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.
You think he dropped down from the sky in 1981?? Really??
5 years as VP and in the air force prior, his road to power was very well calculated. You can find his biography on Amazon Could make some useful reading.
There has long been speculation in Egypt about whether Mubarak had nything to do with Sadat's assassination, particularly because Sadat was talking about sacking Mubarak as VP.
You think he dropped down from the sky in 1981?? Really??
5 years as VP and in the air force prior, his road to power was very well calculated. You can find his biography on Amazon Could make some useful reading.
Sorry if I pointed out your poorly constructed timeline.
Just to summarise,Mubarak was needed because Egypt was defeated in a war seven years prior to his taking power(after offing Sadat) and also after the signing of a peace treaty with Israel....
I guarantee you, you'll appreciate Mubarak after a couple years, after Egypt had disintegrated like so called bogus democracies like Pakistan, Afghanistan and all the 'ans
They are all bogus democracies in the Middle East...
Some will pay for the fakery, most will go merrily along as they always have. I'd think we'd more appreciate people in the State Department experienced in diplomacy than Mubarak.
how could i appreciate who unlawfully killed and tortured thousands of his people ?
how could i ignore these war crimes just because there's a moderate muslim movement that won't get more than 25-30% in any elections (people used to"elect" them just because they did not want to elect the government).
we cant be that hypocritical, we can't.
Free Egypt, for a more moderate, democratic and liberal egypt.
Every military dictator has skeletons in his cupboard, pew. It's their way of life.
However, democracy is very overrated. Mubarak is one man. Democracy is like 300 Mubaraks inside a dome. It's actually worse, LOL. You can protest again one guy, he just steps down.
If you protest against 300, there will be tear gas and martial law, or as they say very conveniently, curfew
There has long been speculation in Egypt about whether Mubarak had nything to do with Sadat's assassination, particularly because Sadat was talking about sacking Mubarak as VP.
Wow,that would be shocking....
It would also be equally shocking if the person who seized power then blamed a political/religious movement that were his opposition.....
I am SURE Mubarak was quite saddened by the killing of Sadat,afterall he was forced to take control and run Egypt for the next 30 years.
Sorry if I pointed out your poorly constructed timeline.
Just to summarise,Mubarak was needed because Egypt was defeated in a war seven years prior to his taking power(after offing Sadat) and also after the signing of a peace treaty with Israel....
Why is that people get all worked up when asked to read up on some history
Which is it obama - an "orderly" transition or leave now?
Egypt official: White House demands contradictory - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110202/ap_on_re_us/us_us_egypt_cairo_view - broken link)
He is absolutely floundering.
Quote:
WASHINGTON – An Egyptian official says his government believes that White House demands for President Hosni Mubarak to step down immediately are in "clear contradiction" with Obama administration calls for an orderly transition to a new government.
It's actually fairly simple, as long as the denial of basic rights, repression and despotism are used by our friends, to further our less than savory national interest, it is good. If fighting for basic rights, against repression, and despotism that may interfere with out interest it is bad, because you see, we have absolutely no dedication to the democratic principles or "natural rights" that we espouse unless of course they are useful to our interest. Of course, most of the world has long recognized this contradiction, which is why they tend to avoid "western democracy" when ever possible.
Something else that might help with your understanding. If the administration had followed their lead, something that Jimmy Carter unfortunately found himself incapable of doing, he would be blamed for siding with a tyrant against the democratic aspirations of the Egyptian people. Of course when the tyrant is deposed as they usually are, the president would be blamed for currying disfavor amongst the Egyptian people. Of course if the president had originally sided with the those democratic aspirations, the president would have then accused by the same coterie of critics, he would be accused of betraying one of our loyal lapdogs. And, everyone knows the sort of approbation reserve for dog abusers, no matter how many humans such dogs hurt or kill.
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.
Could make some useful reading.
