labia" joke. That kind of crap should stay in the other parts of the site, not here where serious discussion happens, or at least is supposed to happen.

[Buddy]

Loosen that tie, SMC, millions of dying Africans is no joke, thinking this forum is going to change all that is a joke. Saddam and Malomar were both terriffic Dads, you've got to give them that, their kids are all Billionaires! Obama has 7 more years to promote his message, you saw a general this week say that the two Middle East wars have been disasters. Americans are going to have to get thicker skins, or start getting anally probed at the airport, and that's no joke!!!I'm proud as shit to be an American, we should have risked WWIII to have killed Osama when we had his trail and been done with it. This mess over there is all about money, not only the greedy corporate money, but also the standard of living that we enjoy here in the good ole USA. So yes, there is a serious side to all this, but if we built a reliable Electric Car, we could then focus on China and put the fire out in the middle east. As long as Americans want GTOs and Hummers, that's what we'll get, and with it, Osamas, and Ghadaffis and Sadaams.
Some fine points have been made here and yes I know it's serious, but it's MONEY that is going to feed the starving children. And as long as this old world turns, money brings out the greed in all of us. your JOB is your political statement!!!Yikes!!! The truth has been told and few heard.
I'll bet $50 that the Iraq War destroyed us. Who's the arbiter?

[ila]

Loosen that tie, SMC, millions of dying Africans is no joke, thinking this forum is going to change all that is a joke...

Regardless of whether this forum (or any other) may or may not change something has nothing to do with making insulting remarks about a country and its citizens.

[smc]

Loosen that tie, SMC, millions of dying Africans is no joke, thinking this forum is going to change all that is a joke.

Regardless of whether this forum (or any other) may or may not change something has nothing to do with making insulting remarks about a country and its citizens.

ila is absolutely correct, and I would go further to state that discussions on this forum about serious issues actually may change things. If one person behaves differently in the world because she or he learns something new or adopts a more advanced way of thinking as a result of our discussions, the possibilities for what ramifications that might have are limitless. Note I used the word "possibilities." Consider the butterfly effect in chaos theory.

Your response to my post, Buddy, was not at all like ila's. You decided to compound your original insulting remark by misrepresenting my response to it and then characterizing my concern as a "joke."

Your insights, no matter how correct they may be, do not make it okay to be insulting.

[Buddy]

Your insights, no matter how correct they may be, do not make it okay to be insulting.

This is a free country and a free internet and I can be crass and insulting if I wanna be, I can make fag remarks at a soldier's burial ...RIGHT??! Okay Okay , you win, officer, I'll move along, back over to the "shemale" side.
PS-wear a condom!
PS2 -the Middle East has been a mess for two thousand years. You may gain Enlightenment in the desert, but two trhousand years from now things will still be a mess over there.......... PEACE-OUT!!!!!

[smc]

This is a free country and a free internet and I can be crass and insulting if I wanna be, I can make fag remarks at a soldier's burial ...RIGHT??! Okay Okay , you win, officer, I'll move along, back over to the "shemale" side.
PS-wear a condom!
PS2 -the Middle East has been a mess for two thousand years. You may gain Enlightenment in the desert, but two trhousand years from now things will still be a mess over there.......... PEACE-OUT!!!!!

Actually, this is not a "free" site in the sense you mean. You have no right to "hate speech" (like the Westboro Baptist Church) protected by the U.S. Constitution. It is privately owned and there have been rules established by the site owner, who has empowered moderators to enforce those rules. So, consider this your warning about Forum Rule 4.

[TracyCoxx]

So Libya produces about 1.5% of our oil. Why are our gas prices going up 13%? Seems like that's something our administration should look in to.

[randolph]

So Libya produces about 1.5% of our oil. Why are our gas prices going up 13%? Seems like that's something our administration should look in to.

Yep, good ol free enterprise at work. Any excuse to raise prices. The Saudis said they could take care of any shortfall. So why are prices going up? Prices have nothing to do with supply and demand, they are controlled by speculators on Wall Street. An increase of only one cent in the price of gas results in billions more for the speculators and the oil companies.
The government should look into it? You have got to be kidding! If we had three assholes the speculators, the oil companies and the government wouldn't have to share. :censored:

[ila]

So Libya produces about 1.5% of our oil. Why are our gas prices going up 13%? Seems like that's something our administration should look in to.

Especially since the majority of your oil imports come from Canada.

[ila]

Yep, good ol free enterprise at work. Any excuse to raise prices. The Saudis said they could take care of any shortfall. So why are prices going up? Prices have nothing to do with supply and demand, they are controlled by speculators on Wall Street. An increase of only one cent in the price of gas results in billions more for the speculators and the oil companies.
The government should look into it? You have got to be kidding! If we had three assholes the speculators, the oil companies and the government wouldn't have to share. :censored:

You sure hit the nail on the head there, randolph.

[randolph]

Three cheers for Canada! They are sending war planes to enforce the no fly zone over Libya. :respect:

[ila]

Three cheers for Canada! They are sending war planes to enforce the no fly zone over Libya. :respect:

I'm afraid that it's going to be too late for the rebel forces in Libya.

[randolph]

I'm afraid that it's going to be too late for the rebel forces in Libya.

Maybe not, Gaddafi just called for an immediate ceasefire.

[TracyCoxx]

Maybe not, Gaddafi just called for an immediate ceasefire.lol, well there you go. It's all over (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/18/obama-address-libya-crisis-qaddafi-declares-cease-vote/).

[ila]

Maybe not, Gaddafi just called for an immediate ceasefire.

Yes, you are right, Gaddafi did announce a unilateral ceasefire. One must read farther into this than just a headline. One report that I read said that the Libyan government is going to be sending anti-terrorism teams into all the government held areas. If one reads between the lines here that means government sanctioned summary executions of anyone deemed to be an enemy of the state.

[randolph]

Yes, you are right, Gaddafi did announce a unilateral ceasefire. One must read farther into this than just a headline. One report that I read said that the Libyan government is going to be sending anti-terrorism teams into all the government held areas. If one reads between the lines here that means government sanctioned summary executions of anyone deemed to be an enemy of the state.

Gaddafi is a wiley character. He declared a ceasefire to give him time to figure out how to weasel out of this situation. I don't think the combination of Arab and Western countries will allow him to pull any monkey business. I think he is primarily interested in saving his own ass once the new government takes over.

[TracyCoxx]

After Quadaffi is removed from Lybia and he's put on trial he should be made to appear on What Not To Wear.

[TracyCoxx]

Oh lovely. Foxnews just aired that the US will launch tomahawk cruise missiles right after dark. I hope no one in Quaddafi's military is watching.

[randolph]

Oh lovely. Foxnews just aired that the US will launch tomahawk cruise missiles right after dark. I hope no one in Quaddafi's military is watching.

Oh great! I suppose we also gave them the exact target sites of the Tomahawks. :censored:

[TracyCoxx]

Oh great! I suppose we also gave them the exact target sites of the Tomahawks. :censored:

Reminds me of that time in Somalia during Clinton's presidency when American troops were entering Somalia. The damn news reporters were on the beach waiting to film the first wave of Americans storming the beach.

[ila]

Oh lovely. Foxnews just aired that the US will launch tomahawk cruise missiles right after dark. I hope no one in Quaddafi's military is watching.

Oh great! I suppose we also gave them the exact target sites of the Tomahawks. :censored:

Tomahawks are cruise missiles and not ballistic missiles. This means that their flight path is not predictable which makes them very hard to detect and defeat. The target sites and times on target could be sent to Qadhafi days in advance and it's not likely that Libya would be able to destroy the missiles before they hit their targets.

[randolph]

Tomahawks are cruise missiles and not ballistic missiles. This means that their flight path is not predictable which makes them very hard to detect and defeat. The target sites and times on target could be sent to Qadhafi days in advance and it's not likely that Libya would be able to destroy the missiles before they hit their targets.

Yeah, but the warning gives Quaddafi time to move the targets out of the way.
I suspect one bomb on his fancy tent would send him on his way, he is a devious coward.

[ila]

Yeah, but the warning gives Quaddafi time to move the targets out of the way...

What makes you think that the targets are mobile.

[randolph]

What makes you think that the targets are mobile.

Well. I suppose some of them are planes, helicopters and tanks. Although Tomahawks may be too expensive to send in to hit tanks. I suppose Quaddafi could move his tent but that might take awhile if he carries all his money with him.

[smc]

What makes you think that the targets are mobile.

Doesn't that special tent fly? :lol:

[ila]

Doesn't that special tent fly? :lol:

The only thing that takes wing in that tent are his flights of fancy.

[TracyCoxx]

What makes you think that the targets are mobile.I thought we're enforcing a no-fly zone over Lybia. Their airplanes are mobile, no?

[ila]

I thought we're enforcing a no-fly zone over Lybia. Their airplanes are mobile, no?

I never said that aircraft wouldn't be targeted. I did ask why randolph thought the targets would be mobile. And, BTW, the tagets were anti-aircraft sites which is what any person with a modicum of common sense would conclude given that allied aircraft will be flying over Libya (note the correct spelling).

[randolph]

At the same time we are bombing Gaddafi, we have sold 85 F15 Strike Eagles to Saudi Arabia! We plan to train hundreds of Saudi's on how to fly them for air to air and air to ground attacks day or night at an air force facility in Idaho. This is an 85 billion dollar deal!
So as much of the Middle East is striving for Democracy we are building up our favorite Authoritarian Autocracy, militarily.
Hypocrisy rules in Washington!

We ain't gunna let none of dem damn uprisers get aholt of our erl, no suree bob! :censored:

[TracyCoxx]

At the same time we are bombing Gaddafi, we have sold 85 F15 Strike Eagles to Saudi Arabia! We plan to train hundreds of Saudi's on how to fly them for air to air and air to ground attacks day or night at an air force facility in Idaho. This is an 85 billion dollar deal!
So as much of the Middle East is striving for Democracy we are building up our favorite Authoritarian Autocracy, militarily.
Hypocrisy rules in Washington!

We ain't gunna let none of dem damn uprisers get aholt of our erl, no suree bob! :censored:

Forget oil paranoia. I think the real problem is what happens if Saudi Arabia is taken over by uprisers who happen to be extreme muslim fundamentalists. All off a sudden a bunch of whacos have 85 F15 Strike Eagles.

[randolph]

Forget oil paranoia. I think the real problem is what happens if Saudi Arabia is taken over by uprisers who happen to be extreme muslim fundamentalists. All off a sudden a bunch of whacos have 85 F15 Strike Eagles.

Eighty five:eek:s

[ila]

Forget oil paranoia. I think the real problem is what happens if Saudi Arabia is taken over by uprisers who happen to be extreme muslim fundamentalists. All off a sudden a bunch of whacos have 85 F15 Strike Eagles.

Supersonic fighter aircraft cannot be flown by just anyone. It takes years of training to be able to fly the aircraft as well as how to employ/deploy the araments that it is capable of delivering. F-15s are also mainly used for air to air combat and not to support ground forces. So really, Tracy, when it comes down to it you are just as bad as the media at trying to spread fear among an unknowing populace.

[randolph]

Supersonic fighter aircraft cannot be flown by just anyone. It takes years of training to be able to fly the aircraft as well as how to employ/deploy the armaments that it is capable of delivering. F-15s are also mainly used for air to air combat and not to support ground forces. So really, Tracy, when it comes down to it you are just as bad as the media at trying to spread fear among an unknowing populace.

Its true, the F15 pilot requires lots of training. That's why we plan to train hundreds of Arabs at a base in Idaho. Let's see, it was Arabs that were involved in 911. Weren't we supposed to have a problem with training Arabs to fly airplanes?

[ila]

Forget oil paranoia. I think the real problem is what happens if Saudi Arabia is taken over by uprisers who happen to be extreme muslim fundamentalists. All off a sudden a bunch of whacos have 85 F15 Strike Eagles.

Its true, the F15 pilot requires lots of training. That's why we plan to train hundreds of Arabs at a base in Idaho. Let's see, it was Arabs that were involved in 911. Weren't we supposed to have a problem with training Arabs to fly airplanes?

Should Saudi Arabia be taken over by fundamentalists it does not automatically follow that all of the pilots would go over to the fundamentalist side. Nor does it follow that the fundamentalists would use the aircraft against any other country or its own citizens.

One must understand military and weapons sytems capabilities as well as countermeasures before stating such outrageous innuendos.

[randolph]

Ila One must understand military and weapons sytems capabilities as well as countermeasures before stating such outrageous innuendos.

Sure they are outrageous innuendos. But what if someone, a year ago, said that the Fukashima nuclear plant would be destroyed by a mega tsunami?

[ila]

Ila

Sure they are outrageous innuendos. But what if someone, a year ago, said that the Fukashima nuclear plant would be destroyed by a mega tsunami?

That's a false analogy.

[randolph]

That's a false analogy.

It's all about risk in the real world. Apparently, your conclusion was that the risk of the F15s being taken over by extremists was so remote that stating it was outrageous. Everything we do has risks and unforeseen risks do come to fruition. They are called Black Swans, the unexpected.

[ila]

...Apparently, your conclusion was that the risk of the F15s being taken over by extremists was so remote that stating it was outrageous...

I stated no such thing. I did state that it is a wrong analogy to link a natural disaster to that of manmade actions.

[jdawg]

Apparently we are considering the option to arm the rebels in Libya. I hope Obama does this considering how well it worked for us in the 80's. We didn't have problems with the Afghan rebels or anything after the 80's.

[smc]

Yesterday's editorial cartoon in The Boston Globe ... all you need to know.

[randolph]

I stated no such thing. I did state that it is a wrong analogy to link a natural disaster to that of manmade actions.

Ila One must understand military and weapons sytems capabilities as well as countermeasures before stating such outrageous innuendos.

This is what I was referring to.

[randolph]

PARIS (Reuters) ? French special forces have detained Ivory Coast's Laurent Gbagbo and handed him to leaders of the rebel opposition, after French tanks forced their way into his residence, a Gbagbo adviser in France said.

"Gbagbo has been arrested by French special forces in his residence and has been handed over to the rebel leaders," adviser Toussaint Alain told Reuters.

Gee, sounds like we should have let the French take care of Gaddafi. We could have saved 500,000,000 dollars!

[ila]

Gee, sounds like we should have let the French take care of Gaddafi. We could have saved 500,000,000 dollars!

France was one of the first countries to take action in Libya.

[randolph]

France was one of the first countries to take action in Libya.

I guess you didn't read the Reuters news release on my post.
The French special forces went in captured the guy and turned him over to the rebels without our involvement.

[ila]

I guess you didn't read the Reuters news release on my post.
The French special forces went in captured the guy and turned him over to the rebels without our involvement.

You're right, randolph, I was rather lazy and didn't read your link.

On a somewhat related note, and I have no proof of this, I would be willing to wager that there have been French and British special forces in Libya since at least the start of the troubles there.

[randolph]

You're right, randolph, I was rather lazy and didn't read your link.

On a somewhat related note, and I have no proof of this, I would be willing to wager that there have been French and British special forces in Libya since at least the start of the troubles there.

Yeah,I suspect they are helping to get the rebels organized into a serious fighting force.