Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page 1, 2  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Edmund Onward James





Joined: 04 Jun 2009
Posts: 1317
Reputation: 55
votes: 2

PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 2:59 pm    Post subject: Is Egypt the domino effect? Are Islamists waiting? Reply with quote

I am not against protests and change. However, I am concerned that a phony democracy might be implemented and the Islamists will take over. There are ways that Egypt can improve with the assistance of a wise American President. Otherwise Egypt can turn into another proxy of Iran or vice versa. Shia vs Sunni.

Protests & Riots in Muslim Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt… Who’s next? England? America?

http://onwardjames.blogspot.co.....yemen.html

WHO LOST EGYPT? - DICK MORRIS

In the 1950s, the accusation "who lost China" resonated throughout American politics and led to the defeat of the Democratic Party in the presidential elections of 1952. Unless President Obama reverses field and strongly opposes letting the Muslim brotherhood take over Egypt, he will be hit with the modern equivalent of the 1952 question: Who Lost Egypt?

The Iranian government is waiting for Egypt to fall into its lap. The Muslim Brotherhood, dominated by Iranian Islamic fundamentalism, will doubtless emerge as the winner should the government of Egypt fall. The Obama Administration, in failing to throw its weight against an Islamic takeover, is guilty of the same mistake that led President Carter to fail to support the Shah, opening the door for the Ayatollah Khomeini to take over Iran.

The United States has enormous leverage in Egypt - far more than it had in Iran. We provide Egypt with upwards of $2 billion a year in foreign aid under the provisos of the Camp David Accords orchestrated by Carter. The Egyptian military, in particular, receives $1.3 billion of this money. The United States, as the pay master, needs to send a signal to the military that it will be supportive of its efforts to keep Egypt out of the hands of the Islamic fundamentalists. Instead, Obama has put our military aid to Egypt "under review" to pressure Mubarak to mute his response to the demonstrators and has given top priority to "preventing the loss of human life."

President Obama should say that Egypt has always been a friend of the United States. He should point out that it was the first Arab country to make peace with Israel. He should recall that President Sadat, who signed the peace accords, paid for doing so with his life and that President Mubarak has carried on in his footsteps. He should condemn the efforts of the Muslim Brotherhood extremists to take over the country and indicate that America stands by her longtime ally. He should address the need for reform and urge Mubarak to enact needed changes. But his emphasis should be on standing with our ally.

The return of Nobel laureate Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has to Egypt as the presumptive heir to Mubarak tells us where this revolution is headed. Carolyn Glick, a columnist for the Jerusalem Post, explains how dangerous ElBaradei is. "As IAEA head," she writes, "Elbaradei shielded Iran's nuclear weapons program from the Security Council. He [has] continued to lobby against significant UN Security Council sanctions or other actions against Iran...Last week, he dismissed the threat of a nuclear armed Iran [saying] 'there is a lot of hype in this debate'."

As for the Muslim Brotherhood, Glick notes that "it forms the largest and best organized opposition to the Mubarak regime and [is] the progenitor of Hamas and al Qaidi. It seeks Egypt's transformation into an Islamic regime that will stand at the forefront of the global jihad."

Now is the time for Republicans and conservatives to start asking the question: Who is losing Egypt? We need to debunk the starry eyed idealistic yearning for reform and the fantasy that a liberal democracy will come from these demonstrations. It won't. Iranian domination will.

Egypt, with 80 million people, is the largest country in the Middle East or North Africa. Combined with Iran's 75 million (the second largest) they have 155 million people. By contrast the entire rest of the region -- Algeria, Morocco, Libya, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Tunisia, Jordan, UAE, Lebanon, Kuwait, Oman, and Qatar combined-- have only 200 million.

We must not let the two most populous and powerful nations in the region fall under the sway of Muslim extremism, the one through the weakness of Jimmy Carter and the other through the weakness of Barack Obama

Islam Rising - Dr. Richard Swier


I have been reading about the turmoil in Tunisia, Sudan, Egypt and Albania. Many pundits have speculated on the reasons for this violence and its final outcomes. Let me add my humble comments to the many voices speaking about what is happening globally and how it will impact U.S. foreign policy and our great ally Israel.

I titled this column "Islam Rising" because I believe we are witnessing the beginnings of a much more militant and radical civilizational Islam.

I have been reading Samuel P. Huntington's seminal work The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order published in 1996. Huntington presents a view of the post Cold War world that pits civilizations rather than nations against one another. Huntington foresaw civilizational conflicts defined primarily by religious/cultural differences. He divided the world into seven, and a possible eighth, civilizations: (i) Western, (ii) Latin American, (iii) Islamic, (iv) Sinic (Chinese), (v) Hindu, (vi) Orthodox, (vii) Japanese, and (viii) the African.

In a 1993 Foreign Affairs article, Huntington wrote:

"It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future." [My emphasis]

According to Huntington, this cultural organization contrasts the contemporary world with the classical notion of sovereign states. To understand current and future conflict, cultural rifts must be understood, and culture — rather than the State — must be accepted as the locus of war.

Western nations will lose predominance if they fail to recognize the irreconcilable nature of cultural tensions.

When you look at the above map you notice that all of the current violence is taking place within or on the fringes of the Islamic civilization. Since the end of World War II there have been two violent conflicts between Western civilization and the Sinic civilization (red in the above map) - Korea and Vietnam. All other significant conflicts since have been with and within the Islamic civilization. The list includes Afghanistan (both Russian and U.S. involvement), the Iran/Iraq war, multiple wars between various Muslim states and Israel, Bosnia, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Darfur, Pakistan, Chechnya, the invasion of Iraq and today violent confrontations in Tunisia, Sudan, Egypt and Albania. Albania has been dubbed by some as the Israel of the Caucuses.

While Huntington did not advocate the desirability of conflicts between civilizations, I believe he set forth a descriptive hypothesis that is coming true.

Islam is becoming more modern, more militant, more anti-West, and more dangerous. The West has no solution but to fecklessly sit on the side lines and call for calm.

Unless and until the West unites we will continue to see the other six civilizations rise and act in their own best interests against us. As Samuel Huntington said in his book it is the "West against the rest". The West can no longer afford to squabble amongst ourselves. We must unite or fall by the wayside. Twice before Islam nearly toppled the West. Will this Third Jihad succeed? I worry that the West is not too big to fail and that is a legacy I do not want for my children and grandchildren.

As the Islamic civilization has modernized it has become more religiously fundamental and has rejected the Western ideals of democracy, free markets, civil rights, the rule of law, decentralized government, the prohibiting of a state religion and freedom of worship.

All civilizations are not created equal, all civilizations are not good and all civilizations are not our friends. Diversity and multiculturalism work against us and favor those who would destroy us. The West is made up of many cultures living and working in peace together. Those who come to the West must embrace its ideals and assimilate into our culture. Islam does not and will not do that.

We cannot live with a state within a state - it is the United West or nothing.


Last edited by Edmund Onward James on Tue Feb 01, 2011 10:48 am; edited 1 time in total
queenmandy85





Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 212
Reputation: 93.4Reputation: 93.4
votes: 2
Location: Saskatoon

PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Egypt is not the American's to lose. Leave it to the Egyptians to sort out.
If you want to ensure the Muslim Brotherhood succeeds, by all means, remind the people of Egypt that Mubarak is closely tied to the Americans and the Isrealiis.
JBG





Joined: 03 Oct 2007
Posts: 823
Reputation: 93.1Reputation: 93.1
votes: 8
Location: NYC Area

PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 11:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

queenmandy85 wrote:
Egypt is not the American's to lose. Leave it to the Egyptians to sort out.
If you want to ensure the Muslim Brotherhood succeeds, by all means, remind the people of Egypt that Mubarak is closely tied to the Americans and the Isrealiis.
Fortunately that won't happen. They have a stable and democratic neighbor that would neer allow that.
queenmandy85





Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 212
Reputation: 93.4Reputation: 93.4
votes: 2
Location: Saskatoon

PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 11:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

JBG wrote "Fortunately that won't happen. They have a stable and democratic neighbor that would neer allow that."
I'm not sure who you mean. There is nothing Isreal can do to prevent the Muslim Brotherhood from taking over.
If the Muslim Brotherhood did take over Egypt, the Middle East would likely revert back to the situation that existed in the 1960's. Jordan and Saudi Arabia could also change regimes. The question is, how long can Isreal expend the energy required to survive and how long will the Americans be willing to support them?
If you don't want the Muslim Brotherhood to succeed, stay out of it and let the Egyptian people deal with them. American interference will push the Egyptian people into the arms of the extremists.
machiavelli





Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Posts: 352
Reputation: 66.5
votes: 5

PostPosted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 10:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

WHICH TYRANT WILL PREVENT A MIDDLE EAST HELL-FIRE?

Western leaders must decide whether they prefer to back a stable, authoritarian, pro-Western Egyptian dictator who buttresses Israel, and rejects non-Islamic-fascism, or take a chance on Mohamed ElBaradei, an anti-American leftist who deliberately assisted Iran’s nuclear ambitions, who is now leading a disingenuous Islamic organization that has a violent history of terrorism, and has been the intellectual inspiration for the creation of Al Qaeda and Hamas.
JBG





Joined: 03 Oct 2007
Posts: 823
Reputation: 93.1Reputation: 93.1
votes: 8
Location: NYC Area

PostPosted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 10:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

queenmandy85 wrote:
If you don't want the Muslim Brotherhood to succeed, stay out of it and let the Egyptian people deal with them. American interference will push the Egyptian people into the arms of the extremists.

machiavelli wrote:
WHICH TYRANT WILL PREVENT A MIDDLE EAST HELL-FIRE?

Western leaders must decide whether they prefer to back a stable, authoritarian, pro-Western Egyptian dictator who buttresses Israel, and rejects non-Islamic-fascism, or take a chance on Mohamed ElBaradei, an anti-American leftist who deliberately assisted Iran’s nuclear ambitions, who is now leading a disingenuous Islamic organization that has a violent history of terrorism, and has been the intellectual inspiration for the creation of Al Qaeda and Hamas.
You are both illustrating why total independence for the colonies was a huge mistake and the U.N. an unmitigated disaster. That part of the world is essential tothe world's economy and it cannot remain safe if left to their own dubious devices.
machiavelli





Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Posts: 352
Reputation: 66.5
votes: 5

PostPosted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Regretfully much of the Western World has been courting Egyptian Islamists for too many years. Many Western administrations have welcomed the Brotherhood’s Islamist associates such as CAIR, The Muslim American Society, the Islamic Society of North America, and radical, activist’s mosque even though some of them have supported Hamas.
chilipepper





Joined: 18 Feb 2007
Posts: 391
Reputation: 95.2Reputation: 95.2
votes: 1
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 10:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Islamists are waiting and allready declaring war on Israel - Egypt is Obama's now to lose, this could be a defining moment of his presidency.

http://www.jpost.com/Headlines.....?id=206130
Edmund Onward James





Joined: 04 Jun 2009
Posts: 1317
Reputation: 55
votes: 2

PostPosted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 10:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I try to be optimistic, however, the protesters, students, moderate adults that desire democracy do not get the military support from the UN or America (Carter, Clinton and Obama). Subsquently, the Islamists move in. The Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt are considered to be less visibly violent like al Qaeda; they utilize the stealth mode through oragnizations and charities.

Unfortunately, during revolution there must be power, military power to assist for a democratic construct. And the Middle East has never experienced democracy, hence they need to be shown by force. Power is what the tribes respect.

The mullahs of Iran gleefully wait for the opportunty or are already deeply involved.

Hopefully, the Egyptian military support a reasonable turnover for a proper election, which excludes theocratic parties.

Nobel prize laureate Mohamed ElBaradei is questionable because he said the nuclear desire of Iran is a hype and he supports the Muslim Brotherhood and vice versa.

ElBaradei (el-BEAR-uh-day), a Nobel laureate and proponent of democracy, has become the most visible spokesman for a coalition of anti-Mubarak groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood. After arriving from his home in Austria last week, he quickly called for Mubarak's resignation and offered to lead a transitional government.

"He's quite qualified," says Maher Hathout, a senior adviser with the Muslim Public Affairs Council, a civil rights organization based in Los Angeles. "He's someone who's not tainted by the current regime and politically shrewd."

ElBaradei is the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency, and won the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize for his work against nuclear proliferation. Still, he drew the ire of the George W. Bush White House for not being tougher on Iran's emerging nuclear program. ElBaradei has said he does not believe Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon. He also disputed the U.S. contention that Iraq had revived its nuclear program prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.



Fear the Muslim Brotherhood

http://www.nationalreview.com/.....c-mccarthy

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: If the Muslim Brotherhood seized power, how would Obama react? Alas, the Muslim world doesn't know.

1979 Redux? - Victor Davis Hanson

The Obama administration’s deer-in-the headlights policy toward Egypt will probably change if and when Mubarak & Co. leave and thereby introduce the risk of a Czar–Kerensky–Lenin or Estates-General–Paris Commune–Committee of Public Safety scenario — i.e., the better organized and militantly non-democratic forces coming to the fore amid loosely organized protest against prior oppression.

Any “unity” government with the anti-democratic Muslim Brotherhood as a member is de facto a route to an Islamic Republic and a hostile Egypt for years to come — a veritable Libya, Syria, or Iran on steroids. We should remember just how much Nasser and, later, a pro-Soviet early Sadat stymied U.S. interests. Certainly Mubarak’s Egypt is no more Western or modern than was the Shah’s Iran, where the unlikely return to the pre-modern world soon became accepted. The thing that stopped Iraq from going the way of Iran (e.g., Saddam–Allawi–Zarqawi, like Shah–Banisadr–Khomeini) was, in large part, constant and vocal support for constitutional government and nothing but — and the skill of the U.S. military.

I suppose the West currently feels like someone watching a train approaching an abyss without much insight into how to prevent the train from going over the cliff. Our daily-evolving strategy apparently hinges on proper triangulation, shifting from prodding Mubarak to reform to calling on protesters to form a democratic government as Mubarak appears to weaken, all while allowing some leeway should he make a remarkable recovery.

I hope we are saving our condemnation and diplomatic powder for even the hint of an Islamic manipulation of the chaos. However, after the president’s Al Arabiya interview, his silence over Tehran in spring 2009, and the Cairo speech — the constant themes being U.S. culpability for Iraq, generic apologies for purported past sins, and America’s under-appreciation of past Islamic brilliance — I fear that far too many in and outside the Middle East are unsure how America would react to an Islamist absorption of the currently popular protest. ‘Oh well, America probably sees these guys as the inheritors of Cordoba, once again doing their part to create another Western Renaissance or Enlightenment.’

In short, at some point soon, we are going to have to come out and express our support for a non-Islamist constitutional state, period — without any Carter-esque talk of “moderate” Islamists.

The Muslim Brotherhood is the Enemy - Frank Gaffney
http://bigpeace.com/fgaffney/2.....the-enemy/
Edmund Onward James





Joined: 04 Jun 2009
Posts: 1317
Reputation: 55
votes: 2

PostPosted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 4:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

An overseas radio report stated that Mubarak will resign and leave in September. Rush Limbaugh said that the New York Times immediately gave credit to Obama. He convinced the dictator to leave. The mainstream left, the activists, will say anything for their hero.

But is this so? Has anybody read or heard about this news anywhere else or at all?

Egypt's President Mubarak says he won't run for re-election

http://www.cp24.com/servlet/an.....b=CP24Home

Mubarak to speak, expected not to seek reelection
http://www.salon.com/news/egyp.....n_in_Egypt

Mubarak to quit after enormous day of protest
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/worl.....ef=twitter

Are the members of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists jumping up and down, privately, as their women in burkas or hijabs shrill "Allahu Akbar!!!!" outside or some other hidden olcation as not to be seen by the brothers. Sharia law is on its way in Egypt.

If a democracy is attempted, elections, Obama will take credit. But Bush was the one to implement a form of democracy in Iraq that the Egyptians perhasp desired.

If the Muslim Brotherhood become part of the govenment this will be far worse than the Ayatollahs of Iran; they will join forces. The enemy of my enemy is my brother.
machiavelli





Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Posts: 352
Reputation: 66.5
votes: 5

PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Western leaders must decide whether they prefer to back a stable, authoritarian, pro-Western Egyptian dictator who buttresses Israel, and rejects Islamic-fascism, or take a chance on Mohamed ElBaradei, an anti-American leftist who deliberately assisted Iran’s nuclear ambitions and endeavored to salvage Saddam’s dictatorship, who is now leading a disingenuous Islamic organization that has a violent history of terrorism, and has been the intellectual inspiration for the creation of Al Qaeda and Hamas. Westerners will recollect that the Muslin Brotherhood’s goal is not to establish a liberal democracy regime, but to impose Islamic totalitarianism on the world. Daniel Pipe, director of the Middle East Forum, advises that “Islamists wish to repeat their success in Iran by exploiting popular unrest to take power” Will Western leaders prefer an Islamic theocracy, or a stabilizing leader who can prevent another Iran?

Regretfully much of the Western World has been courting and coddling radical Egyptian Islamists for too many years. Many Western administrations have welcomed the Brotherhood’s Islamist associates such as CAIR, The Muslim American Society, the Islamic Society of North America, and radical, activist’s mosque even though some of them have supported Hamas.
chilipepper





Joined: 18 Feb 2007
Posts: 391
Reputation: 95.2Reputation: 95.2
votes: 1
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 9:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sometimes it's better the devil you know than the devil you don't know - except that we do know about the Brotherhood and it's aims for a Global Caliphate.
Edmund Onward James





Joined: 04 Jun 2009
Posts: 1317
Reputation: 55
votes: 2

PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 11:28 am    Post subject: "Cancer, Carter and Obama" by Michael Ledeen Reply with quote

A few years ago I read "The War Against the Terror Masters: Why It Happened. Where We Are Now. How We'll Win." by Michael Ledeen. He has read some of my weblog pieces and has responded to emails. Recently I made a comment on one of his pieces, which he said was thoughtful and appreciated it... he gets quite a few nasty comments... from guess who...

Dear Michael...

A leftist emailed me a comment for my weblog and called me a F------g Fascist, because I did not appreciate the revolution for freedom and democracy and question the Middle East revolts.

Onward

Following is my comment on your piece "Egypt: Revolution? By Whom? For What?"

Iran could have been a form of democracy. But Jimmy Carter was a peanut-brain. However, the anointed,teleprompter orator, Barack Hussein Obama is worse than Carter in so many ways and issues. And Obama’s speech in Cairo is an example of his limited knowledge, his phoniness and preference.

“I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning, and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt’s advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I am grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. I am also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: assalaamu alaykum.”

“As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar University — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.”


Transcript of Barack Obama’s speech at Cairo University
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/.....ch004.html

Al-Azhar is a forked tongue university, I have read. Plus the Muslims took many of the above inventions and ideas from India and China and few other countries.

Cancer, Carter and Obama - Michael Ledeen

There are some eery similarities between Egypt 2011 and Iran 1979, and some of them are unfortunately about American leadership. There are some big differences, too, but for the moment let’s just look at some parallels and try to draw some necessarily tentative conclusions. After all, everything is up for grabs right now and things will probably change a lot in the next few hours and days.

First of all is prostate cancer. The shah was dying of it and Mubarak is afflicted with it. We know Mubarak’s got it. We didn’t know the shah had it. One of the effects of the disease and its treatment seems to be that the person has difficulty making tough decisions, and it inevitably forces him to think about his legacy. The shah didn’t want to go down as a bloody dictator, and he rejected all appeals from his generals to open fire on the demonstrators. This encouraged the opposition and discouraged the military commanders.

Second is the role of Washington. Carter did not know what to do, and he was operating on the basis of very bad intelligence. Above all, he (thanks to his CIA) had very little good information about Khomeini. He and advisers like Secretary of State Cyrus Vance and Iran desk officer Henry Precht and NSC staffer Gary Sick all permitted themselves to believe that we could continue to have very good relations with Iran even if the shah were overthrown. They failed to see the nature and extent of the Khomeini movement, saw it as a “progressive revolution,” and UN Ambassador Andrew Young famously called the ayatollah a holy man, and even “some kind of saint.”

I don’t know the quality of our intelligence on the Egyptian opposition, but if former Ambassador Martin Indyk is correct (and all I’ve got to go on is a Tweet saying he said it on BBC Arabic), the White House and State Department may be signaling approval of Mohammed al-Baradei. According to Al Jazeera — a very unreliable source to put it mildly — Obama has told leaders in the Gulf that the United States favors a “peaceful transition” to greater democracy.

Well, so do I. But Baradei is one of the last men I would choose for that role. He doesn’t like America and he’s in cahoots with Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood. He would be likely to try to replay the ghastly catastrophe of 1979. Bad for freedom, bad for the Egyptian people, bad for America. Does our intelligence community not know this? And if they do, why is Obama tilting towards this outcome? If he is, that is…

In 1979 we came down hard on the shah to show restraint towards the demonstrators, just as we are today with Mubarak. I understand that no American government, let alone an Obama government, can openly say to Mubarak: “What are you waiting for? Put it down!” I don’t know what we’re saying privately. Gates has apparently spoken to his counterparts in Cairo and Jerusalem. What did they say? I don’t know, obviously, but that conversation would go a long way to clarify the real facts. I’ll bet you that there was some sort of deadline to Mubarak: if you can’t establish control within x days, we will have to work with the opposition. That would be normal and sensible.

The greatest American sin in 1979 was to confuse the shah. He didn’t know what we wanted. From the State Department he heard calls for sweet reasonableness, entreaties not to use live ammunition against the mobs, and so forth. From Brzezinski he heard pleas to be strong. Maybe even to crack down violently. The shah didn’t know who to believe. Then it got worse. We sent a General Huyser to Tehran with two sets of instructions: a) to support a military coup and b) to prevent a military coup. So the shah and the generals stood by and watched, and Khomeini’s multitudes, who knew exactly what they wanted, fought all-out and won.

It follows that Mubarak has to know exactly what we want. Do we know what we want? My impression is that we are confused, just as in 1979. Obama’s statement the other day (yesterday if I remember rightly) was not encouraging. “The future of Egypt will be determined by the Egyptian people” and we will support them. What does that mean? There’s a fight going on, and we have to take sides. I think Mubarak is entitled to wonder just what we want, and that’s dangerous, because it means that his decisions will be driven at least in part by guesswork and suspicion.

As I’ve said, that we have come to this impasse shows a long-standing policy failure, just as it did in Iran in 1979. We should have supported democratic opposition forces all along (footnote: it’s quite amusing to hear former officials proclaiming “we can’t support dictatorship” when they did precisely that when they were in office. Including some, like C. Rice, who promised to support democrats and then didn’t.). But we didn’t, the London Telegraph’s misleading headline writers [1] notwithstanding. Now we have no attractive options. Too bad.

So even if our intelligence is weak, we still have to make decisions, and the basic rule has to be the same as Hippocrates’ injunction to doctors: don’t make things worse. Don’t inflict an even worse tyranny on the Egyptian people, one that is likely to plunge the region into a big war. If that means working with the generals to create a transition government that promises to shape a more attractive polity, so be it. The lesser of two evils is a legitimate policy decision.

In fact, it’s the most common one. I’m sure Obama hates being in this position, as any of us would. But he’s got to make decisions. Clearly and emphatically. And stay on top of it, which is not at all his style or inclination.

And that’s the final similarity with 1979: the wrong American in the wrong job at a crucial time. Let’s hope that the Almighty truly does protect the blind, the drunk, and the United States of America.

It’s even better to be lucky than to be smart.

http://pajamasmedia.com/michae.....epage=true

"One person, one vote, one time."

The above supposedly means Islamists will overturn democratic institutions if they ever come to power.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7436
Reputation: 297.4
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 5:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

queenmandy85 wrote:
how long can Isreal expend the energy required to survive and how long will the Americans be willing to support them?


I find that many people seem to imply that Israel will need protection from its neighbors should a fanatical government find its way to power in Egypt.

I am of the mindset that its the other way around;
It seems every time Israel and its neighbors opt to fight each other Israel gets bigger.

If something to the effect of the October War or June war occurred, I have to wonder if the US or the UN has the influence to hold back Israel?
Pissedoff





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 474
Reputation: 145.6
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 10:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is Jordan next?

King's prime minister choice steams Jordanian opposition

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WO.....google_cnn
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2

Goto page 1, 2  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Is Egypt the domino effect? Are Islamists waiting?

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB