patrick.net

Conservatives love fascist dictatorships that they believe they can manipulate no matter the consequences for the people living under these dictators. All of their talk of "spreading democracy" is just that, talk. The op is proof of that point, blank, period.

simchaland says

Conservatives love fascist dictatorships that they believe they can manipulate no matter the consequences for the people living under these dictators.

How's Iran doing since your beloved President Jimma Carter helped with the downfall of the Shah?

Troy says

Republicans are really bizarre people.

Which "Republican" did you have in mind? I'm sure you weren't thinking about me being I'm not a GOPer.

Oh, and of course conservatives believe that Egypt = Iran. They believe that they must have the same exact culture and politics because they are all good for nothing Muslims like Hussein Obama.

Is there intelligent life at all among conservatives?

Break out the tin foil folks...

It is simply not factual to say that the revolution in Egypt was instigated by the Muslim Brotherhood. They refused to participate at first. They're a player now, though.

The U.S. enjoys something like a 12% favorability rating in Egypt. I don't know what Israel's is --I'm guessing not high. It's reasonable to speculate that a Democratic government that reflects the will of the people will not be bossom buddies with either. But it is also unlikely that Egypt will immediately start trying to pick a fight with either. Closing shipping lanes to Israeli shipping is exactly what provoked the Six Day War. History has drawn some clear lines in that sand.

The risk of Islamofascism taking root in Egypt has been declining as events unfolded, not increasing. The military held together with a very low desertion rate and was able to maintain power if not quite order. Mubarak has stepped down, which reduces the probability of escalation into a civil war. The apparatus of government has been preserved, which means it will be easy to conduct orderly elections --had anarchy taken hold, the most organized non-government forces (ie: the Muslim Brotherhood) would have had a strong advantage in determining how order is restored.

Egypt is still in treacherous waters, but so far she's avoided all the most severe dangers. If she can establish a true Democracy --as seems increasingly likely-- then there's a reasonable chance that cooler heads will eventually prevail, and that common interests will lead to strong relations between the three states as they have in the past. The first test of the new government's sanity will be what the new government does about the Camp David Accords. It's clearly in Egypt's interests to maintain them, and if she does, then that's something to build on.

I suspect the top priority for the new egyptian government will be economic in nature.

The protesters weren't in the streets shouting "Death to America" or promoting institution of Sharia or any other sort of thing that the fascist lovers are afraid of. Their demands were pretty clear:

- The economy sucks, they want more jobs
- Inflation is high, they want it tackled

@Ray

As much as it is a mess, it is their mess.

I have Persian friends that have come from Iran, some are Jewish, some Muslim some even Christian and all of them agree that the Shah was not a good ruler for the country and the US/ Britain were manipulating things. I weigh what people I know from around the world far more than what people say on Fox News.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Shah (written and referenced by 67 sources)
...
http://www.iranian.com/FereydounHoveyda/2000/August/Shah/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html

American in Japan says

I weigh what people I know from around the world far more than what people say on Fox News.

"Fox News?" Who said anything about Fox News? Do you honestly think the interests of the USA & the region are better served with the Shah's "system" gone and replaced by the Islamo-Nazis?

During a House Intelligence Committee hearing Thursday, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper called Egypt's branch of the Muslim Brotherhood movement "largely secular."
In response to questioning from Rep. Sue Myrick (R-N.C.) about the threat posed by the group, Clapper suggested that the Egyptian part of the Brotherhood is not particularly extreme and that the broader international movement is hard to generalize about.
"The term 'Muslim Brotherhood'...is an umbrella term for a variety of movements, in the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam," Clapper said. "They have pursued social ends, a betterment of the political order in Egypt, et cetera.....In other countries, there are also chapters or franchises of the Muslim Brotherhood, but there is no overarching agenda, particularly in pursuit of violence, at least internationally."

RayAmerica says

American in Japan says

I weigh what people I know from around the world far more than what people say on Fox News.

“Fox News?” Who said anything about Fox News? Do you honestly think the interests of the USA & the region are better served with the Shah’s “system” gone and replaced by the Islamo-Nazis?

I think American interests are best served abroad by supporting freedom. When you support dictators, you tend to lose your credibility...

tatupu70 says

I think American interests are best served abroad by supporting freedom. When you support dictators, you tend to lose your credibility…

Right behind Mao was history's greatest mass murderer Joseph Stalin. If memory serves correct, the Dictator Stalin was America's "trusted" ally in WW 2. In that war of liberation for Europe, fourteen nations fell under the Iron Curtain of Stalin's rule. So much for credibility.

Anytime we or Israel is a loser over another country choosing their own path.
It's a great loss. Their fate could be far worse, America could occupy them for 5 or 6 years with no end in sight.

RayAmerica says

tatupu70 says

I think American interests are best served abroad by supporting freedom. When you support dictators, you tend to lose your credibility…

Right behind Mao was history’s greatest mass murderer Joseph Stalin. If memory serves correct, the Dictator Stalin was America’s “trusted” ally in WW 2. In that war of liberation for Europe, fourteen nations fell under the Iron Curtain of Stalin’s rule. So much for credibility.

Maybe you should try reading a history book, you memory is seriously faulty. No one trusted Stalin. Roosevelt was pretty naive on international matters, which is to be expected since America was so isolationist prior to WWII and lacked international experience at all levels of government. Churchill was much more realistic. The allies needed Stalin desperately since there was zero chance of defeating Hitler without him, but certainly no one trusted him. Who in the higher ranks of US government in WWII "supported" Stalin, other than as an ally to defeat Hitler. From Roosevelt's letters: "The principles and doctrines of communist dictatorship are as intolerable and alien to American beliefs as the principles and doctrines of Nazi dictatorship". That's not a ringing endorsement to say the least.

You might also note that Stalin had something like 30 million very combat experienced troops that had just defeated one of the best armies in history in those 14 countries. Despite Patton's assertions there wasn't a lot the allies could do about it. What exactly would your practical suggestion have been to get Stalin out of eastern Europe in 1945?

@Ray

>“Fox News?” Who said anything about Fox News?

Sorry here, I ass u me d that you were a listener of Fox News. (millions of Americans do get their news exclusively from Fox News, though)

> “trusted” ally in WW 2.

Reluctant ally, but certainly not *trusted*. See above post...

bob2356 says

The allies needed Stalin desperately since there was zero chance of defeating Hitler without him

Total nonsense. Churchill himself declared to his staff that the war in Europe was essentially over and Hitler's defeat was "only a matter of time" due to Germany declaring war on America the day after Pearl Harbor. Russia needed us (huge armaments shipments from the USA) not the other way around as you claim. Stalin murdered virtually his entire officer corps leaving the Red Army leaderless and poorly supplied. There wasn't a chance in a million Germany could have won once we entered the war, especially since Hitler had attacked Russia in June of 1941 and was already bogged down, fighting what he declared he never would; a war on two fronts. Germany was a nation of only 80 million people with few natural resources and very little petro for their highly mechanized army. FDR may have written that he didn't trust Stalin, but he virtually gave Stalin everything he wanted at Yalta, signing into slavery eastern Europe. Truman didn't do any better at Potsdam. The mass murderer Stalin had already set up a Communist government in Poland, controlled the Baltic states, along with Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania. Prior to Potsdam the U.S. successfully tested the Atomic Bomb which Truman only referred to as a "new weapon" to Stalin. We possessed enormous leverage over the evil Soviets and refused to use it. The fact that Stalin, when it came to mass murder, made Hitler look like a rank amateur never seems to matter to liberals. Why is that?

simchaland says

Conservatives love fascist dictatorships that they believe they can manipulate no matter the consequences for the people living under these dictators. All of their talk of “spreading democracy” is just that, talk. The op is proof of that point, blank, period.

In agreement with you.

Politics have always been about power, never about ideology. Revolutions are about ideology. Not sure why these people tend to call themselves conservatives, when in reality they are just status seeking whores (politicians that is).

RayAmerica says

tatupu70 says

I think American interests are best served abroad by supporting freedom. When you support dictators, you tend to lose your credibility…

Right behind Mao was history’s greatest mass murderer Joseph Stalin. If memory serves correct, the Dictator Stalin was America’s “trusted” ally in WW 2. In that war of liberation for Europe, fourteen nations fell under the Iron Curtain of Stalin’s rule. So much for credibility.

I don't understand your point. Stalin was not a freely elected leader of the Soviets. My point is that the US should oppose all tyrants, whether or not they "help" the US sometimes. This example proves my point, not yours.

tatupu70 says

My point is that the US should oppose all tyrants, whether or not they “help” the US sometimes.

Are you saying America should have opposed Stalin being that he was a tyrant?

RayAmerica says

tatupu70 says

My point is that the US should oppose all tyrants, whether or not they “help” the US sometimes.

Are you saying America should have opposed Stalin being that he was a tyrant?

Oppose may have been too strong of a word. But if our ideal is freedom, then we shouldn't support tyrants that restrict freedom of their citizens.

tatupu70 says

Oppose may have been too strong of a word. But if our ideal is freedom, then we shouldn’t support tyrants that restrict freedom of their citizens.

Stalin murdered an estimated 40 million of his citizens via executions, forced famines (confiscated farm equipment along with crops & seeds, etc.), forced labor camps where his "citizens" were purposely underfed and overworked to the point of exhaustion. By all accounts, he was a thoroughly evil man that took away the "freedom" of his citizens. Based on your stated criteria, are you saying the USA should not have allied with Stalin in WW2?

RayAmerica says

tatupu70 says

Oppose may have been too strong of a word. But if our ideal is freedom, then we shouldn’t support tyrants that restrict freedom of their citizens.

Stalin murdered an estimated 40 million of his citizens via executions, forced famines (confiscated farm equipment along with crops & seeds, etc.), forced labor camps where his “citizens” were purposely underfed and overworked to the point of exhaustion. By all accounts, he was a thoroughly evil man that took away the “freedom” of his citizens. Based on your stated criteria, are you saying the USA should not have allied with Stalin in WW2?

It depends on how you assess the situation. If you feel that you needed to ally with Stalin to defeat Hitler, then you do it. But that doesn't mean you support him and claim that he's a great friend of the US. And you certainly don't try to stop Russians if they are revolting...

RayAmerica says

bob2356 says

The allies needed Stalin desperately since there was zero chance of defeating Hitler without him

Total nonsense. Churchill himself declared to his staff that the war in Europe was essentially over and Hitler’s defeat was “only a matter of time” due to Germany declaring war on America the day after Pearl Harbor. Russia needed us (huge armaments shipments from the USA) not the other way around as you claim. Stalin murdered virtually his entire officer corps leaving the Red Army leaderless and poorly supplied. There wasn’t a chance in a million Germany could have won once we entered the war, especially since Hitler had attacked Russia in June of 1941 and was already bogged down, fighting what he declared he never would; a war on two fronts. Germany was a nation of only 80 million people with few natural resources and very little petro for their highly mechanized army. FDR may have written that he didn’t trust Stalin, but he virtually gave Stalin everything he wanted at Yalta, signing into slavery eastern Europe. Truman didn’t do any better at Potsdam. The mass murderer Stalin had already set up a Communist government in Poland, controlled the Baltic states, along with Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania. Prior to Potsdam the U.S. successfully tested the Atomic Bomb which Truman only referred to as a “new weapon” to Stalin. We possessed enormous leverage over the evil Soviets and refused to use it. The fact that Stalin, when it came to mass murder, made Hitler look like a rank amateur never seems to matter to liberals. Why is that?

Total nonsense. The amount of arms shipments from lend lease amounted to about 10% of Russia's arms in WWII. Lend lease was very important after the losses from the German offensive but not after that. You misunderstood my statement about winning the war without Russia. If Germany had NOT attacked Russia, but had maintained the non aggession pact and Russia stayed on the sidelines we would have had zero chance of defeating Germany. In spite of what contemporary history books say Russia won WWII. They did the bulk of the fighting and took the bulk of the losses. Something like 30 million Russians died in WWII. America had less than 400,000 dead in Europe. The Russians had been fighting Germany for over 3 years with over 300 divisions when we invaded Normandy. The US army was barely 100 divisions at the peak. That was for the European and the Pacific theatres.

You are arguing both sides of the Stalin issue. Your original statement was that Stalin was a "trusted" ally. Of course he was a tyrant. But we needed to deal with him and we did.

Exactly what leverage did we have at Yalta? Stalin know damn well (he had very good espionage) we had exhausted our supply of nuclear material so any threats of nuclear retaliation were meaningless. Thanks to that same espionage Russia was less than 3 years from detonating their own nuclear bomb, so Stalin had the means for his own nuclear retaliation in the near future. He had 300 divisions of soldiers sitting in eastern Europe. Again I ask, what practical suggestion would you have offered to have gotten Russia out of eastern Europe in 1945? You didn't answer the first time, do you have any thoughts on the matter or do you just offer criticism, no matter what?

What you fail to notice, Ray, is that this is a complete repudiation of terrorist tactics for political change. This had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with violent jihad.

I'm Completely baffled.

We invade Iraq, overthrow a horrible dictator, and impose democracy, and people like Ray applaud.

Egyptians on their own overthrow a substantially less horrible dictator, though still a horrible dictator, and people like Ray blame the American president, as if he had any control, and as if it were a BAD thing.

I'm not sure what you think Obama should have done. Should we have invaded Egypt to back up the dictatorship when their own military would not do so?

Would you please explain?

shrekgrinch says

he’s been on vacation more than Bush ever was during his first term, for all you Bush-haters who screamed about that but are silent now

Can you please back this statement up with your source?

MarkInSF says

I’m not sure what you think Obama should have done. Should we have invaded Egypt to back up the dictatorship when their own military would not do so?

Would you please explain?

Ray never explains, he just blusters on with more inane prattle.

Every time a government's overthrown, there is always the chance it will be replaced by something that even worse. If you look at the history of governments that were overthrown my revolution, more often than not they are replaced with something even worst. The Communist Russian, North Korea and China all turned out to be worse for the people. China at least moderated it's views on capitalism, but make no mistake, they are in complete control politically. There are lots of African, Central America and even European revolutions that turned into blood baths after the government changed hands. There are success stories, like the American and France revolutions. Other governments like UK changed things enough to to appease the population to prevented an all out rebellion. The thought that Egypt will change into a free and Democratic society is a great idea and hope, but historically the odds of a favorable outcome are against it.

shrekgrinch says

(he’s been on vacation more than Bush ever was during his first term, for all you Bush-haters who screamed about that but are silent now).

Yes, I'm very curious as to your source on this one. Here's the most recent article I could find on the subject and Bush seems to have an insurmountable lead on vacation days.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20014132-503544.html

"This is Mr. Obama's 9th vacation since taking office. As of today, he has spent all or part of 38 days on "vacation" away from the White House. He has also made 14 visits to Camp David spanning all or part of 32 days. It brings his total time away to all or part of 70 days"

"As of this point in his 1st term, Mr. Bush had made 14 visits to his Texas ranch spanning all or part of 102 days. He also made 40 visits to Camp David spanning all or part of 123 days. His "vacation" total at this point in his presidency was all or part of 225 days away"

225 to 70. Obama would need to go on vacation for ~5 months straight to catch up.

Good try. Got any more BS to post?

MarkInSF says

We invade Iraq, overthrow a horrible dictator, and impose democracy, and people like Ray applaud.

Totally wrong. I NEVER supported invading Iraq. Neither did a lot of conservatives. The Iraq War (as well as Afghanistan) was entirely orchestrated by the radical Neocons which have next to nothing in common with true conservatives.

MarkInSF says

I’m not sure what you think Obama should have done. Should we have invaded Egypt to back up the dictatorship when their own military would not do so?
Would you please explain?

Obama should have stayed out of it, at least publicly. His comments during the crisis sent the wrong signals to other allies around the world that once again, "America cannot be trusted." Israel was appalled at Obama's abandonment of Mubarak ... just one example. As bad as Mubarak was, he was a stabilizing force in the region. The revolt was orchestrated by many forces including the violent Muslim Brotherhood. Obama's caricature of this being purely a "democratic uprising by young people" is naive at best. Just as the Jacobins were secretly working as agents provocateur in the French Revolution, so was radical Islam behind this.

RayAmerica says

MarkInSF says

I’m not sure what you think Obama should have done. Should we have invaded Egypt to back up the dictatorship when their own military would not do so?

Would you please explain?

Obama should have stayed out of it, at least publicly. His comments during the crisis sent the wrong signals to other allies around the world that once again, “America cannot be trusted.” Israel was appalled at Obama’s abandonment of Mubarak … just one example. As bad as Mubarak was, he was a stabilizing force in the region. The revolt was orchestrated by many forces including the violent Muslim Brotherhood. Obama’s caricature of this being purely a “democratic uprising by young people” is naive at best. Just as the Jacobins were secretly working as agents provocateur in the French Revolution, so was radical Islam behind this.

Prove it.

RayAmerica says

tatupu70 says

My point is that the US should oppose all tyrants, whether or not they “help” the US sometimes.

Are you saying America should have opposed Stalin being that he was a tyrant?

Yes, and America did so. After all Hiroshima and Nagasaki was more about getting Stalin scared than winning war with Japan. It worked, otherwise he would capture the whole continental Europe as he apparently had planned.

RayAmerica says

MarkInSF says

We invade Iraq, overthrow a horrible dictator, and impose democracy, and people like Ray applaud.

Totally wrong. I NEVER supported invading Iraq. Neither did a lot of conservatives. The Iraq War (as well as Afghanistan) was entirely orchestrated by the radical Neocons which have next to nothing in common with true conservatives.

Sorry, I have hard time to believe this. You constantly mention Israeli interests as if they are equal or more important than American. Very neocon line, not conservative at all. BTW, all these fear about Suez Canal closing is a complete BS. Suez Canal is more vital for Egypt economy than to anyone's else. If any force would close the Canal it would be Israel.

Also supporting dictators as stabilizing force no matter what is very stupid policy. USA always abandoned them at the point their cruel pressure on their own people created too much damage. Many CIA coups like that of Pehlevi and Batista ended with abandoning bankrupt dictators (and usually "allowing" them dying quickly after. That's what one calls damage managing. Has nothing to do with Carter personally.

michaelsch says

BTW, all these fear about Suez Canal closing is a complete BS. Suez Canal is more vital for Egypt economy than to anyone’s else.

1.7 million barrels of crude oil pass through the Suez Canal every single day to the west and you think the canal is more vital to Egypt?

michaelsch says

You constantly mention Israeli interests as if they are equal or more important than American.

Copy and paste several of my alleged "constantly mentioned Israeli interests" posts. I'd love to see what I never said.

RayAmerica says

MarkInSF says

I’m not sure what you think Obama should have done. Should we have invaded Egypt to back up the dictatorship when their own military would not do so?

Would you please explain?

Obama should have stayed out of it, at least publicly. His comments during the crisis sent the wrong signals to other allies around the world that once again, “America cannot be trusted.” Israel was appalled at Obama’s abandonment of Mubarak … just one example. As bad as Mubarak was, he was a stabilizing force in the region. The revolt was orchestrated by many forces including the violent Muslim Brotherhood. Obama’s caricature of this being purely a “democratic uprising by young people” is naive at best. Just as the Jacobins were secretly working as agents provocateur in the French Revolution, so was radical Islam behind this.

Abandonment? Mubarak was going down. There is nothing the United States could have done about that. All this talk of "betrayal" is just bullshit spin. It was completely out of the control of Obama or the the US.

If Obama has spoken out in support, he would have gone down. If Obama had stayed out, he would have gone down. If Obama spoke in support of reform and elections, he would have gone down. Being on the side of a dictator when peaceful protesters are calling for his ouster, and for and ELECTIONS (not an islamic state), is hardly good politics.

Apologies for assuming you supported the Iraq war.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LE0KpcP05I

Link above is the 80's video. It is a very appropriate lyrical epitome for this situation.

TechGromit says

Other governments like UK changed things enough to to appease the population to prevented an all out rebellion.

Um, have you ever heard of Oliver Cromwell? Methinks you missed a history class or two...

TechGromit says

The thought that Egypt will change into a free and Democratic society is a great idea and hope, but historically the odds of a favorable outcome are against it.

I'm sure that King George III and his Parliament were saying the same thing in 1776 or so about some roguish unwashed upstarts in North America...

Let me get this straight: Commander in Chief Obama and our military industrial complex is supporting the rebels in Libya and the rebels have ties to none other than Al-Qaeda?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html