U.S is responsible for Egypt´s election joke

[Zafran]

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.

 

[Zafran]

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/2009-06-17-undues_N.htm

it is time to stop the bull!

Salaam

well that clears up who needs to pay the UN.

peace

 

[جوري]

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!

 

[Lynx]

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.

 

[titus]

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.

 

[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

 

[GuestFellow]

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.

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.

 

[Argamemnon]

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.

 

[Maryan0]

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

 

[جوري]

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

 

[Mike3449]

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.

 

[Zafran]

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.

 

[GuestFellow]

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.

 

[Maryan0]

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

 

[Mike3449]

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.

 

[Thucydides1987]

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.

 

[Mike3449]

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?

 

[Ramadhan]

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?

No more than Saudi Arabia can destroy the Pope.

Why would Saudi Arabia wants to destroy the pope?

 

[Zafran]

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.

 

[GuestFellow]

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)