Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
EDIT--the security police are hated by the Egyptian people, and they were the ones firing on them with rubber bullets and tear gas. The military stepped in and the police disappeared. The military is supporting a peaceful transition with the government there, and it looks like at this point, democratic elections. The most dangerous thing that could happen would be a total vacuum in leadership--that's how crazy dictators rise up quickly into power. If they want democratic elections, there has to be some structure there left in the government to make it happen.
I don't get it. How does this article in ny times in any way refute my point?
I edited my post above. Again, the security police are the bad guys. The military has stepped in to protect the people from the security police, and it looks like they're a structure that exists that could make democratic elections even possible. If Egypt falls into anarchy with no leadership, that's how you have a political takeover without elections...
Jubilant pro-democracy demonstrators and gun-toting soldiers rode together atop tanks into this capital city's main square Saturday in an extraordinary show of solidarity, even as President Hosni Mubarak took steps to engineer a possible transfer of power to one of his closest confidants.
Seems to me the protesters and the military have an amiable relationship, otherwise they wouldn't be riding together on top of tanks "jubilantly", no?
That's why I think the best thing we have going for us is that the Egyptian military is popular with the people, friendly to us, and as another poster said, able to keep the country stable in the event that they move toward democratic elections.
I think we also need to keep in mind the OP article which framed this whole discussion to begin with. That if the US doesn't act and intervene, the results may be another event like Jimmy Carter "losing Iran".
Point being, we have an ally working overtime to try and convince America that if we don't act, catastrophic outcomes will ensue. What many are failing to realize here is that an ally is pro-actively trying to guide US foreign policy and public opinion for its best interest, the very thing most people here are saying we shouldn't be doing in regards to Egypt.
Amid rather bi-partisan support for the US to remain neutral, at least until the dust settles, it is quite evident that there are those who wish to associate Obama with one of the worst foreign policy disasters in US history preemptively.
Seems to me the protesters and the military have an amiable relationship, otherwise they wouldn't be riding together on top of tanks "jubilantly", no?
Yes, many Egyptian soldiers are on the side of the protesters. But it doesn't include "the military" as in the overriding sense of taking control. That military is no friend of a common Egyptian.
Military takeover? You find that to be "the best outcome"? I don't know how else to put it but you are a moron for saying that. Are you from Egypt or know anyone there? You don't know what you are talking about.
I guess that you can't read. I qualified that statement by saying "leading to elections". The biggest threat to the Egyptian people and their friends and allies is chaos. The military is a respected institution in the country and I think it would be in everyones interests for them to take over as a "caretaker government". to end the crisis and set the country on the path to stability and freedom. This ploy has been used many times the world over and is sometimes sucessful and sometimes not. Because of the close relationship between the USA and Egypt I could almost guarantee that it would be sucessful in this crisis.
The USA has learned a lot over the past 40 years or so and a situation like we saw when the USA supported Pinochet in Chile would not happen today. The USA has supported many coups and gained the needed experience in managing the generals.
Is Egypt the 51st state? How can we lose a country we don't even own? If anyone loses Egypt, it'll be Hosni Mubarak.
Exactly the entire premise is bull******t. We should NOT be meddling in the internal affairs of Egypt.
The entire line of thinking that the United States could somehow "Lose" another country is indicative of the neo-conservative mentality that got us into Iraq.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If anyone loses Egypt, it'll be Hosni Mubarak.
