They are supporting the anti-Semite probably for similar reasons they are supporting the anti-Arab Knesset, they are mindless faceless bureaucrats who haven't got a clue.

Evidently...
Well they're doing it in my name (EU) and I protest. It's okay to trade with these nations and talk to them, but by giving them money we legitimize a government that has a vision quite contrary to our values.

'cause the dude has oil, redhouse...OOOOOIIIIIIIILLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!

Clearly that excuses everything.

(Although, lest I be too much of a hypocrite, I DID support the overthrow of Mubarek...I didn't want or hope for someone like Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood friends to slip in and rot the corpse even more, as it were, but I WAS happy when the previous owner left town...and comparatively, he kept the peace with Israel and the US, even if he wasn't at all working for his own people...damn our obligations in the Middle East, did we learn NOTHING from the British getting involved down there?! It's like Russia in the Winter--JUST DON'T GO!)

Hmm, looks like he does. Still, that's no excuse to give him money, only to buy his oil.

If we don't, he'll run crying to his Muslim Brotherhood people that we're imperialists and heathens and super-duper-meanies and Israel will face attack...and then we'll have another Middle Eastern war...

And that benefits no one, especially if the MB uses that to recruit more anti-US suicide bombers (Which they would.)



Sucks being a superpower...we have to pay people NOT to be barbaric prats.

We kind of need to make sure he doesn't attack Israel

@ Redhouse: "Well they're doing it in my name (EU) and I protest."

Are you protesting anywhere other than on here? I'm pretty sure most MEPs don't spend much time reading the WebDip forum...

Guys, Egypt is a net importer of oil...

Idealistically, it would be great to throw him out, but he's a fucktard that will throw his regime's survival away in the same way that we throw games here to get back at people if anyone tries to overthrow him.

And yeah, that oil thing too. We'd be much better off if we'd at least make some kind of effort to get away from it....

@redhouse,

Civilized persons abstain from use of the word 'islamist'.

Civilized people use the words that apply to the situation.

And goldfinger is correct, Egypt has no oil for us to care about.

As Obi said, we do have to pay off barbarians to keep them in line, just like in Roman times. But why we didn't support the barbarian we could rely on, Mubarak, is beyond me.

Egypt also has the Suez Canal ... big for us if we're going to keep pressure on Iran and the rest of the Persian Gulf.

"As Obi said, we do have to pay off barbarians to keep them in line, just like in Roman times. But why we didn't support the barbarian we could rely on, Mubarak, is beyond me."

People seem to forget that Mubarak was 83 when the revolution happened. Continuing to prop him up was untenable. I'd like to hear any serious suggestions on what we should have done differently.


Egypt will never go to war with Israel because one Israeli bombing raid would destroy the Aswan High Dam. The resulting flood would destroy the whole Nile River Valley. Perhaps there could be cooperation between Egypt and Hamas, but there will never be a state-on-state war initiated by Egypt against Israel.

Morsi's far from a good guy, but let's keep in mind that he barely won the run-off even against a former Mubarak PM and, even with his control of the military, is having a hard time imposing Brotherhood policies on the country. Also, while he's spouting unacceptable antisemitic rhetoric he is not moving troops to the Israeli border or doing anything seriously provocative like Nasser did. Our fear shouldn't be a Brotherhood dictatorship in Egypt, it should be unrest and possible civil war if the Brotherhood tries to impose it on an unwilling populace.

If only he'd send his army to Israel, then Israel could show him his place and we could all go back to business. Doing business with Egypt is important, encouraging democracy in Egypt is important, but giving this guy money is a seriously flawed plan.

@ Al

wut

"... DID support the overthrow of Mubarek...I didn't want or hope for someone like Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood friends to slip in and rot the corpse even more..."

...and therein lies the problem when fools like Obama run the government, backed by a populace that is equally naive. Who in the hell do you people THINK was going to take over when you overthrew a decades-long dictatorship in a region that is overrun with bad actors? God good, to sit around bitch about the asshole that filled in the power vacuum YOU created with no follow-up plan is tiring, offensive, yes hypocritical...

So, sense you acknowledge that the current AIP (asshole in power) is a worse choice than the previous AIP...can you people *finally* admit that fucking Obama isn't all he's cracked up to be, either? it was his "leading from behind" that allowed the situation to occur, is it not?

krellin, Mubarak was 83! What were we supposed to do?

Morsi is a Legitimate democraticly elected leader. There is no known better egyptian candidate.

Mubarak was 83...meaning what? Oh...leader is too old, let's overthrow him? that statement doesn't even make any sense.

What were we supposed to do? Well, *typically* is a government is going to sponsor the overthrow of another government (and we are quite skilled in this endeavor) you actually have someone in mind that will fill in that void. The CIA goes in and backs that individual, makes sure they have the money and the arms to support their leadership once you create the power vacuum that you will place them in.

But flying in with your bombers and eliminating a government without having a process in place to stabilize the country while "legitimate" elections are put in place makes the United States and Obama just as much of a vile actor as Mubarek.

"Legitimate" "Egyptian" election. Haaaa ha ha haha!!! That's hillarious...

@krellin: The leader being too old is not only important for the outside governments but even more so for his cronies. And here is what happened: Mubarak not only old, but also suffering cancer, strong objections to his regime even by its beneficiaries and his most important selectors (ie. the officer corps of the EGYPTIAN army) let him down. Since then, not much has changed, except that the army has substituted the urban middle class by the muslim brotherhood as their primary coalition partner, while continuing to extract resources from Egypt through their companies and from the US for not attacking Israel and keeping Suez open. Unfortunately, neither the CIA nor the American population are that powerful to do something about it.

"Mubarak was 83...meaning what? Oh...leader is too old, let's overthrow him? that statement doesn't even make any sense."

Meaning there's little to gain from propping up an octogenarian dictator when there are mass protests in the streets demanding his overthrow. Especially when the protesters are secular, educated city dwellers, as they were in Tahrir Square. Even if we were in any position to keep the guy in power, doing so buys us, what, a few years? Then the whole thing plays out again.

"What were we supposed to do? Well, *typically* is a government is going to sponsor the overthrow of another government (and we are quite skilled in this endeavor) you actually have someone in mind that will fill in that void. The CIA goes in and backs that individual, makes sure they have the money and the arms to support their leadership once you create the power vacuum that you will place them in."

The Egyptian people got rid of Mubarak, not a group of policy-makers in Washington. Where does this idea of American omnipotence come from? Everythign everywhere is our doing? Mubarak left, the army took over, the Brotherhood won democratic elections. If the United States made an error, it was in not pressuring the post-Mubarak generals to hold on to power longer, not in keeping Mubarak himself in charge. And that's assuming we had any say in the matter, which we almost certainly did not.

""Legitimate" "Egyptian" election. Haaaa ha ha haha!!! That's hillarious..."

The elections were legitimate. Not terribly fair, since the secular groups didn't have enough time to organize enough to compete effectively, but they were democratic elections which expressed the will of the Egyptian people.

We can't condemn democracy just because it doesn't always go our way. After the dismal performance of the Brotherhood and Salafi parties Nasserists and other secular parties will win the upcoming elections.

You morons scare the hell out of me...

Guy is too old and/or sick...so let's kill him and put him out of power.

You do realize that if he was old/sick he would have "left" power on his own, and the process of his replacement would have proceeded much like it did anyway...with violence and death, right? So why did we have to get involved anyway? Actually, it wouldn't have. Because in eliminating him in a violent fashion, we destabilized the region even further, allowing negative violent organizations that hate the west to move in and decry the murderous westerners that illegitimately inserted themselves in to an Arab concern. THIS is why the radical Islamists hate the west in the first place - because we can't keep to ourselves. Only in this case, we just came in, blew shit up, and left...didn't come in to help rebuild what we helped destroy, no forces on the ground to help keep peace while a new government established itself, which is what any moral nation would do -- no, instead we just stepped in without being asked, blew shit up, helped overthrow a government, and then went away to let *whoever* wanted to to fill in the void.


What the fuck is wrong with you people that you think this was someone good behavior by the west?

If we had been acting in a *legitimate* way, we would have put ourselves in harms way, not just dropped bombs. We would have been on the ground, helping keep the peace, helping to rebuild, offering aide to those in need of aide. We would have had advisors from across the globe coming in to assist in setting up elections, helping establish a legimate government that could function in coopration with the world - a government that actually respected the rights of people of any race, gender or creed...

The hilarious thing is that if a Republican had done the same, you left-wing pukes would be vilifying the behavior...not defending it. At least Bush helped rebuild Iraq after he overthrew the government to secure his oil.

"The elections were legitimate. Not terribly fair, since the secular groups didn't have enough time to organize enough to compete effectively, but they were democratic elections which expressed the will of the Egyptian people.

Thank you for MAKING MY POINT. it isn't a legitimate election IF NOT EVERYONE PARTICIPATING CAN FULLY PARTICIPATE. Good god, what the fuck is wrong with you?

If you think we dropped bombs on Egypt you are so uninformed on the issue that it's not worth discussing it with you.

@ Krellin: "...dropped bombs..."

Who are you, Ann Coulter? Please provide evidence that the US has conducted any aerial bombardment of Egypt recently.

Hey, Krellin.

Okay, fess up. Who is the person on this forum that +1s all of krellin's posts, even the dumbshit ones?

Who said we bombed Egypt recently...i didn't. But how the fuck do you think the previous government was overthrown, moron? Or "leading from behind" was "let's drop bombs on Egyptians..."

Moron...

Apart from that - how's the health, Jamie? Hope things are gettin' better for you.

MY BAD -- I have been thinking Libya, not Egypt. *I admit* my mistake.

Ok - no worries. And thanks for asking - my health is, well, ok. Back into hospital in about 10 days for more surgery, but of the planned variety this time. Won't be fun, but I have a lovely girl in my life right now who will give me a lot of support, and other friends around me too. Hoping for better things as this year progresses.

Maybe an apology for calling me a moron when you were obviously wrong?

The irony is that Libya actually has a secular government now that is arguably doing the best out of all the post-Arab Spring regimes. The government's writ doesn't extend to the whole country yet, but Prime Minister Ali Zeidan is almost a caricature of what the United States would want in a democratically elected Arab leader. I opposed the intervention in Libya, but it's stupid to say that the situation today is worse than the situation would be if Qaddafi had been triumphant in the civil war.

Invictus - I apologize for being completely wrong and calling you a moron.

See, I can be reasonable and polite on rare occasion.

Screenshotted. http://puu.sh/20Gkd

You're a cool guy krellin.. it's showing recently ;)