Egyptian riots, thread 2

[S John]

And also an individual who believes what he espouses even if the out come isn't fully favorable. We preach democracy, right? Hell, we invaded a country to bring democracy to it's people, something which like 65% of Americans supported at the time. So, let's put our money where our mouths are and announce that the USA supports the rights of the people, and that we will do our best to work with any new government that comes out of this.

Well I think the real reason was to get the WMD's, and 'bringing democracy' became what the war was about only after we didn't find anything.

But seriously, its a point of interest to me. The US is constantly chided for interfering with the affairs of other countries... that is until it is in that person or country's interest for us to do so. The US is held to an impossible standard. The US cannot possibly be what everyone wants it to be, there are too many conflicting ideas about what exactly it is that America should be doing - in anything. Americans themselves can't even agree on it. That is why I am slowly but surely re-orienting my political compass back to the land of non-intervention beyond protection of our own borders... like, ever.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Coco, do you ever care about American interests, as an American, at all? Even 1%? Or do you 100% not care?

I thought that was pretty clearly what I asked.

Please explain what "American interests" actually are with regards to Egypt.

[Fez]

I think I'm beginning to repeat myself, here. So I'll say it one more time: I care more about human rights than I do about American interests.

And that's fine. I have not once said anything negative about your viewpoints. However its not in your job description to promote and protect American interests, it will be/is in mine. I'd be a pretty bad policy analyst (unless of course I was a non-American working for a non-American gov't/org.) if I wasn't recommending the policy most beneficial to America (luckily my focus is domestic regulatory policy so unless my career path takes an unexpected turn I won't have to grapple with human rights issues or in fact foreign countries whatsoever except in terms of effects on economic competition).

ETA:

Please explain what "American interests" actually are with regards to Egypt.

Well mostly it is small potatoes, I don't know how much we trade with them but I doubt its worth more than a couple billion a year or so. They could try to close the Suez Canal to us of course, and that would be an issue. The main problem is Israel. It is in our interest in be allies with Israel, but not the way we currently are. We should be attaching all sorts of fun strings to the money and international support we give Israel in order to get them to start being reasonable in their peace talks 'cause peace is in everyone's interest. But we're not, and the facts on the ground need to be recognized. We are close allies with Israel, and with all our troops in the middle east, we could easily be drawn/pressured into any war that Israel did not start. That would not be good.

You can argue that we shouldn't be such close allies and that we shouldn't have troops over there that could be drawn into a conflict. I wouldn't disagree with that. But we are, and there are.

[Yagathai]

Yags,

Is this a trick question? I'll take door number 3, and hopefully there won't be any goats there.

ETA: How the hell did this thread turn into my 60 minutes interview?

When you decided to post in it about a billionty five times. And more particularly, in the case of my question, when half of those posts were you espousing the opinion that you value Egypt's rights to tear itself apart over American national interests.

[Relic]

ETA: How the hell did this thread turn into my 60 minutes interview?

You let it by engaging is stupid shit instead of focusing on the issue on hand. Everyone knows you're an american hating commie anyway.

John,

I'm not saying we should interfere physically (for a change) but it would be nice to extend full verbal support to the masses of people who are clamoring for change. Without being all slimy and political about it.

And yes, i know it's naive of me to want that from something as insidious as American politicians.

[Samalander]

It's interesting to note that Israel is so scared shitless of a possible democracy in Egypt that they allow Mubarak to break elements of the Camp David Accord.

FYI, Israeli parliament chair is now checking if it's even legal for our PM to agree to that without a parliamentary vote.

That's your interpetation. They are scared shitless of an alternative to Mubarak, not nesseceraly democracy. Remember, no one is guaranteeing (to say the least), that democracy will come out of this.

Obviously, :agree:

God forbid they approach this with at least an semblance of positivity. At least publicly. Haha much like the U.S. politicians i mocked earlier (yes i expect very little from my representatives and even less from Israeli politicians).

Yeah, well, whatever you else you may think about it, I think it's pretty clear by now, and from various Wiki-Leaks (at least, you know, from what they released thus far), that we have one of the least hypocritical regimes on the planet. We say what we mean and we mean what we say.

Thank God I didn't vote for the prick, then. I might actually be... disappointed. :laugh:

Ok, on with the interview...

Now, I really must know, Did you vote? who did you vote for?

[Inigima]

And also an individual who believes what he espouses even if the out come isn't fully favorable. We preach democracy, right? Hell, we invaded a country to bring democracy to it's people, something which like 65% of Americans supported at the time. So, let's put our money where our mouths are and announce that the USA supports the rights of the people, and that we will do our best to work with any new government that comes out of this.

Most of us here said that was a pretty fucking dumb move. Including you, I think.

[S John]

Hahaha, now THAT is the real question, isn't it?

Well I think its pretty clear that we're worried about an Egypt hostile to Israel

I'm not saying we should interfere physically (for a change) but it would be nice to extend full verbal support to the masses of people who are clamoring for change. Without being all slimy and political about it.

And yes, i know it's naive of me to want that from something as insidious as the American political system.

Yea I understand you're not asking for forceful intervention. I actually totally get the point that you and Coco are making, I'm only saying that from a practical standpoint, I agree with those who think its better to clam up.

Because there is a real possibility that when this blows over Mubarak is still the man we have to work with in Egypt. Or that whoever comes out on top is not receptive to the US and/or Israel. Politically those would both be bad things for the US if we went all in supporting the protesters, even if those outcomes did express the will of Egyptians

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

What the fuck have I been saying in here for pages and pages? :laugh: If Egypt elects the Muslim Brotherhood and they declare war on the United States, guess what? It probably has something to do with us supporting a monster for entire generations of a people's history, and therefore, tough shit, sensei. How many different ways do you want me to say it?

Isn't it the fault of the radicals for Mubarak being in office in the first place?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Please explain what "American interests" actually are with regards to Egypt.

That Egypt not threaten or attack other nations. I mean, isn't that it?

[Inigima]

Yags,

Is this a trick question? I'll take door number 3, and hopefully there won't be any goats there.

ETA: How the hell did this thread turn into my 60 minutes interview?

You did it, by posting a lot of things you couldn't back up, and then dodging virtually every straight question, forcing us to play 20 questions to pin down what you actually believe.

[Shryke]

And also an individual who believes what he espouses even if the out come isn't fully favorable. We preach democracy, right? Hell, we invaded a country to bring democracy to it's people, something which like 65% of Americans supported at the time. So, let's put our money where our mouths are and announce that the USA supports the rights of the people, and that we will do our best to work with any new government that comes out of this.

That's basically what they've said though.

They've handled this the same as they did the Iran situation. Which I don't remember anyone complaining about. Stay out of it, make comments about supporting the right of the people to determine their government.

[Inigima]

Geopolitically, I'd say we're also very worried about the Suez. Not much changes, does it?

what does this mean and what does it have to do with s john's post

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Well I think its pretty clear that we're worried about an Egypt hostile to Israel

Israel is not America (although if you ask certain congresscritters, or any presidential candidate in an election year...)

That Egypt not threaten or attack other nations. I mean, isn't that it?

Nations threaten and attack each other all the time around the world and it doesn't seem to interfere with "American interests". So that can't be it.

[Guest Raids]

Pardon me Raidne, but is it possible to know what America's best interests actual are as opposed to defining what the the American government thinks its best interests are at any particular moment in time?

Lummel, I think it runs all the way from perfectly clear (e.g. the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor) to totally murky (e.g. Afghanistan). IMO, the degree to which one would consider taking any action predicated on pursuing a particular interest is lessened to the extent that we are unsure that the action actually leads to the pursuant of that interest and/or to the extent that we are sure that interest is legitimate.

And all of those questions should be answered by every individual themselves.

For my part, I think supporting a dictator is nearly always a bad move politically, particularly when you're the United States and a lot of your authority is premised on your supposed commitment to democracy. But unlike Coco, I won't say it's never worked - the Medici, Napoleon - these are controversial people. Or, for succesful puppet dictator, we have Herod of Judea.

But, I would also 100% agree with Coco that we have nobody but ourselves to blame for the way the United States is viewed in the region. That's what happens when you screw around with a region that you have no business trying to control for half a century.

[Relic]

Because there is a real possibility that when this blows over Mubarak is still the man we have to work with in Egypt. Or that whoever comes out on top is not receptive to the US and/or Israel. Politically those would both be bad things for the US if we went all in supporting the protesters, even if those outcomes did express the will of Egyptians

Yeah, i get that.

Personally, i look at what's going on and im proud of those people. Good for them. They have been getting shitted on for decades and they are finally doing something about it. That, to me, is far more important than any "american agenda" in the region.

[Fez]

Geopolitically, I'd say we're also very worried about the Suez. Not much changes, does it?

To misquote Fallout (and possibly demonstrate irony) "Geopolitics. Geopolitics never changes."

The military vows not to stop the million man march tomorrow:

Interesting. Though still, the real test is the Thursday deadline that the New York Times reported that protesters set for the military to side with it and that staying neutral would be seen as supporting Mubarak.

[Relic]

That's basically what they've said though.

They've handled this the same as they did the Iran situation. Which I don't remember anyone complaining about. Stay out of it, make comments about supporting the right of the people to determine their government.

It it? I mean maybe im reading the wrong quotes but we sound awful wishy washy about it. Like the US is saying ALL the safe shit there is to say.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Errr, Mubarak invoked the emergency rule and took over the country, from what I recall.

From what I recall, Mubarak was the vice-President who only became President after radicals murdered his predecessor. And I don't recall his predecessor having been a U.S. puppet. So the idea that the radicals are simply the product of the U.S. propping up a dictatorial regime seems to have at least one pretty big hole in it, because the radicals came before Mubarak.

Right?

It it? I mean maybe im reading the wrong quotes but we sound awful wishy washy about it. Like the US is saying ALL the safe shit there is to say.

I think that's giving us creidt for more consistency than we deserve.

[Relic]

You did it, by posting a lot of things you couldn't back up, and then dodging virtually every straight question, forcing us to play 20 questions to pin down what you actually believe.

yeah, he totally forced you to post.