Uprising in Egypt Splitting the Conservatives in the US

[NYcarbineer]

I'm surprised more rightwingers aren't claiming these 'uprisings' aren't the culmination of the success of the grand plan that was the Iraqi invasion.

 

[saveliberty]

Don't be silly, it was the long term planning of conservatives who had success in foreign relations with Egypt. Obama is viewed as weak, which is very bad in the Muslim world.

 

[Barb]

Q: What is always the #1 reason given by terrorists?
A: U.S. interference in the Middle East.

Q: Why do we "interfere"?
A: Oil

Period. It's not about helping an oppressed people rise up. There are plenty of places in the world without oil where we could do that if we wanted.

1951: US and Saudi Arabia sign a mutual defense agreement, with the U.S. building military bases in the kingdom and establishing a long-term agreement to train the Saudi armed forces.

1953: USA helps overthrow Iran's democratically elected government - replacing the wildly popular Mosaddeq with the ruthless Shaw, who was a western puppet, i.e., friendly to US energy needs.

United States protects the ruthless Shaw against his own people, causing the the further radicalization of anti-American Islamic groups -- which reached a tipping point with American hostage situation in the late 70s

1972-1975: US Weapons aid to Saudi Arabia goes from $305 million to $5 billion

United States protects the ruthless Saudis for over a half century. This serves to fuel resentment against the US and leads to the formation and radicalization of Islamic groups against the US

1970's: Carter begs America to reduce dependency on middle east. Begs us not to spend the next 30 years making terrorist richer. Says we need to launch a moonshot around alternative energy and conservation. Reagan, funded by big oil, frames him as a crazy, radical lefty.

1980: Reagan wins the presidency, removes Iraq from the list of terrorist nations and sells arms to Iran

America swallowed poison in 1980

1980-1986: Reagan plays decisive role in the rise and protection Saddam Hussein: As a counterweight to Khomeinist Iran, Reagan builds up Saddam Hussein in Iraq -- removing him from the list of terrorist nations, and pouring money and weapons into his regime. This further radicalizes region against the US and the unpopular leaders it protects.

2011: Glen Beck tries to cover-up what his party did by blaming everything on radical lefties. Ignores entire history of US tinkering -- especially Reagan, Bush, & the party of Big Oil who have done more to tie the US to the region than any political group in the past 50 years. Beck's moronic listeners believe what he says

So what day did you become oil free & begin to live the rest of your life without oil?

How is that even a point? Our FP decisions aren't based on justice, democracy, or even anything approaching coherence or sustainable good will. That is the point.

And before you piss off on good will, keep in mind that sowing the seeds of that would not only be of more lasting value, but a hell of a lot cheaper than what we've done.

 

[Barb]

Don't be silly, it was the long term planning of conservatives who had success in foreign relations with Egypt. Obama is viewed as weak, which is very bad in the Muslim world.

Really? I thought it was Carter who brokered the only lasting peace agreement between Egypt and Israel.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Don't be silly, it was the long term planning of conservatives who had success in foreign relations with Egypt. Obama is viewed as weak, which is very bad in the Muslim world.

I don't vote for Reps or Dems, but I don't understand this "Obama is weak" talk.

The Iraq War pullout was signed by Bush and was already happening before Obama took office, so Obama became prez when only 1 war was going on and he IMMEDIATELY increased the warmongering.

 

[Samson]

Don't be silly, it was the long term planning of conservatives who had success in foreign relations with Egypt. Obama is viewed as weak, which is very bad in the Muslim world.

Really? I thought it was Carter who brokered the only lasting peace agreement between Egypt and Israel.

Really?

I thought it was Sadat who signed a peace treaty with Israel DESPITE the bumbling idiot President Carter's ineptitued:

Sadat's liaison initiative spoke volumes about his reasons for wanting to make peace with Israel. He wanted an alliance with the American superpower and he wanted to kill Carter's Geneva initiative.[9] His trip to Jerusalem signaled a major reorientation of Cairo's place in the global scheme of things, from the Soviet to the American camp.[10] Carter's acceptance of the proposed liaison scheme would have signaled American backing for Sadat's unprecedented peace initiative. But Carter said no. However, Carter could not thwart the Israeli-Egyptian peace push

 

[Barb]

Don't be silly, it was the long term planning of conservatives who had success in foreign relations with Egypt. Obama is viewed as weak, which is very bad in the Muslim world.

Really? I thought it was Carter who brokered the only lasting peace agreement between Egypt and Israel.

Really?

I thought it was Sadat who signed a peace treaty with Israel DESPITE the bumbling idiot President Carter's ineptitued:

Sadat's liaison initiative spoke volumes about his reasons for wanting to make peace with Israel. He wanted an alliance with the American superpower and he wanted to kill Carter's Geneva initiative.[9] His trip to Jerusalem signaled a major reorientation of Cairo's place in the global scheme of things, from the Soviet to the American camp.[10] Carter's acceptance of the proposed liaison scheme would have signaled American backing for Sadat's unprecedented peace initiative. But Carter said no. However, Carter could not thwart the Israeli-Egyptian peace push

Wiki? Really?

 

[Samson]

Really? I thought it was Carter who brokered the only lasting peace agreement between Egypt and Israel.

Really?

I thought it was Sadat who signed a peace treaty with Israel DESPITE the bumbling idiot President Carter's ineptitued:

Sadat's liaison initiative spoke volumes about his reasons for wanting to make peace with Israel. He wanted an alliance with the American superpower and he wanted to kill Carter's Geneva initiative.[9] His trip to Jerusalem signaled a major reorientation of Cairo's place in the global scheme of things, from the Soviet to the American camp.[10] Carter's acceptance of the proposed liaison scheme would have signaled American backing for Sadat's unprecedented peace initiative. But Carter said no. However, Carter could not thwart the Israeli-Egyptian peace push

Wiki? Really?

You have another source to back your claim?

No.

Sorry to burst your bubble. If it makes you feel any better, I too was hoping that Carter did something constructive during the 4 years of his extraordinarily poor administration.

 

[georgephillip]

Noam Chomsky: ?This Is The Most Remarkable Regional Uprising That I Can Remember? | CommonDreams.org

 

[Barb]

Really?

I thought it was Sadat who signed a peace treaty with Israel DESPITE the bumbling idiot President Carter's ineptitued:

Wiki? Really?

You have another source to back your claim?

No.

Sorry to burst your bubble. If it makes you feel any better, I too was hoping that Carter did something constructive during the 4 years of his extraordinarily poor administration.

Actually, I do.
BBC ON THIS DAY | 26 | 1979: Israel and Egypt shake hands on peace deal

Mr Sadat praised President Carter as "the man who performed the miracle".

"Without exaggeration," he said, "what he did constitutes one of the greatest achievements of our time".

Mr Carter, however, was more cautious, saying the treaty was "a first step on a long and difficult road."

"We must not minimalise the obstacles that lie ahead," he said.

I loaned my books out, or I'd have another source or three.

Ya'll wouldn't give a dog credit for scratching its own fleas if there was a political point to be had. That's a sad state of affairs, that.

 

[Synthaholic]

Congress' defacto declaration comes when they pass the budget funding the war.

The Constitution does not allow for "defacto" anything.

We have defacto social programs.

Really? Which ones?

 

[Synthaholic]

On what planet is war unconstitutional?

On the planet of Liberal lala Land where the US can only take Military action of Any kind if they first have the Full congress Officially Declare war.

The Constitution Clearly Gives the Executive branch the power to commit us Forces to action Anywhere anytime in order to Protect the National Security of the US. Offical Deceleration of war or not.

These same liberal dim Wits who act say this shit. Would be completely silent if Obama did the same thing.

Most of the wars the US has been a part of in the last half century have been very liberal, thus requiring the supporters of these wars to be very liberal in their views.

Sadly yes most people who pretended to be anti-war were really just Democrats who were anti-Bush. The principle of war and innocent people being killed wasn't really a big deal to the overwhelming majority.

So the things we've done in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iraq again, Vietnam, Korea, were just small military actions? They shouldn't be called "wars"?

Speak for yourself.

 

[Samson]

Wiki? Really?

You have another source to back your claim?

No.

Sorry to burst your bubble. If it makes you feel any better, I too was hoping that Carter did something constructive during the 4 years of his extraordinarily poor administration.

Actually, I do.
BBC ON THIS DAY | 26 | 1979: Israel and Egypt shake hands on peace deal

Mr Sadat praised President Carter as "the man who performed the miracle".

"Without exaggeration," he said, "what he did constitutes one of the greatest achievements of our time".

Mr Carter, however, was more cautious, saying the treaty was "a first step on a long and difficult road."

"We must not minimalise the obstacles that lie ahead," he said.

I loaned my books out, or I'd have another source or three.

Ya'll wouldn't give a dog credit for scratching its own fleas if there was a political point to be had. That's a sad state of affairs, that.

What is my Political Point?

I never said Carter didn't host the Camp David Accords.

But I'm not blind to the OTHER facts:


How Jimmy Carter Almost Derailed Peace With Egypt

 

[Dr.Drock]

On the planet of Liberal lala Land where the US can only take Military action of Any kind if they first have the Full congress Officially Declare war.

The Constitution Clearly Gives the Executive branch the power to commit us Forces to action Anywhere anytime in order to Protect the National Security of the US. Offical Deceleration of war or not.

These same liberal dim Wits who act say this shit. Would be completely silent if Obama did the same thing.

Most of the wars the US has been a part of in the last half century have been very liberal, thus requiring the supporters of these wars to be very liberal in their views.

Sadly yes most people who pretended to be anti-war were really just Democrats who were anti-Bush. The principle of war and innocent people being killed wasn't really a big deal to the overwhelming majority.

So the things we've done in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iraq again, Vietnam, Korea, were just small military actions? They shouldn't be called "wars"?

Speak for yourself.

I didn't say all, just overwhelming majority. The "anti-war" crowd was nowhere to be found when the warmongering in Afghanistan skyrocketed and the villagers were driving truckloads of civilian bodies to the us posts.

 

[Synthaholic]

Global mobility means that we cannot ignore the threat of terrorism...and cannot underestimate the aid that Middle Eastern countries have provided in the War On Terrorism. How can we tell governments how they must handle internal situations, and expect their help?

Q: What is always the #1 reason given by terrorists?
A: U.S. interference in the Middle East.

Q: Why do we "interfere"?
A: Oil

Period. It's not about helping an oppressed people rise up. There are plenty of places in the world without oil where we could do that if we wanted.

Get off the oil, and QUICKLY. Even if it costs a lot in the short term. Devalue the Middle East. Make these rulers deal with their reality and their citizenry. It's disgusting that even a lower-level Saudi like Prince Bandar can be so fucking rich from our oil habit that he can buy a place like the Hala Ranch, in Aspen, CO - currently on the market for $135 million.

Third-richest property in the United States. And just one of his many properties, including estates in England.

#1 is incorrect. To you understand the meaning and import of the word 'calphate'?

But let's deal with #2. Once reality sets in, and you understand that without oil this nation will cedase to exist, then the options seem pretty evident.

Unless you belong to the 'can't we all just get along' battalion...

Thank you for totally avoiding answering my post!

You didn't address other energy options, or the immorality of making people like Bandar disgustingly rich while perpetuating a crime family in Riyadh.

Good job!

 

[Synthaholic]

They say that war is God's way of teaching folks geography...

but haven't the events and the posts on the board taught you that there is no definition of democracy without defining the venue, as well?

"One shouldn’t cherry-pick facts to fit an agenda. The study does say that radicals “believe in democracy even more than many of the mainstream moderates do.” But does anyone really think we’re operating with a consistent definition of democracy here? The Muslim Brotherhood, for example, makes claims to be democratic, yet its leaders-for-life are not elected, the organization boasts a doctrine of female subordination, and it calls for the death of apostates. Kind of a big-government democracy, I suppose."

Commentary Blog Archive Muslim Survey “Challenges” West

uscitizen was talking about the democratically elected Hamas, not the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood.

When you are as far behind the class in required reading, it becomes difficult to include you in the discussion....

"Berman describes the Nazi plan (in which Husseini would play a key role) for the physical destruction of the Jewish community in Palestine after Rommel’s expected victory at El-Alamein. Rommel’s defeat aborted the plan, but al-Banna’s Muslim Brotherhood fought side by side with the mufti’s cadres in the 1948 Arab and Palestinian war against Israel with the same goal of destruction in mind. The Muslim Brotherhood is alive and well today, with hundreds of thousands of followers in many parts of the world. In Gaza, the movement is called Hamas, and its charter mimes the World War II symbiosis between Nazi eliminationist anti-Semitism and radical Islamism."
The Intellectuals Keep Flying by Sol Stern, City Journal 21 October 2010

You and your 'thank you' brethren need to pick up a book from time to time, educate yourself.

Iran, Hamas, Brotherhood, Hezbullah, etcc....are essentially all the same.

It is a distinction without a difference.


After you do your due diligence, you many want to rethink assigning terms like 'democratic' to any of the above groups.

Yes, that's all very nice, and I can tell you we are all very impressed!

But uscitizen was talking about Hamas, who - whether you like it or not - was elected fairly, through a democratic process. It was a monitored election.

 

[Synthaholic]

Oil is the life's blood of a modern society. There is no possible way to replace its loss. What ever course we choose, we must have oil.

Doesn't have to be that way.

Wouldn't it be nice to be able to watch the Egyptians in a purely voyeuristic sense? Without worrying about how it's going to affect us, through oil?

Right now, the actions of poor, ignorant, societal and socially stunted people are making our gas prices to go up, our food to go up, our everything to go up. And the Egyptians don't even have the oil!!! That's fucked up.

It's time we get serious about solar, hydro, wind, natural gas and anything else that will get us out of the Middle East.

"Doesn't have to be that way."

Yeah, it does.

Although it is clear than many folks, yourself included, enjoy living in that special 'world as we would like it to be," consider the following:

1. Our future is in ‘green energy’? “Presidents all the way back to Richard Nixon -- whose "Project Independence" promised to make America independent from foreign oil by 1980 -- were thwarted by short attention spans, other urgent problems and gyrations in the energy market.” After some 30 years and billions of dollars poured into alternative technologies, renewable energy now accounts for a mere 6.7% of our total.
A Past President's Advice to Obama: Act With Haste - WSJ.com

2. Based on US Department of Energy, sources of energy used in the US:
39.2% petroleum, 23.3% natural gas, 22.4% coal, 8.3% nuclear, 3.6% biomass, 2.4% hydroelectric, 0.35% geothermal, 0.31% wind, 0.08% solar.

3. If green energy is as good, cheap, and clean as supporters say, why haven’t market forces made it an increasing part of the energy picture…? Politics: rather than the promotion of new sources of energy, the movement has been hijacked by those whose main motivation is the devolution of America, or to accomplish government ownership and control of our energy supply. Sometimes called the “Watermelon Effect,” it is made up of the ‘green’ pro-environment policies on the outside, hiding the red Marxist redistributive policies on the inside.
BTW, we imported just over a third of our oil in 1981, and now 70%.

Now, if you have incorporated the factual info contained in the above, you will agree that oil will continue to be the potent determinor of our future for the foreseeable future...so, how does this change your thingking?

Hint: How about drilling in ANWR?

The answer isn't looking for more oil to drill - it will get slurped up as fast, or faster than it can be found. India and China's oil consumption is growing exponentially every year, with millions more cars on the roads of those two countries alone. ANWR is a drop in a bucket, and any oil pumped from there goes straight to the world market - we do not get to keep that for ourselves.

Who's fault is it that we have short attention spans? As Londoner already pointed out, President Carter tried to get us off ME oil and onto a path of energy independence. Reagan ridiculed that idea.

There have been studies showing that a gallon of gas really costs Americans over $15 per gallon when you add in all the costs to get it, protect it's flow, and protect the rulers who sell it to us. The only reason we have a massive military there, and private contractors like Halliburton charging the U.S. government $100 per load of laundry and $45 for Coca Cola, is to protect "our" oil. If we were to stop doing that, and start subsidizing alternative energy to the same degree, we would be off oil as our major energy source in a very short time.

 

[Synthaholic]

I'm surprised more rightwingers aren't claiming these 'uprisings' aren't the culmination of the success of the grand plan that was the Iraqi invasion.

Because they know that it's bullshit. Of course, that hasn't stopped them before.

Mark Zuckerberg may be more responsible for this than most.

 

[Synthaholic]

Most of the wars the US has been a part of in the last half century have been very liberal, thus requiring the supporters of these wars to be very liberal in their views.

Sadly yes most people who pretended to be anti-war were really just Democrats who were anti-Bush. The principle of war and innocent people being killed wasn't really a big deal to the overwhelming majority.

So the things we've done in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iraq again, Vietnam, Korea, were just small military actions? They shouldn't be called "wars"?

Speak for yourself.

I didn't say all, just overwhelming majority. The "anti-war" crowd was nowhere to be found when the warmongering in Afghanistan skyrocketed and the villagers were driving truckloads of civilian bodies to the us posts.

I'd say they got drowned out and marginalized by the mainstream media once the circus came to town, crying about birth certificates, stimulus money, health care reform, Obama addressing school children, Poor Sarah whining about this or that . . .

 

[Synthaholic]

American cannot allow there to be a holocaust in Israel.

Why is this our burden?

PoliticalChic declined to address this post. Hmmm.....