This kid is fantastic. More reason to quit supporting only the military aspects of these countries for our own means, the people know what they want they will just have to work it out for themselves. We have nothing to teach them or offer them except for military might and that is not the answer. If there were a sure way to get humanitarian and social aid directly to the people then I am all for it, but that is not what we are doing and I am not even sure if it is possible. Our leaders our arrogant preaching democracy to these countries, they already know what Democracy is and they know we speak with forked tongue.
a future leader ...at 0:42 mark ...'kinda says it all ...interviewer asks ... " who thought you all this?" (caption) hmmm
This kid is fantastic. More reason to quit supporting only the military aspects of these countries for our own means, the people know what they want they will just have to work it out for themselves. We have nothing to teach them or offer them except for military might and that is not the answer. If there were a sure way to get humanitarian and social aid directly to the people then I am all for it, but that is not what we are doing and I am not even sure if it is possible. Our leaders our arrogant preaching democracy to these countries, they already know what Democracy is and they know we speak with forked tongue.
If I ever found myself in agreement with Glenn Beck it would give me pause, but I used him as an example of someone with bellicose opinions and weak understanding, Misreading current events isn't the problem, it's a symptom. Beck convinced himself of an obviously false view of the world (if indeed he actually believes what he says) by selecting the sources he paid attention to. Anything that didn't fit his predetermined view of how a foreign culture works was ignored.
Glenn Beck is a demagogue with axes to grind and an audience with prejudices to pander to. You aren't. If you want to understand how the world works you need to make that understanding a priority over having your prejudices validated.
If I agree with Beck (or anyone else for that matter) on something, it's only because he / they validates a personal prejudice ? Sorry, but I would have to respectfully disagree with that. That is similar to stating that because one votes for a certain candidate, the voter agrees with everything the candidate stands for.
Edit: personally speaking, I align myself most with those who share my views on securing our borders. That is my primary issue, which is no different from those who see other issues, such as abortion and women's rights as their sole determinent for supporting anyone politically. If we do not maintain our sovereignty, then all the laws on the books mean nothing, because there is no country to protect those rights so many cherish. Open borders destroy the rule of law and the rights we posess.
Yes, I see another way: treating the other countries of the world not as providers of what we want from them but as neighbors. If all we see when we look at the middle east is oil guarded by hostile savages then we'll deserve the enemies we'll make there.
We don't need a way out of the middle east, we need a way forward. That will require us seeing the people there much like us, with similar aspirations and needs, and not just the boogeymen you're so afraid of. Even if we could produce enough oil to let us ignore the rest of the world in our lifetimes that world would still be there, in all its real complexity, defying and confounding simplistic visions of it.
It's more work to actually try to understand another culture rather than treat it as if it conformed to our stereotypes, but it's worth it.
Good fences make for good neighbors in many instances. Not everyone can get along together peacefully. Some will never get along. The US (our leaders / government) need to get away from the position that we can solve everyone's problems. It is arrogant for us to believe that our way of governing is a one size fits all solution (not ignoring the fact that we have 50 different ways of governing under the umbrella of the USA), just as the Islamists fundamentalist's view Sharia as a one size fits all solution. Clearly, many Egyptians would agree with my take on Sharia.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with the US withdrawing its military presence from the Middle East and letting those who are dependent on their resources taking over the problems inherent with securing those resources. It would cause those dependent to rethink their positions. Take Lybia as an example. We had made our peace with Qadaffy and were getting along nicely with him. Yet those in Europe were having problems with him and his oil of which they were dependent. The EU was and is incapable of mounting the kind of military action needed to have their way. So they called up Obama and our military to do the heavy lifting. What did we have at stake there ? What were our national interests there ? None that I am aware of. Oh and we are still waiting for an explanation of what happened in Benghazi.
What Holiday have we just celebrated ? IIRC, it was the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Not the declaration of dependence. The Carter Doctrine was a declaration of dependence on the Middle East. Its time we got our butts out of there and let those who live there sort things out amongst themselves. How long did Yugoslavia last ? It was a forced merger of many divergent interests under the leadership of one dictator. It fell apart upon his death, leaving centuries old issues to manifest themselves all over again. It is foolish to believe that we or anyone else can impose a solution to the problems over there.
The Middle East has leverage on us. To truly become energy independent takes away that leverage. We can deal with them on our terms, not their terms if we still have any needs there. Other than oil, I see no needs there. Once we have achieved independence from Middle Eastern oil, we can begin looking at them like neighbors, but not until then. As it is, we now only get about 10% of our oil from the Middle East. Why should we be the ones who primarily bear the burden of blood and treasure when we get so little of our resources from there ? Let those most dependent bear the tremendous burden.
Let's face it. The Middle Eastern countries need to be able to sell their oil just as much as those dependent need to buy it. The problems will resolve themselves, given the chance, without US involvement. Maybe, just maybe, it would make it a better place for all if they solved their own problems, their own way.
My views on the Middle East were formed before I became aware of Beck's quite frankly. Yes, I do agree with Beck on some things, but hardly all things. Is there something wrong with agreeing with Beck on some things ? My perceptions are in flux, as they always are. Nothing is carved in stone when it comes to politics. Again, my current views on foreign policy most closely resemble Ron Paul's and vis a vis to Rand Paul's. And the ones protesting Morsi have basically opposed his presidency from day one. That aspect has not changed.
If I ever found myself in agreement with Glenn Beck it would give me pause, but I used him as an example of someone with bellicose opinions and weak understanding, Misreading current events isn't the problem, it's a symptom. Beck convinced himself of an obviously false view of the world (if indeed he actually believes what he says) by selecting the sources he paid attention to. Anything that didn't fit his predetermined view of how a foreign culture works was ignored.
Glenn Beck is a demagogue with axes to grind and an audience with prejudices to pander to. You aren't. If you want to understand how the world works you need to make that understanding a priority over having your prejudices validated.
To hell with the Middle East and our interventionist / appeasement foreign policy. Yes intervention and appeasement are opposites, yet it is what we are doing. That is why we are doomed there as far as exercising our influence. Our CIC is trying to have it both ways. He wants to get in on the wrong side in Syria and arm our enemies. So do some Repubs for that matter.
The only way out of the Middle East right now is to drill for our own petroleum reserves. As long as efforts in developing our own resources are fought, we will have to maintain involvement in the Middle East. I want, yes I want, but only very few evidently, is to bring home our troops and secure our borders. And the only way to do that is to drill baby drill. Do you see another way ? Or are you more interested in continueing our current foreign policy and the administration's environmental policy which forces us to remain at war indefinitely ? I really don't know how you feel in regards to the questions I just posed, so do not take the questions as baiting. But they are worthy questions, none the less.
Yes, I see another way: treating the other countries of the world not as providers of what we want from them but as neighbors. If all we see when we look at the middle east is oil guarded by hostile savages then we'll deserve the enemies we'll make there.
We don't need a way out of the middle east, we need a way forward. That will require us seeing the people there much like us, with similar aspirations and needs, and not just the boogeymen you're so afraid of. Even if we could produce enough oil to let us ignore the rest of the world in our lifetimes that world would still be there, in all its real complexity, defying and confounding simplistic visions of it.
It's more work to actually try to understand another culture rather than treat it as if it conformed to our stereotypes, but it's worth it.
So...Morsi was fully in control of the military, period. That would be the military that ousted him after a popular uprising, right?
You seem to be able to read the minds of Egyptian voters and tell exactly why they supported a candidate, but unable to predict that they would withdraw that support despite the fact that they were in the streets being quite vocal about that.
Your record on predicting (or even understanding) the middle east of today is so profoundly flawed, so obviously wrong, that I'm hoping these events will cause you to ponder how it got that way, to reconsider the sources that lead you down that path. Your view of the middle east seems to show you that it is a seething mass of Islamist fervor, and nothing else. At least nothing else that matters. That's obviously not the case, isn't it?
This isn't just about you, and it isn't about Obama. It's about the Glen Beck view of another culture. That view led you very wrong in Egypt. I'm hoping you can re-examine that view to see if it's leading you wrong about Syria, about Turkey, about Iran, about the entire Islamic world.
But first you need to acknowledge the obvious.
My views on the Middle East were formed before I became aware of Beck's quite frankly. Yes, I do agree with Beck on some things, but hardly all things. Is there something wrong with agreeing with Beck on some things ? My perceptions are in flux, as they always are. Nothing is carved in stone when it comes to politics. Again, my current views on foreign policy most closely resemble Ron Paul's and vis a vis to Rand Paul's. And the ones protesting Morsi have basically opposed his presidency from day one. That aspect has not changed.
I keep going back to our experiences under Jefferson and the Pirates of the Barbary Coast. Fundamentally, little has changed since those days. What has changed though is my perception that the US is currently engaged in the same kind of European thinking of appeasement and outright paying cash bribes to the Islamist Pirates that caused Jefferson to break that cycle as it was going nowhere, making the Pirates even bolder. I'm not foolish enough to think that all Arabs are fundamental Islamists, just as I do not think that all fundamental Islamists are Arabs ot that all Muslims are Arabs. I lived through the Cold War as did you where during some of the crisis' it was stated repeatedly not to think that all Russian's believed in their Soviet government and that they were people living in just as much fear as we ordinary Americans were. The images of Khruschev were very hard to shake and not attach to all Russians. Yet we did, somehow.
I was indeed wrong about things reaching critical mass between Israel and Iran, just as I said I hoped would be the case. We now have a new President in Iran. Time to re-evaluate and adopt a wait and see approach. Syria ? We shouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole. Syria is Putin's problem. It is their next Afghanistan. They have a national security issue because it is their major warm water port. What national security issue do we face there ? None that I am aware of. Turkey ? I don't know that I have said much about it other than referring to the tradition of the military to remove a government that is trying to head away from a secular style of governence.
And overall, our Middle Eastern policy is again one of appeasement to radical Islamists. The lessons learned from our experience with the Barbary Pirates is that the fundamentalists only respect power. The weak are considered the Infidel as are others based upon their religious beliefs and practices. In my mind, we are at war with the fundamentalists, not the ordinary everyday Muslim. We are at war with those who wish to keep women down, with those who think that the inappropriate posting of an image of their profit is worthy of a death sentence, with those who wish to rule the world in accordance with Sharia, that is if we are really in a war in the first place.
To hell with the Middle East and our interventionist / appeasement foreign policy. Yes intervention and appeasement are opposites, yet it is what we are doing. That is why we are doomed there as far as exercising our influence. Our CIC is trying to have it both ways. He wants to get in on the wrong side in Syria and arm our enemies. So do some Repubs for that matter.
The only way out of the Middle East right now is to drill for our own petroleum reserves. As long as efforts in developing our own resources are fought, we will have to maintain involvement in the Middle East. I want, yes I want, but only very few evidently, is to bring home our troops and secure our borders. And the only way to do that is to drill baby drill. Do you see another way ? Or are you more interested in continueing our current foreign policy and the administration's environmental policy which forces us to remain at war indefinitely ? I really don't know how you feel in regards to the questions I just posed, so do not take the questions as baiting. But they are worthy questions, none the less.
it is complicated,and it appears we are in a damned- if-we-do, damned-if-we -don't posture. One certainly could argue that this is simply chickens coming home to roost after 40-plus years of a foreign policy based on providing financial assistance to "friendly" nations. Another conundrum for United States: Paramount principle of supporting democratic elections. What to do if what appears to be a democratic election produces a leader who harbors and implements anti-U.S. policies? I think we express opposition to those policies, but recognize the democratically elected government and try to work with it. Then what do you do if an uprising in the country leads to the military ousting the elected official and promising to hold decmocratic elections soon? A diffcult line to walk.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jul 6, 2013 - 9:26am
sirdroseph wrote:
Short term, exactly what we are doing. We have painted ourselves in a corner already with this one, we have no choice but to dangle the carrot to keep the military over there in tow because the alternative is possible theocracy. However to do so is to ignore our own law regarding military coups and aid so we will continue to be hypocritical and do whatever we want regardless to promote our interest. But then again, if the military was already forced by the people to reject the Brotherhood maybe it doesn't even matter. How bout give them nothing? I kinda like the sound of that. Specifically I do not have the answers, since I was not hired or elected by our government to be a foreign policy specialists, I do not have to nor should anyone expect I do. However, I do know that we need an overhaul of our aid program because we are doling out a whooollllle lot of moolah and are not even getting the desired returns not to mention the moral ambiguity and hypocrisy of the allocation that only feeds the fuel of hatred of the common people of these governments we have been perpetually meddling in. Or in other words, I agree with Gary Johnson:
President Obama says events in Egypt will prompt a review of U.S. aid to that country. I would suggest that a review of ALL foreign aid — especially in that region of the world — is in order. Where is the evidence that our efforts to "manage" international outcomes with borrowed and printed dollars are serving U.S. interests??
it is complicated,and it appears we are in a damned- if-we-do, damned-if-we -don't posture. One certainly could argue that this is simply chickens coming home to roost after 40-plus years of a foreign policy based on providing financial assistance to "friendly" nations. Another conundrum for United States: Paramount principle of supporting democratic elections. What to do if what appears to be a democratic election produces a leader who harbors and implements anti-U.S. policies? I think we express opposition to those policies, but recognize the democratically elected government and try to work with it. Then what do you do if an uprising in the country leads to the military ousting the elected official and promising to hold decmocratic elections soon? A diffcult line to walk.
What would you suggest be the U.S. policy in Egypt right now?
Short term, exactly what we are doing. We have painted ourselves in a corner already with this one, we have no choice but to dangle the carrot to keep the military over there in tow because the alternative is possible theocracy. However to do so is to ignore our own law regarding military coups and aid so we will continue to be hypocritical and do whatever we want regardless to promote our interest. But then again, if the military was already forced by the people to reject the Brotherhood maybe it doesn't even matter. How bout give them nothing? I kinda like the sound of that. Specifically I do not have the answers, since I was not hired or elected by our government to be a foreign policy specialists, I do not have to nor should anyone expect I do. However, I do know that we need an overhaul of our aid program because we are doling out a whooollllle lot of moolah and are not even getting the desired returns not to mention the moral ambiguity and hypocrisy of the allocation that only feeds the fuel of hatred of the common people of these governments we have been perpetually meddling in.
Or in other words, I agree with Gary Johnson:
President Obama says events in Egypt will prompt a review of U.S. aid to that country. I would suggest that a review of ALL foreign aid — especially in that region of the world — is in order. Where is the evidence that our efforts to "manage" international outcomes with borrowed and printed dollars are serving U.S. interests??
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jul 6, 2013 - 7:58am
sirdroseph wrote:
This is the game we are trying to play and the whole world can see right through it. We need a complete reevaluation of our relationships with all countries especially the ones that we give considerable aid to:
I stand by my remarks, which were correct. The Muslim Brotherhood is being restained by the military. No actions against other political factions in Egypt have taken place. So far, it appears to be a secular military intervention ala the Turkish military style removal of a loose cannon in office. Why would Morsi appoint someone he thought that he could not trust ?
You did question his loyalty IIRC, while I had no reason not to. I will still maintain that Morsi was elected only because he fronted the MB. Whoever fronted the MB would get the votes is my position, which is consistent with my remarks above.
I think that overall, I have correctly anticipated the Arab Spring, Obama's handling of it and the fallout. Obama blew the handling of Mubarek's ouster ... he's our guy and then he isn't and then he is and then he isn't. Morsi is our guy and now he isn't. Obama has succeeded in pissing off all the Egyptians towards the US. Now we are getting into when is a coup not a coup ?
I sure as hell think I could have done a better job than Obama. My real experience is the same as his going into office amd he has 4 years under his belt now and a slew of campaign donors experts running his show. Obama does trump me in that he has helped erect more basketball hoops on neighborhood playgrounds than I have. But that is what his specialty is as a community organizer ... And I would never have had a 9 / 11 truther (Van Jones) on my White House staff like he has either.
So...Morsi was fully in control of the military, period. That would be the military that ousted him after a popular uprising, right?
You seem to be able to read the minds of Egyptian voters and tell exactly why they supported a candidate, but unable to predict that they would withdraw that support despite the fact that they were in the streets being quite vocal about that.
Your record on predicting (or even understanding) the middle east of today is so profoundly flawed, so obviously wrong, that I'm hoping these events will cause you to ponder how it got that way, to reconsider the sources that lead you down that path. Your view of the middle east seems to show you that it is a seething mass of Islamist fervor, and nothing else. At least nothing else that matters. That's obviously not the case, isn't it?
This isn't just about you, and it isn't about Obama. It's about the Glen Beck view of another culture. That view led you very wrong in Egypt. I'm hoping you can re-examine that view to see if it's leading you wrong about Syria, about Turkey, about Iran, about the entire Islamic world.
Morsi now controls the military. The second thing he did was purge all the old generals and install new ones of whom he is sure of their loyalty. And we still sent the jets and the tanks to him after the fact. Forget about the cash for a minute. Remember the jets that are more advanced than the ones we sold Israel and another couple of hundred tanks ? And for what good reason ?
A political party elected Morsi. The voters only voted for the party candidate, not the man. That is the only western spin applicable to Egypt. Otherwise here it would be the like the congregation voting for the elders' pick. The congregation had no input. Egypt is firmly divided between Islamists and secularists. There is no in between. The Islamists, who are the Muslim Brotherhood, are in charge, period. They have no quarter or tolerance to those who are not. The Charter of the Muslim Brotherhood is quite specific.
Bump for kurtster and sirdroseph.
This is the last post I made regarding this subject, seems pretty spot on to me:
This proves that ultimately you were right about the Military siding with the will of the masses when they finally had to do something and I was spot on about EVERYTHING ELSE. The Brotherhood i.e. Morsi was in control of the government and wanted to eventually institute a full fledged theocracy. Fortunately SO MANY took to the streets and forced the military's hand to where they had to take sides to avoid violent quagmire. The good part of this is that this shows that there are enough Egyptian citizens who do not want to live in this theocracy to prevent it from happening at this time. We are still playing a dangerous game and imo incorrectly, I stand by that.
He sees the lack of pride the russians have these days and how the entire western world laughs at them. At least he's doing the wrong things for the right reason. Our feckless president wishes he was Putin. I say it again, Obama is a non-repentant tool.
I agree with you on that point. I bet when he is finally out of office, the bill for all his parties and vacations will total $1 Billion.
I am smoked right now for being led to Huff Post. It does frell my puter with the crap I mentioned.
Right now, the US is the focus of anger from the entire world. The executive branch of our government has finally managed to piss off everyone.
Frell David Brooks and Huff Post. Huff Post loads so many cookies, ads and bullpuckey registry changes into my computer it locks up while downloading an article. And to call Brooks a Repub is plain crazy.
I don't give a flying frell what Brooks has to say about anything. I watched him from the time he replaced Gergen on the Friday night exchanges with Mark Shields on the MacNeil / Lehrer News Hour and watched him turn during the 2004 elections. Anyone who cites political matters and calls Brooks a Repub is simply out of touch with reality. He is just the token Rino at the NYT.
Like I've said a few times lately, I agree more with Putin than Obama these days. Putin, now there is a real leader who knows what the frell he is doing.
He sees the lack of pride the russians have these days and how the entire western world laughs at them. At least he's doing the wrong things for the right reason. Our feckless president wishes he was Putin. I say it again, Obama is a non-repentant tool.
Frell David Brooks and Huff Post. Huff Post loads so many cookies, ads and bullpuckey registry changes into my computer it locks up while downloading an article. And to call Brooks a Repub is plain crazy.
I don't give a flying frell what Brooks has to say about anything. I watched him from the time he replaced Gergen on the Friday night exchanges with Mark Shields on the MacNeil / Lehrer News Hour and watched him turn during the 2004 elections. Anyone who cites political matters and calls Brooks a Repub is simply out of touch with reality. He is just the token Rino at the NYT.
Like I've said a few times lately, I agree more with Putin than Obama these days. Putin, now there is a real leader who knows what the frell he is doing.
The difference between careful thought and plain old ignorance. You know I don't take a party line, platform, or plank from either party. Screw all the stupid politicians. Except a couple that don't have a personal agenda. Having said that, I would still play "A Minute in Heaven" with Michelle Bachmann.
hmmm
