Reply With Quote
Okay; feel free.
Egyptians are about to have actual elections and Yoni's butthurt. Classic.
Okay; feel free.
It's like we're reliving 1978-79 all over again... There are so many parallels; right down to the throngs jubilantly receiving some Islamic extremist cleric as their savior.
Was the last Iranian election free and fair?
The egyptians should not oust the oppressors because they might end up oppressed. Amazing logic.
Guttenberg is to Christians as Zuckerburg is Muslims.
Guttenberg(printing press) is to Christians as Zuckerburg(facebook) is Muslims.
Yonivore is to conservatives as Boutons is to liberals?
With the slight exception that there was no charismatic hard-line theocrat leading the charge.
... and the fact that the protests were non-violent
You saw a large gathering where a religious leader spoke and your own particular confirmation bias automatically assigns this event to something you know and understand.
Oddly enough the reality is that secular liberals drove this bus, not conservative religious ideologues.
Conservative religious ideologues in this country find that hard to comprehend, or accept.
I must confess a certain bit of schadenfreude watching them squirm.
Some of the writers on prisonplanet.com have some good takes on this situation. I know i know most of you think its all tin hat bull but its worth checking out. They point out that the news sources giving us death totals and describing the incoherent speech given by qaddafis Son have already admitted that they are largely working in the dark.
Just like we were led to believe the protests in egypt were some huge uprising (less than a tenth of percent of the population) we could be receiving exaggerated or false info about the casualties or any so called massacres.
Not all evils are equal.
Okay, Pollyanna. But, who's squirming? And, whatever the genesis of the Egyptian protests, Islamic extremists are wresting the reigns away from the populace. Also, The Ayatollah Khomeni didn't return from exile until after the Shah departed...he wasn't exactly "leading the charge" in Iran, early on.
No, those of us who were around remember it being characterized in much the same way as is the Egyptian uprisings.
Obviously, there's not much that can be done now so, we'll just have to wait and see how it plays out.
gee, i wonder why?
characterized by whom? give us direct examples.No, those of us who were around remember it being characterized in much the same way as is the Egyptian uprisings.
That is one of the reasons we need to quit propping up brutal dictators for short term gains.
"he wasn't exactly "leading the charge" in Iran"
You Lie.
Khomeini was in France, and was always the leader of the Revolution. He didn't take it over, or co-opt the Revolution. The revolutionaries always intended him to be their leader.
This seems to suggest had Pahlavi or Mubarek never come to power in their respective countries, we wouldn't have (in the case of Iran), or be trending toward (in the case of Egypt), Islamic extremist governments who hate the West and want to annihilate Israel.
Also, you would have to re-write the entire history of how the Middle East and Northern Africa developed, politically, to realize your Utopian dream of if we would just leave them alone, they'd leave us alone. And, quite frankly, I'm not sure of what history you could write that wouldn't result in what we have today. The United States wasn't the only, or even the first, Western nation to stake claims in that region of the world.
Not only is it too late to change the tide in Egypt; it's also too late to assuage any hostility the Islamic extremists seem to harbor for all things western. You could, I would argue, retract completely within our borders and -- still -- they'd find reason to hate us and want us dead.
So, what's your plan?
whats your plan, yoni?
From some of the comments in here and in the media, it is being suggested (or explicitly stated) that had we not supported Mubarek or Pahlavi, the revolutions in those countries would not have been anti-American or anti-Western.
Well, I guess the revolution in Libya can be an experiment. This is a despot with whom we could not work and, in fact, tried to kill on at least one occasion.
I guess we'll see what results when -- as it appears now -- his regime falls to a popular revolt.
Why do you not tell us, yoni?
Piously put, but ultimately wrong. We've been working with Gaddafi for awhile now. Blame Bush.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya_%...ates_relationsOn December 19, 2003, Libya announced its intention to rid itself of WMD and MTCR-class missile programs. Since that time, it has cooperated with the U.S., the U.K., the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons toward these objectives. Libya has also signed the IAEA Additional Protocol and has become a State Party to the Chemical Weapons Convention.
In recognition of these actions, the U.S. began the process of normalizing relations with Libya. The U.S. terminated the applicability of the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act to Libya and the President signed an Executive Order on September 20, 2004 terminating the national emergency with respect to Libya and ending IEEPA-based economic sanctions. This action had the effect of unblocking assets blocked under the Executive Order sanctions. Restrictions on cargo aviation and third-party code-sharing have been lifted, as have restrictions on passenger aviation. Certain export controls remain in place.
U.S. diplomatic personnel reopened the U.S. Interest Section in Tripoli on February 8, 2004. The mission was upgraded to a U.S. Liaison Office on June 28, 2004, and to a full embassy on May 31, 2006. The establishment in 2005 of an American School in Tripoli demonstrates the increased presence of Americans in Libya, and the continuing normalization of bilateral relations. Libya re-established its diplomatic presence in Washington with the opening of an Interest Section on July 8, 2004, which was subsequently upgraded to a Liaison Office in December 2004 and to a full embassy on May 31, 2006.
On May 15, 2006, the State Department announced its intention to rescind Libya's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism in recognition of the fact that Libya had met the statutory requirements for such a move: it had not provided any support for acts of international terrorism in the preceding six-month period, and had provided assurances that it would not do so in the future. On June 30, 2006, the U.S. rescinded Libya's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism. In July 2007, Mr. Gene Cretz was nominated by President Bush as ambassador to Libya. The Foreign Relations Committee of the U.S. Senate held Cretz's confirmation hearing on Wednesday, September 25th, 2008. The Libyan government satisfied its responsibility and paid the remaining amount of money it owed (total of $1.5 billion) to the victims of several acts of terrorism on Friday, October 31st, 2008.
Beginning to normalize relations and appointing an ambassador in exchange for money to victims of your state-sponsored terrorism isn't exactly "business." But, okay, if that's what you have...cool.
I think Obama's complicity is getting the Pan Am 103 bomber released is more of a business deal than anything Bush did with respect to Libya. But, to be sure, relations with Libya haven't been "friendly" for quite a long time.
As I have said before, you don't fight the idea that you are evil by being assholes.
Extraordinary renditions should stop. Torturing people should stop. I don't care how many fictional "ticking bombs" the hysterical scaredycats think are out there.
The biggest lesson learned in Vietnam and Iraq, was that you sometimes have to let people hate you.
Do good things, and put the lie to the lies about how evil we are.
You want to win the "war" on terror, become a real force for positive change.
Build schools, find jobs for the impoverished masses, fight corruption.
Triple USAID budget for starters, dectuple it. Get the best and the brightest working on alleviating human suffering.
We spend more on dogs in this country than we do helping the rest of the world. We used to believe the we were selling about freedom and democracy. I am beginning to wonder if we do any more.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/af_libya_protestsAn expert on Libya said she believed the regime was collapsing.
"Unlike the fall of the regime in Tunisia and Egypt, this is going to be a collapse into a civil war," said Lisa Anderson, president of the American University in Cairo, and a Libya expert.
I would concur. This could very well be the birth of yet another new country. One with oil in the west and one without in the east.
Once the armed forces start splitting, that would seem to me to be the start of a civil war, or sucession at least.
Some believe Egypt -- which has had its eye on Libya's oil rich territories for some time -- may take advantage of the turmoil in both their countries to make a grab.
That would be interesting.
I say this with all due respect; you're just plain wrong.
The United States of America has been the greatest force for good ever known in the world. If we "dectupled" the aid we're doling out, all around the world, we'd go broke.
Sometimes you have to fight.
My plan? Start killing the leaders of these ing Islamic Extremist movements. Lift the assassination bans and just start blowing them up in front of their throngs of "enraged" Islamic masses. 'em.
I'd start with a cruise missile to the podium the next time Ahmadenijad gives one of his wipe Israel off the map speeches. Hopefully, the whole cadre of mentally defective Mullahs will be sitting there with him.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
