/* */

PDA

View Full Version : U.S is responsible for Egypt´s election joke



sister herb
12-01-2010, 04:58 AM
[ 01/12/2010 - 12:12 AM ]
By Khalid Amayreh


There is no doubt that the United States is at least morally responsible for the scandalous election joke which took place in Egypt on 28 November. The brazen falsification of the Egyptian people's will would not have occurred had it been for America's unethical embrace of Mubarak's regime.

With a turnout not exceeding 10-15% of eligible voters, the elections have been described as "brashly fraudulent" and "probably the most fraudulent in Egypt's history."

The elections were marred not by a small number of irregularities. On the contrary, the regime has employed every conceivable illegal, even criminal, method to intimidate and scare away voters suspected of intending to vote for the opposition, especially the Muslim brotherhood.

According to independent sources the regime resorted to widespread fraud, barring independent monitors from polling stations, ballot-box stuffing and vote buying to ensure victory for pro-regime candidates.

In some areas, government candidates were seen passing cash and food to voters near polling stations.

Moreover, the voting on Sunday saw more than sporadic violence. Pro-regime baltagiya or gangs of intimidating young men were seen hanging around polling stations to scare off brotherhood supporters. One woman was quoted by the Associated Press as saying that "people are scared to leave their homes. Everyone is afraid of the thugs."

Another Cairo man said "it would be an insult to language to call what is happening elections."

According to a coalition of local and international human rights observers, the elections "lacked any transparency and were marred by widespread fraud."

In addition to the atmosphere of fear and terror fostered by the security forces and the regime's civilian thugs, independent monitors from human right groups were barred entry. Some were arrested.

One human rights monitor, who had obtained accreditation from the election commission, was quoted as saying that "the security is running the show.

In fact, one could go on and on and one, describing the dirty game of raping the collective will of 80 million Egyptians who tried but failed to restore their dignity and freedom, usurped by an autocratic and corrupt regime.

In his landmark speech in Cairo on 4 June, 2009, President Obama undertook to repair the troubled relations between the United States and the Muslim world. He said "I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect."

The American president made numerous other remarks which promised good will toward Muslims in general. He also invoked the spirit of democracy, saying people everywhere should be able to have a say in how they are governed.

"But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere."

In truth, the Egyptian regime wouldn't have reached this level of depravity, corruption, tyranny and repression were it not for U.S. support, acquiescence and silence.

U.S. officials often claim they are encouraging despotic governments in the Arab world to initiate democratic reforms and respect human rights and civil liberties. However, everyone, including the repressive regimes themselves, knows well that the U.S. doesn't really mean it and that all the reluctant and half-hearted public statements about democracy and human rights in countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the rest of America's puppet regimes in the Arab-Muslim region are only meant to mislead and deceive the masses.

One actually wouldn't indulge in far-fetched prognostication if one presumed that the U.S. itself privately asks these repressive regimes not to take its human rights-related criticisms too seriously since these criticisms were meant only for propagandistic reasons.

In the final analysis, the U.S. has never ever demonstrated a real, absolute and consistent commitment to democracy and human rights anywhere in the world. This ugly portrait of America's moral duplicity is illustrated by the long standing relations between the big empire and a long list of tyrants, including filthy tyrants, around the world. The list is too long to confine to a few lines.

The American-funded and American-backed tyranny in Egypt is very much reminiscent to US backing of the Shah's regime in Iran prior to the Islamic revolution in 1978. The US gave the Shah all sorts of state-of-the-art weapons, hoping to maintain and perpetuate his grip on power. The notorious Savak was given a free rein to kill, torture, and rape Iranians while the regime made sure to suppress every gesture of public dissent.

Even as the Shah's regime was showing signs of morbidity and fatigue, President Carter continued to describe the shah's Iran as "an Island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world."

We know the rest of the story.

To be sure, today's Mubarak's Egypt is not exactly a carbon copy of the Shah- era Iran. But the similarities are striking. Today, in Egypt as was then in Iran, repression is rife, corruption is rampant, poverty is shocking, and political repression is prevalent.

There is so much frozen rage and too much police state. People are routinely arrested, mistreated and even tortured for merely expressing their thoughts. The regime itself is increasingly insecure and it often tries to make up for this insecurity by stepping up repression of political activism or anyone deemed a threat to the regime.

An in the midst of this lugubrious atmosphere, President Mubarak is in the process of grooming his son, Gamal, to succeed him as Egypt, mainly thanks to Mubarak's absolute autocracy, has effectively transformed into a republic in name but a kingdom in reality. It is a republic kingdom!

May God shield Egypt from the evils of its enemies, internal and external. Amen.

http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/en/d...GsVekcd13WA%3d
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
titus
12-01-2010, 03:01 PM
So what should America do?

I have the feeling that if America took a harsher stance then there would be people starting threads about America interfering with Muslim governments.
Reply

GuestFellow
12-01-2010, 04:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by titus
So what should America do?
I think America should do nothing. It does more harm than good in some cases. It should focus on helping its own citizens.
Reply

titus
12-01-2010, 04:36 PM
And by do nothing with Egypt you mean what exactly?

Stop giving aid? Stop trading?
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
sister herb
12-01-2010, 06:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by titus
And by do nothing with Egypt you mean what exactly?

Stop giving aid? Stop trading?
Stop supporting dictators, thats so simple.
Reply

سيف الله
12-01-2010, 07:35 PM
Salaam

Yes America is deeply invovled in Egyptian affairs on all levels. They are deeply afraid of a popular government coming to power that would act independently, the ultimate nightmare for US planners. . . ..

Just one example of US intereference, they pressurised the Eyptians to build an underground wall (on the border) to stop the people of Gaza getting food and supplies etc etc in. American engineers built it.
Reply

titus
12-02-2010, 02:33 AM
So you want the US to meddle in the internal affairs of Egypt by trying to change their government?

But I bet if the US actually did do something like that then Muslims around the world would be mad at the US for trying to manipulate a Muslim country. The truth is that no matter what the US does in this situation they will be considered the bad guys. Always nice to have a bogie man to blame everything on.
Reply

Beardo
12-02-2010, 02:51 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by titus
But I bet if the US actually did do something like that then Muslims around the world would be mad at the US for trying to manipulate a Muslim country.
The US had war with Iraq, no problem there from the Muslim World.

I agree, US might be interfering a bit too much with own falling economy, but we do help a lot of nations. Hence, we have a very leading role in the world.

I just pray our economy gets better.
Reply

Maryan0
12-02-2010, 03:05 AM
I suggest the U.S goes back to isolationism so they wont be accused of meddling and causing problems
(which they do) in the world.
Salam
Reply

titus
12-02-2010, 03:05 AM
The US had war with Iraq, no problem there from the Muslim World.
By Muslim world do you mean Muslims in general, or the governments of Muslim majority populations.

I was referring to the former in my post, not the latter. I think that, in general, many Muslims had a huge problem with the US war against Iraq.
Reply

titus
12-02-2010, 03:08 AM
I suggest the U.S goes back to isolationism so they wont be accused of meddling and causing problems
(which they do) in the world.
Sure, then tomorrow they will be criticized for being heartless *******s who won't help the poor countries of the world by giving aid.

Then the day after when do give aid they will be accused of trying to manipulate other countries or supporting the dictators of the countries they are giving help to.

Either way they will be criticized. That is something that cannot be helped when you are the most powerful and wealthiest country in the world. People will look at your actions and your inactions in a negative light.
Reply

Maryan0
12-02-2010, 03:22 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by titus
Sure, then tomorrow they will be criticized for being heartless *******s who won't help the poor countries of the world by giving aid.

Then the day after when do give aid they will be accused of trying to manipulate other countries or supporting the dictators of the countries they are giving help to.

Either way they will be criticized. That is something that cannot be helped when you are the most powerful and wealthiest country in the world. People will look at your actions and your inactions in a negative light.
You cant make everyone happy and I think you can help other nations without directly interfering in their internal affairs...America isn't all bad but the many wars and support of foreign despots has given america the reputation it has today and not just in the Muslim world.
Salam
Reply

GuestFellow
12-02-2010, 04:16 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by titus
Sure, then tomorrow they will be criticized for being heartless *******s who won't help the poor countries of the world by giving aid.
I highly doubt America helps other countries for a charitable purpose. I think there is a motive behind it. I also doubt America will be critiqued for not helping poor countries, its citizens come first.

Then the day after when do give aid they will be accused of trying to manipulate other countries or supporting the dictators of the countries they are giving help to.
America does have a history of supporting dictators and even setting them up, like the Shah of Iran. You cannot blame people around the world not to trust America. At times, it behaved like a tyrant...

Either way they will be criticized.
Then the US can ignore it. Isn't that what the US does at the moment?
Reply

titus
12-02-2010, 04:22 AM
I highly doubt America helps other countries for a charitable purpose. I think there is a motive behind it. I also doubt America will be critiqued for not helping poor countries, its citizens come first.
There is some truth to that, but to say that the US never helps out for charitable reasons, or that they are not a factor, would be wrong also.

America does have a history of supporting dictators and even setting them up, like the Shah of Iran. You cannot blame people around the world not to trust America. At times, it behaved like a tyrant...
No disagreement from me there.

Then the US can ignore it. Isn't that what the US does at the moment?
If you are talking about the government then yeah, pretty much.

That doesn't mean I can't find the irony in having people complain that the US interferes too much on the one hand, then turn around and say the US needs to do more on the other.
Reply

جوري
12-02-2010, 04:24 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by titus
then tomorrow they will be criticized for being heartless

that is a figment of your own imagination .. you should get your govt. to try it though for the sake of proving you correct!
Egypt's govt. is completely divorced from its citizens and its neighbors .. any 'aid' that comes goes directly to the presidential palace and cronies. Egyptians are much like the afghans and yemenis self-sufficient and reliant and extremely poor.. the govt. does very little for them.. When a ship of pilgrims capsizes the 'president' can't be bothered for he is watching a soccer game.. we are not even talking no aid, we are talking no honorable mention or half flag.. he actually makes them out to be the bad guy.. you can take the Egyptian govt. and your aid and shove em where the sun don't shine!

all the best
Reply

GuestFellow
12-02-2010, 04:39 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by titus
There is some truth to that, but to say that the US never helps out for charitable reasons, or that they are not a factor, would be wrong also.
It is fair to say that there are charitable groups and citizens in America that want to help other countries. But I think the government would have different motive and this does not apply to America only. It can include countries like Saudi Arabia, Britain, France and so on.

If you are talking about the government then yeah, pretty much.
Yes, I was referring to the government.

That doesn't mean I can't find the irony in having people complain that the US interferes too much on the one hand, then turn around and say the US needs to do more on the other.
I think the US has enough problems of its own and its citizens should come first. The only country that will have a problem with this is Israel, it gets the most aid and it is already a rich country.
Reply

titus
12-02-2010, 07:46 AM
The only country that will have a problem with this is Israel, it gets the most aid and it is already a rich country.
No, if the US stopped giving aid or became isolationist then there would be major ramifications around the world. Not to mention probably the end of the United Nations (the US pays for 22% of the UN's total funding), Nato, etc.
Reply

سيف الله
12-02-2010, 09:20 AM
Salaam

format_quote Originally Posted by Rashad
The US had war with Iraq, no problem there from the Muslim World.

I agree, US might be interfering a bit too much with own falling economy, but we do help a lot of nations. Hence, we have a very leading role in the world.

I just pray our economy gets better.
The idea the US 'helps' nations is questionable given its historical record. Check out

http://www.islamicboard.com/world-af...lection-3.html post #41

if you want more details.

format_quote Originally Posted by titus
No, if the US stopped giving aid or became isolationist then there would be major ramifications around the world. Not to mention probably the end of the United Nations (the US pays for 22% of the UN's total funding), Nato, etc.
Nobodys asking for the US to be 'isolationist' (though judging by its record might not be a bad idea) just stop acting like a Mafia don. Stop interfering and let the populations of whichever countries make their own choices and run their governments according to their own needs and interests.

For instance the US/Israel - Palestine conflict - they dont have to do anything that would break the bank. Instead of blocking the a resolution to the conflict why not join the international consensus and work with everybody else to see a resolution to the conflict. its really that straightforward.
Reply

جوري
12-02-2010, 12:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by titus
No, if the US stopped giving aid or became isolationist then there would be major ramifications around the world. Not to mention probably the end of the United Nations (the US pays for 22% of the UN's total funding), Nato, etc.


hate to break it to you but the U.S probably has the largest unpaid debt to the U.N:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...7-undues_N.htm

it is time to stop the bull!
Reply

GuestFellow
12-02-2010, 02:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by titus
No, if the US stopped giving aid or became isolationist then there would be major ramifications around the world. Not to mention probably the end of the United Nations (the US pays for 22% of the UN's total funding), Nato, etc.
I thought we were talking about aid given to countries? I would say UN and NATO are completely different.

If the US were to stop giving aid to countries around the world, then Israel will have a problem and it will not hesitate to raise its opinion.
Reply

Zafran
12-02-2010, 06:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by titus
No, if the US stopped giving aid or became isolationist then there would be major ramifications around the world. Not to mention probably the end of the United Nations (the US pays for 22% of the UN's total funding), Nato, etc.
The UN the place where the mafia countries can beat the crap out of the people they dont like by Veto - The US also has has the largest number of militery bases around the world as well.

Nato was set up to counter the soviets but now it seems its a good place where empires can extend there powers by conquering countries togather.

You call it aid we call it Kickbacks to Mubarak. The US should keep out of the Mid east end of story. Its not aid - its more like Bribes so that the governmnet stays on the side of the US.

aid is when the US gives money to Haiti, or the Tsunami or actually bothers to help people after Hurricane Katrina - not a yearly bases payement to a corrupt government so it can exploit the region - thats not aid in anybodies book - I'm shocked you think its aid? what would give you that idea?

Edit - 22%? where did you get that from as well.
Reply

Zafran
12-02-2010, 07:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ



hate to break it to you but the U.S probably has the largest unpaid debt to the U.N:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...7-undues_N.htm

it is time to stop the bull!
Salaam

well that clears up who needs to pay the UN.

peace
Reply

جوري
12-02-2010, 08:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran
Salaam well that clears up who needs to pay the UN. peace

People should really arm themselves with all the available information before yapping about something or another!

how terribly embarrassing!
:w:
Reply

Lynx
12-02-2010, 08:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Junon
Salaam

For instance the US/Israel - Palestine conflict - they dont have to do anything that would break the bank. Instead of blocking the a resolution to the conflict why not join the international consensus and work with everybody else to see a resolution to the conflict. its really that straightforward.
'cause US politics is kind of all broken. not straightforward at all.
Reply

titus
12-03-2010, 05:50 PM
well that clears up who needs to pay the UN.
Read the article more closely, and get more facts.

The article states that the US owes money to the UN, but it also states that the US is the single largest benefactor to the UN.

The US is the most heavily levied country in the world when it comes to UN dues so the US fights back sometimes by not paying. That does not change the fact that, in spite of what they owe, they have paid far more than any other nation, in fact they accounted for 22% of the UN funding last year.

- 22%? where did you get that from as well.
From the UN:
SOURCE
People should really arm themselves with all the available information before yapping about something or another!

how terribly embarrassing!
Yes. I can understand how this would embarrass you.
Reply

Maryan0
12-03-2010, 07:31 PM
The UN is made up of member states why is it spoken of as if it is its own autonomous body. It's useless and is dominated by 5? veto wielding powers.

Salam
Reply

GuestFellow
12-03-2010, 09:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Junon
For instance the US/Israel - Palestine conflict - they dont have to do anything that would break the bank. Instead of blocking the a resolution to the conflict why not join the international consensus and work with everybody else to see a resolution to the conflict. its really that straightforward.
:sl:

There is a extremely powerful lobby in America, known as AIPAC (America and Israel Public Affair Committee). This lobby is made up of several institutes, thinktank groups and neoconservatives. There are hundreds of these thinktank groups, its unbelievable.

The lobby puts pressure on the US government to introduce policies that favour Israel and some institutes within this big lobby want the US to transform the Middle East into democratic countries through war. These countries will be friendly towards Israel.

This is one major obstacle.

In the UK there is a Israel lobby but is operates quietly than opposed to AIPAC.
Reply

Argamemnon
12-04-2010, 02:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Maryan0
The UN is made up of member states why is it spoken of as if it is its own autonomous body. It's useless and is dominated by 5? veto wielding powers.

Salam
The UN, NATO and similar (so-called) "International" organizations are there to serve western hegemony.
Reply

Maryan0
12-05-2010, 09:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Argamemnon
The UN, NATO and similar (so-called) "International" organizations are there to serve western hegemony.
Exactly. While I respect somewhat the head of the UN Ban Ki Moon and the former head Kofi Annan and the intentions in creating the UN there is no denying that the organization itself is dominated by a select few who do things to protect their agenda both presently and historically like when they sent "peace keepers" to secure the Suez canal.
Salam
Reply

جوري
12-05-2010, 11:20 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by titus
The article states that the US owes money to the UN, but it also states that the US is the single largest benefactor to the UN.

benefactor in this essence is an ineffectual honorary position. I come from a family of diplomats and the U.S with its enormous unpaid debt is a deadbeat.. It neither complies with U.N laws which in fact are meant to serve U.S- Israeli interests. Nor does it pay its dues-- and fact of the matter is, the U.S is impotent all around, it would be best suited to take care of the needs of its citizens before it expands its war mongering tentacles into more foreign soil!

all the best
Reply

Mike3449
12-06-2010, 12:14 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Maryan0
You cant make everyone happy and I think you can help other nations without directly interfering in their internal affairs...America isn't all bad but the many wars and support of foreign despots has given america the reputation it has today and not just in the Muslim world.
Salam

America should deal with whatever government it encounters in any given country. Despot or warm and fuzzy. It is not the fault of the U.S. that Egypt is the way it is. The people of Egypt are capable of changing their government. The people of Iran are capable of changing theirs. For whatever reason the people let these governments exist.

What is a despot? I would certainly call Egypt's Leadership Despots. Saudi Arabia's too. Syria... the list is long. None are worse than the Taliban.

Despot is in the eye of the beholder.

Iran is probably one of the worst governments on the face of the earth. In my opinion. I would not want the U.S. to do anything about that leadership. It is not up to the U.S. to save people from their governments. Iraq and Afghanistan have proven that when given an opportunity to create a Democracy or what we call freedom, it is rejected. So, whatever government that the U.S. deals with, we should consider it as valid as any other government.

One day the Muslim Brotherhood will rule Egypt. And, the U.S. position should be neutral in that regard.
Reply

Zafran
12-06-2010, 12:39 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Mike3449
America should deal with whatever government it encounters in any given country. Despot or warm and fuzzy. It is not the fault of the U.S. that Egypt is the way it is. The people of Egypt are capable of changing their government. The people of Iran are capable of changing theirs. For whatever reason the people let these governments exist.

What is a despot? I would certainly call Egypt's Leadership Despots. Saudi Arabia's too. Syria... the list is long. None are worse than the Taliban.

Despot is in the eye of the beholder.

Iran is probably one of the worst governments on the face of the earth. In my opinion. I would not want the U.S. to do anything about that leadership. It is not up to the U.S. to save people from their governments. Iraq and Afghanistan have proven that when given an opportunity to create a Democracy or what we call freedom, it is rejected. So, whatever government that the U.S. deals with, we should consider it as valid as any other government.

One day the Muslim Brotherhood will rule Egypt. And, the U.S. position should be neutral in that regard.
Give me a break - the only reason why the US even bothers with the mid east is oil - Thats the whole point of Iraq and Afghanistan was meant to be a war to find Bin Laden and now its regime change. Havent you been paying attention of what we have been talking about in this thread - like the kickbacks that Mubarak gets from the US - thats realy helping the people of Egypt to fight against despots.

Furthermore the US is anti democratic and dont kid yourself that its in the mid east to give them "freedom" and democracy because if the mid east did get that then US intrests would be under threat - The Iranian coup in the 50s proved that and the palestinain elections proved that as well when they voted for Hamas.

The US has countless of times supported dictators like saddam Hussien, the Shah and the the royal family of the arabia.
Reply

GuestFellow
12-06-2010, 12:49 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Mike3449
America should deal with whatever government it encounters in any given country.
Of course it can and it does. In fact, it even threatens to use Nuclear Weapons and sets up dictatorships too, when it cannot get its own way. Lets not forget those sanctions.

The people of Iran are capable of changing theirs. For whatever reason the people let these governments exist.
Well has it not occurred to you that the majority of the Iranians are fine with their system of governance? The Iranians are capable of toppling dictatorships, the Shah of Iran for example. Some are annoyed with President Ahmadinejad due to his bad economic policies.

Iraq and Afghanistan have proven that when given an opportunity to create a Democracy or what we call freedom, it is rejected.
Democracy and freedom is not a western concept. All countries have freedom, some more than others. Some countries have too much freedom. America never desired to create a western style governance in the region, regime change was used to gain support from the American public and justify US military presence in those countries.

One day the Muslim Brotherhood will rule Egypt. And, the U.S. position should be neutral in that regard.
I doubt it, Israel will put pressure on the US government to take a confrontational stance against Egypt if the Muslim Brotherhood takes over.
Reply

Maryan0
12-06-2010, 12:52 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Mike3449
America should deal with whatever government it encounters in any given country. Despot or warm and fuzzy. It is not the fault of the U.S. that Egypt is the way it is. The people of Egypt are capable of changing their government. The people of Iran are capable of changing theirs. For whatever reason the people let these governments exist.

What is a despot? I would certainly call Egypt's Leadership Despots. Saudi Arabia's too. Syria... the list is long. None are worse than the Taliban.

Despot is in the eye of the beholder.

Iran is probably one of the worst governments on the face of the earth. In my opinion. I would not want the U.S. to do anything about that leadership. It is not up to the U.S. to save people from their governments. Iraq and Afghanistan have proven that when given an opportunity to create a Democracy or what we call freedom, it is rejected. So, whatever government that the U.S. deals with, we should consider it as valid as any other government.

One day the Muslim Brotherhood will rule Egypt. And, the U.S. position should be neutral in that regard.
Notice I used the word "support" not the word "deal" which you used. As to the despots (or as you said despot is in the eye of the beholder) in Iran, Egypt or wherever else, that is the problem of the people who live under them. I agree with the last part.
Salam
Reply

Mike3449
12-15-2010, 01:15 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran
Give me a break - the only reason why the US even bothers with the mid east is oil - Thats the whole point of Iraq and Afghanistan was meant to be a war to find Bin Laden and now its regime change. Havent you been paying attention of what we have been talking about in this thread - like the kickbacks that Mubarak gets from the US - thats realy helping the people of Egypt to fight against despots.

Furthermore the US is anti democratic and dont kid yourself that its in the mid east to give them "freedom" and democracy because if the mid east did get that then US intrests would be under threat - The Iranian coup in the 50s proved that and the palestinain elections proved that as well when they voted for Hamas.

The US has countless of times supported dictators like saddam Hussien, the Shah and the the royal family of the arabia.

America provides military and financial aid to Israel and Egypt as per the Camp David Accords. We are Treaty bound.

The U.S. did not create Saddam Hussein. Our aid to his regime during the 1980's was the best idea at that time. It served our interests at that time. I have no problem with it. I think it was a good idea.

Our interest in the Middle East is about oil, no doubt. So what?

Those countries have it and we need it. Seems good to me. We have technology. Countries in the Middle East need it. They deal with us... all is well.

Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden should be destroyed. But, Muslims should be the ones doing that. Not the U.S.. We cannot destroy Al Qaeda. No more than Saudi Arabia can destroy the Pope.
Reply

Thucydides1987
12-15-2010, 01:23 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Mike3449
Our interest in the Middle East is about oil, no doubt. So what? Those countries have it and we need it. Seems good to me. We have technology. Countries in the Middle East need it. They deal with us... all is well.
Well I have to disagree with you here. It would be one thing if you had this exchange of technology and oil between the US and the Middle East in a mutual business manner. But the reality is that America is intervening in the Middle East and often supporting tyrannical individuals who make things miserable for the people living in those countries -- all out of its own interest! They want to make a profit, they don't care about the people living there.

Also, by "they", I am referring more so to the oil and military companies than the actual American government itself, cause they're the ones running the show.
Reply

Mike3449
12-15-2010, 01:33 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thucydides1987
Well I have to disagree with you here. It would be one thing if you had this exchange of technology and oil between the US and the Middle East in a mutual business manner. But the reality is that America is intervening in the Middle East and often supporting tyrannical individuals who make things miserable for the people living in those countries -- all out of its own interest! They want to make a profit, they don't care about the people living there.

Also, by "they", I am referring more so to the oil and military companies than the actual American government itself, cause they're the ones running the show.


We buy a product. Who is to blame there?

And, what tyranny are you talking about?
Reply

Ramadhan
12-15-2010, 08:02 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Mike3449
Our interest in the Middle East is about oil, no doubt. So what?
So in your opinion attacking and invading a country is a justified way to obtain oil?
And this coming from the self-proclaimed "leader of the free world", "the beacon of democracy"?
LOL.
The wolf has shown its true color, no?

format_quote Originally Posted by Mike3449
No more than Saudi Arabia can destroy the Pope.
Why would Saudi Arabia wants to destroy the pope?
Reply

Zafran
12-15-2010, 09:08 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Mike3449
America provides military and financial aid to Israel and Egypt as per the Camp David Accords. We are Treaty bound.

The U.S. did not create Saddam Hussein. Our aid to his regime during the 1980's was the best idea at that time. It served our interests at that time. I have no problem with it. I think it was a good idea.

Our interest in the Middle East is about oil, no doubt. So what?

Those countries have it and we need it. Seems good to me. We have technology. Countries in the Middle East need it. They deal with us... all is well.

Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden should be destroyed. But, Muslims should be the ones doing that. Not the U.S.. We cannot destroy Al Qaeda. No more than Saudi Arabia can destroy the Pope.
Yeah The US provides kickbacks to Terrorist Isreal and Mubaraks Egypt. It helped both in controling the people and staying in power in the region.

Saddam Hussien was backed in the Iran and Iraq war where a million people died - I believe this the same time when he got the idea of gasing the Kurds. America preety much supported a mad dictator although not the first time. A terrible decision that later they had to get there own soldiers and innocent people killed in second horrible Iraq war.

Its about oil and the US is willing to pillage, kill, massacre and destroy anybody who comes in there way including democracy, innocent women and children and make there life hell - The same tactic that al qeada uses.

So far the US hasnt helped the mid east but has made the dictators stronger and destroyed its own reputation. Its an imperial power that shouldnt be in the mid east.

Al qeada, The US whats the difference both want to rape the region - I say kick them both out.
Reply

GuestFellow
12-15-2010, 01:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Mike3449
Our interest in the Middle East is about oil, no doubt. So what?
The US military has killed thousands of innocent people in the Middle East to protect their interests.

Those countries have it and we need it. Seems good to me. We have technology. Countries in the Middle East need it. They deal with us... all is well.
America employs various tactics to gain influence within the region. Let me remind you:

In fact, it even threatens to use Nuclear Weapons and sets up dictatorships too, when it cannot get its own way. Lets not forget those sanctions.


Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden should be destroyed. But, Muslims should be the ones doing that. Not the U.S.. We cannot destroy Al Qaeda.
America created the problem, not Muslims. There would not have been these groups in the first place if America did not get involved in the Middle East. I hope your not naive to believe some Muslims want to attack America because ''they are jealous of your freedom,'' or ''they want to take over the world.''

No more than Saudi Arabia can destroy the Pope.
^o)
Reply

Thucydides1987
12-15-2010, 10:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Mike3449
We buy a product. Who is to blame there? And, what tyranny are you talking about?

Firstly, I dont think that 'product' would be accurate in describing the buying and selling of petroleum. And secondly, I don't think that America is exactly involved in a normal business transaction with middle eastern countries, when it intervenes in their affairs politically and (more importantly) militarily, all for the purpose of buying something from them. Don't you think something is wrong here?
Reply

Mike3449
12-26-2010, 12:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran
Yeah The US provides kickbacks to Terrorist Isreal and Mubaraks Egypt. It helped both in controling the people and staying in power in the region.

Saddam Hussien was backed in the Iran and Iraq war where a million people died - I believe this the same time when he got the idea of gasing the Kurds. America preety much supported a mad dictator although not the first time. A terrible decision that later they had to get there own soldiers and innocent people killed in second horrible Iraq war.

Its about oil and the US is willing to pillage, kill, massacre and destroy anybody who comes in there way including democracy, innocent women and children and make there life hell - The same tactic that al qeada uses.

So far the US hasnt helped the mid east but has made the dictators stronger and destroyed its own reputation. Its an imperial power that shouldnt be in the mid east.

Al qeada, The US whats the difference both want to rape the region - I say kick them both out.

The U.S. should have remained friendly with Saddam after he invaded Kuwait. It was a mistake to defend Kuwait. We easily could have made oil deals with Saddam. If this whole thing was only about oil, it would have been much better to let Saddam do what he wanted.

No doubt, attacking Iraq was a bad idea. The decision was made with very little knowledge of the Middle East.

Kosovo was wrong also. That is another war we never should have fought.

But, we did not invade Iran. The Sudan is still able to kill many of it's citizens and no one cares or does anything. So, there are good things to report.
Reply

Mike3449
12-26-2010, 12:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
So in your opinion attacking and invading a country is a justified way to obtain oil?
And this coming from the self-proclaimed "leader of the free world", "the beacon of democracy"?
LOL.
The wolf has shown its true color, no?



Why would Saudi Arabia wants to destroy the pope?

No, I don't think attacking and invading is a justification to get oil. I don't believe that is what America did. It did not help our oil supply at all.
Reply

GuestFellow
12-26-2010, 12:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Mike3449
No, I don't think attacking and invading is a justification to get oil. I don't believe that is what America did. It did not help our oil supply at all.
I agree with you. Oil might have been a factor but it was not the main reason. According to Professor John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, the main reason for the Iraq war was due to pressure from the Israel lobby.
Reply

Mike3449
12-26-2010, 01:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Guestfellow
I agree with you. Oil might have been a factor but it was not the main reason. According to Professor John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, the main reason for the Iraq war was due to pressure from the Israel lobby.
I don't think that is true either. After 9/11 I think Saddam was looked at in a different light. Not that he was Al Qaeda, but he did enjoy attacks on America. He was a sponsor of terror.

I think people blow the Israel situation out of proper context. It's existence is not that big of a deal. And, our relationship was more of a Cold War phenomenon than anything else. There are a lot worse places in the world doing a lot of bad things. No one seems to care about that. China. If you want to discuss a country that America supported and helped perfect an evil system... China would be the place.
Reply

Zafran
12-26-2010, 02:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Mike3449
The U.S. should have remained friendly with Saddam after he invaded Kuwait. It was a mistake to defend Kuwait. We easily could have made oil deals with Saddam. If this whole thing was only about oil, it would have been much better to let Saddam do what he wanted.

No doubt, attacking Iraq was a bad idea. The decision was made with very little knowledge of the Middle East.

Kosovo was wrong also. That is another war we never should have fought.

But, we did not invade Iran. The Sudan is still able to kill many of it's citizens and no one cares or does anything. So, there are good things to report.
Its people like you that make the world a sick place - The US supported the shah when in the 1953 coup of Iran - getting rid of the democratically eleted government of Iran.

Its not just sudan, China, Russia, India can kill anyone they like and nobody cares - this in no way makes the US any better - as I said before the US alqeada whats the difference??
Reply

Mike3449
12-26-2010, 02:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran
Its people like you that make the world a sick place - The US supported the shah when in the 1953 coup of Iran - getting rid of the democratically eleted government of Iran.

Its not just sudan, China, Russia, India can kill anyone they like and nobody cares - this in no way makes the US any better - as I said before the US alqeada whats the difference??

I make the world a sick place?

OK... How many U.S.TROOPS went to Iran to unsettle this Democratically elected savior of the Iranians?

And, I tell ya... I think he would have fallen as did the Shah. It's not like Democracy would have bloomed in Iran.

Why did Iran change it's name from Persia? What does the word "Iran" mean?
Reply

Zafran
12-26-2010, 02:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Mike3449
I make the world a sick place?

OK... How many U.S.TROOPS went to Iran to unsettle this Democratically elected savior of the Iranians?

And, I tell ya... I think he would have fallen as did the Shah. It's not like Democracy would have bloomed in Iran.

Why did Iran change it's name from Persia? What does the word "Iran" mean?
The US supported the Shah to overthrow the democratically elected government because it was going to nationalise the oil - that was against US interests so it had to go. Check 1953 coup.

Nobody cares what you think - your last post shows you have a similar mind set to al qeada - doesnt matter how many people die as long US gets the oil.

Nobody cares why Iran became Persia. Its irrelevant.
Reply

Mike3449
12-26-2010, 02:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran
The US supported the Shah to overthrow the democratically elected government because it was going to nationalise the oil - that was against US interests so it had to go. Check 1953 coup.

Nobody cares what you think - your last post shows you have a similar mind set to al qeada - doesnt matter how many people die as long US gets the oil.

Nobody cares why Iran became Persia. Its irrelevant.


You not wanting things to matter... that does not mean things don't.

You do understand that?

Quit running...
Reply

جوري
12-26-2010, 02:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Mike3449
I make the world a sick place?
you are indeed a prototype for all that is wrong with it!
OK... How many U.S.TROOPS went to Iran to unsettle this Democratically elected savior of the Iranians?
It isn't your place to discuss whether or not their savior is democratically elected or not. You need to focus on the despots you've at home before you spread your wings to judge that of sovereign nations!
And, I tell ya... I think he would have fallen as did the Shah. It's not like Democracy would have bloomed in Iran.
Point being?
Why did Iran change it's name from Persia? What does the word "Iran" mean?
what was America before Columbus?

perhaps you should have stayed in school you wouldn't be asking and dispensing with so many platitudes!
Reply

Mike3449
12-26-2010, 03:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

you are indeed a prototype for all that is wrong with it!

It isn't your place to discuss whether or not their savior is democratically elected or not. You need to focus on the despots you've at home before you spread your wings to judge that of sovereign nations!

Point being?

what was America before Columbus?

perhaps you should have stayed in school you wouldn't be asking and dispensing with so many platitudes!


I'm sure you are correct in a lot of things that you say.

On Iran, America just convinced a few Persians to act in their best interests, and they did.

Other than that America did not invade, nor would we have.

It was a Cold War action. And, a minimal one at that.
Reply

جوري
12-26-2010, 03:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Mike3449
I'm sure you are correct in a lot of things that you say. On Iran, America just convinced a few Persians to act in their best interests, and they did. Other than that America did not invade, nor would we have. It was a Cold War action. And, a minimal one at that.

America has no ones best interest at heart save its own and perhaps the interests of the colonial settler Zionist cockroach state.. be that as it may Iran and America share very similar politics .. they've been each other's bed fellow for quit sometime!

are you that naive or just enjoy playing dumb?

neither traits is tolerable!

all the best
Reply

GuestFellow
12-26-2010, 06:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Mike3449
I don't think that is true either. After 9/11 I think Saddam was looked at in a different light. Not that he was Al Qaeda, but he did enjoy attacks on America. He was a sponsor of terror.
Saddam was always considered as a brutal dictator. He never did receive good publicity. So I don't believe he was seen in a different light following 9/11. I'm not sure what you mean by sponsor of terror. How was Iraq sponsoring terrorism? We can all agree that Saddam was not part of Al Qaeda nor was behind the 9/11 attacks.

I think people blow the Israel situation out of proper context. It's existence is not that big of a deal. And, our relationship was more of a Cold War phenomenon than anything else. There are a lot worse places in the world doing a lot of bad things.
The following you should consider reading:

''The Israel Lobby and Foreign Policy'' by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt.

Iraq: A War For Israel

^ This is a good summary about Israel role in pressuring America to attack Iraq.

No one seems to care about that. China. If you want to discuss a country that America supported and helped perfect an evil system... China would be the place.
Source?
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
12-27-2010, 12:57 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Junon
Salaam

Yes America is deeply invovled in Egyptian affairs on all levels. They are deeply afraid of a popular government coming to power that would act independently, the ultimate nightmare for US planners. . . ..

Just one example of US intereference, they pressurised the Eyptians to build an underground wall (on the border) to stop the people of Gaza getting food and supplies etc etc in. American engineers built it.
Asalaamu Alaikum, i was in Egypt just after the elections on the 28th of November and i freely spoke to many locals about politics and the Egyptian government and it is very clear from their responses that ALL Egyptians HATE the government and Husni Mubarak and they know he is a puppet of the west and Israel and they would want nothing better than for Mubarak and all other corrupt puppets of the west in Egypt, Middle East and Africa to be eradicated and removed from their positions and for a revolution to take place.

The Egyptian are desperate for a revolution and are getting increasingly impatient with the current government. They laugh when i asked them about the elections they say that was the biggest joke of all. They say that no one turned out because they is no point. No matter who votes the current government will remain and the article above proves this also.

Many of those i spoke to mentioned that any opposition to the government are swiftly arrested and tortured and a lot of the times never even seen again. That is why they say they have to be very careful when talking about the government, politics and Mubarak but because of their anger and frustration they cannot help it a lot of the times.

May Allah rid this world of evil and corrupt puppets and replace them with honourable and true Muslim leaders. Ameen
Reply

Woodrow
12-27-2010, 01:52 AM
A very grouchy admin does not like war zones on the threads.

Everybody stay on topic, I'm in a bad mood and do not own a dog to kick.
Reply

Mike3449
01-04-2011, 02:44 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ


America has no ones best interest at heart save its own and perhaps the interests of the colonial settler Zionist cockroach state.. be that as it may Iran and America share very similar politics .. they've been each other's bed fellow for quit sometime!

are you that naive or just enjoy playing dumb?

neither traits is tolerable!

all the best

Did you know that we got Persia to Invade Turkey?

Long before the Zionist State existed.

I know that the Zionist State is like really important, don't misunderstand me about that. Cause like the Islamic World is very excited about it, so it must be important.

The Sudan is important, but the Muslim World cares nothing about it. So, I don't care about it. I care about the Zionist State though... K ?
Reply

IslamicRevival
01-04-2011, 03:39 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
A very grouchy admin does not like war zones on the threads.

Everybody stay on topic, I'm in a bad mood and do not own a dog to kick.
Sorry but that made me lol, Thanks brother :)
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!