Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Do you think that's because a Jewish state was imposed on a land where only one-third of the population was Jewish?I can't find much about the Middle East that Reagan did well, nor anything that anyone could have done well.
Juan Cole sees a few other alternatives:democracy is breaking out all over
If you actually believe the uprising in Egypt is going to lead to Democracy you are fooling yourself.
There will be 1 of 2 possible outcomes. Either the Military will hold onto power and install another General, Or the Muslim Brotherhood and their allies will take over and set up a very Iran Like Islamic Theocracy in Egypt.
There simply are no Moderate Democratic Leaders strong enough to take over. Period.
According to Douglas Brinkley:
Egypts brutal crackdown on demonstrators and the media would have angered and goaded the late, great President Ronald Reagan, who would have sided with the people trying to throw off a dictator, best-selling historian Douglas Brinkley tells Newsmax.
One of the things I learned in editing 'The Reagan Diaries' is to never say what Reagan would do, because he surprised people, Brinkley told Newsmax in an exclusive interview Thursday night.
However, theres little doubt how Reagan would have reacted to the mayhem in the streets of Cairo, "The Reagan Diaries author said.
If Reagan had intelligence information that showed that the upheaval in Egypt is actually Democratic in spirit, then he would have, I believe, turned his back on Mubarak, even though theres a long friendship between the United States and Egypt, Brinkley said. And [he would have] supported the Democratic movement.
Reagan was a pure liberation, free-and-fair election American. I think he would have been cautious, would have been doing what he could to get Americans out of Egypt like Obamas done, and to try to embrace this perhaps-Democratic movement that is sweeping throughout the Middle East, Brinkley said.
Regarding President Barack Obamas handling of the crisis, Brinkley was not critical and pointed out Im sure theres a lot going on . . . that were not privy to.
The prize-winning historian and author said there were two reasons Reagan handled situations such as the crisis in the Middle East astutely: He listened to his top advisers, and he was always fighting for one ideal: democracy around the world.
More: Douglas Brinkley: What Reagan Would Do in Egypt
Edited
Why would anyone care what Reagan would have done? This is now, not 30 years ago. The US is not the super power it was 30 years ago. We are much more dependent on the middle east oil now than back then. Thanks in large part to Reagan's lack of vision in keeping this country on a sustainable energy policy. What would Reagan do? Of all the US presidents of the past to ask this of, Reagan is the least accomplished in foreign affairs. More meaningful would be:
What would Roosevelt Do?
Or What would Kennedy Do?
What would Nixon Do?
What would Ike do?
Or even, What would Jefferson or Washington do.
Reagan is one of the least signifcant US Presidents in history.
According to Douglas Brinkley:
Egypts brutal crackdown on demonstrators and the media would have angered and goaded the late, great President Ronald Reagan, who would have sided with the people trying to throw off a dictator, best-selling historian Douglas Brinkley tells Newsmax.
One of the things I learned in editing 'The Reagan Diaries' is to never say what Reagan would do, because he surprised people, Brinkley told Newsmax in an exclusive interview Thursday night.
However, theres little doubt how Reagan would have reacted to the mayhem in the streets of Cairo, "The Reagan Diaries author said.
If Reagan had intelligence information that showed that the upheaval in Egypt is actually Democratic in spirit, then he would have, I believe, turned his back on Mubarak, even though theres a long friendship between the United States and Egypt, Brinkley said. And [he would have] supported the Democratic movement.
Reagan was a pure liberation, free-and-fair election American. I think he would have been cautious, would have been doing what he could to get Americans out of Egypt like Obamas done, and to try to embrace this perhaps-Democratic movement that is sweeping throughout the Middle East, Brinkley said.
Regarding President Barack Obamas handling of the crisis, Brinkley was not critical and pointed out Im sure theres a lot going on . . . that were not privy to.
The prize-winning historian and author said there were two reasons Reagan handled situations such as the crisis in the Middle East astutely: He listened to his top advisers, and he was always fighting for one ideal: democracy around the world.
More: Douglas Brinkley: What Reagan Would Do in Egypt
I can't find much about the Middle East that Reagan did well, nor anything that anyone could have done well.
"The capital of the United Fruit Company empire was in Guatemala, in the town of Bananera, where it made its headquarters. From here it master-minded its empire and corrupted every level of government and politics in Guatemala. United Fruit also managed to exempt itself from virtually all taxes for 99 years. UFCO had its fingers in almost every pie in Guatemala. UFCO had the unconditional support of right-wing dictators who maintained their power by terrorizing the people and arresting prominent citizens who were either killed on the spot or tortured in prison to extract confessions. During one wave of repression under Jorge Ubico, hundreds were killed in just two days.
In 1944, the people of Guatemala overthrew the right-wing dictator then in power, Jorge Ubico. Guatemala held its first true elections in history. They elected Dr. Juan Jose Arevalo Bermej to the presidency. A new constitution was drawn up, based on the U.S. Constitution. Arevalo was a socialist and an educator who built over 6,000 schools in Guatemala and made great progress in education and health care.
At this time in Guatemala, just 2.2 percent of the population owned over 70 percent of the country's land. Only 10 percent of the land was available for 90 percent of the population, most of whom were Indians. Most of the land held by the large landowners was unused. Arevalo was succeeded in another free election by Jacobo Arbenz who continued the reform process begun under Arevalo. Arbenz proposed to redistribute some of the unused land and make it available for the 90 percent to farm. Here is where the problem arose: United Fruit was one of the big holders of unused land in Guatemala. The pressure mounted against UFCO and finally the company complained to the many friends it had within the U.S. government including President Eisenhower and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, saying that Guatemala had turned communist.
The U.S. State Department and United Fruit embarked on a major public relations campaign to convince the American people and the rest of the U.S. government that Guatemala was a Soviet "satellite".
Ronald Reagan left his mark in Nicaragua also:I can't find much about the Middle East that Reagan did well, nor anything that anyone could have done well.You mean besides letting them work-out their own problems....like Taking-Back Their Country from the corporate-horde??
It seems to work-out, the same way, no matter where we've been.....or, what's being bought & sold.
"The capital of the United Fruit Company empire was in Guatemala, in the town of Bananera, where it made its headquarters. From here it master-minded its empire and corrupted every level of government and politics in Guatemala. United Fruit also managed to exempt itself from virtually all taxes for 99 years. UFCO had its fingers in almost every pie in Guatemala. UFCO had the unconditional support of right-wing dictators who maintained their power by terrorizing the people and arresting prominent citizens who were either killed on the spot or tortured in prison to extract confessions. During one wave of repression under Jorge Ubico, hundreds were killed in just two days.
In 1944, the people of Guatemala overthrew the right-wing dictator then in power, Jorge Ubico. Guatemala held its first true elections in history. They elected Dr. Juan Jose Arevalo Bermej to the presidency. A new constitution was drawn up, based on the U.S. Constitution. Arevalo was a socialist and an educator who built over 6,000 schools in Guatemala and made great progress in education and health care.
At this time in Guatemala, just 2.2 percent of the population owned over 70 percent of the country's land. Only 10 percent of the land was available for 90 percent of the population, most of whom were Indians. Most of the land held by the large landowners was unused. Arevalo was succeeded in another free election by Jacobo Arbenz who continued the reform process begun under Arevalo. Arbenz proposed to redistribute some of the unused land and make it available for the 90 percent to farm. Here is where the problem arose: United Fruit was one of the big holders of unused land in Guatemala. The pressure mounted against UFCO and finally the company complained to the many friends it had within the U.S. government including President Eisenhower and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, saying that Guatemala had turned communist.
The U.S. State Department and United Fruit embarked on a major public relations campaign to convince the American people and the rest of the U.S. government that Guatemala was a Soviet "satellite".
I guess the Guatemalans hadn't heard we had the Divine Right to call-the-shots, down there.
I'm sure our relationship, with Egypt, has nothing-to-do with oil-security, in The Middle East.
Do you think that's because a Jewish state was imposed on a land where only one-third of the population was Jewish?I can't find much about the Middle East that Reagan did well, nor anything that anyone could have done well.
Fact is no one knows what Reagan would do with the situation in Egypt.
What Would Reagan Do In Egypt?
Forget what street he lived on?