Muslim Brotherhood wins Presidency

[jimnyc]

Oh boy, how will Egypt change as a result of this and will it effect our relations? And we'll be sending billions in aid to these scumbags too.


Islamist claims victory in Egypt presidential vote

CAIRO (AP) -- Islamist candidate Mohammed Morsi declared victory Monday in Egypt's first free presidential election since Hosni Mubarak's ouster 16 months ago. But just as polls were closing, the ruling military council issued constitutional amendments that gave sweeping authority to maintain its grip on power and subordinate the nominal head of state.

After the last-minute power grab Sunday night, the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) pledged Monday to honor its promise to hand over power to the newly elected president by the end of this month. But the constitutional amendments stripped the president of almost all significant powers. The military decreed that it will have legislative authority after a court dissolved parliament, it will control of the drafting a new constitution and will not allow civilian oversight of its significant economic interests or other affairs.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_EGYPT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-06-17-23-11-03

[ConHog]

Oh boy, how will Egypt change as a result of this and will it effect our relations? And we'll be sending billions in aid to these scumbags too.



http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_EGYPT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-06-17-23-11-03

Why are you such a cheap skate? We have plenty of money to support the poor of the entire galaxy.

/sarcasm.

[mundame]

From what I read, the Egyptian military has pretty comprehensively taken over in Egypt (and high time). They particularly didn't want the fundamentalist Muslims in control, and knew they would win, as they did, so they moved two days before the election in a coup d'etat.

I think we pretty much own their military --- that's where our aid went --- so maybe no problem. I hope.

[ConHog]

From what I read, the Egyptian military has pretty comprehensively taken over in Egypt (and high time). They particularly didn't want the fundamentalist Muslims in control, and knew they would win, as they did, so they moved two days before the election in a coup d'etat.

I think we pretty much own their military --- that's where our aid went --- so maybe no problem. I hope.

Excellent, because the US toppling government's we don't support, even democratically elected ones, has worked out so well in the past.

:rolleyes:

[jimnyc]

Looks like the fun for Egyptians is just beginning!

Muslim Brotherhood warns Egypt's generals

The Muslim Brotherhood has vowed to face down Egypt's ruling generals in a "life or death" struggle over the country's political future, after declaring that its candidate had won the presidential election and would refuse to accept the junta's last-ditch attempts to engineer a constitutional coup.

As final ballot results trickled in and unofficial tallies suggested that Mohamed Morsi had secured approximately 52% of the popular vote, the Brotherhood deployed its harshest language yet against the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (Scaf), promising to bring millions of Egyptians back on to the streets if attempts to rebuild the old regime continued.

"Over the past 18 months we were very keen to avoid any clashes or confrontations with other components of Egypt's political system because we felt that it would have negative consequences for the democratic system and for society as a whole," said Fatema AbouZeid, a senior policy researcher for the Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice party and a media co-ordinator for the Morsi campaign. "But now it's very clear that Scaf and other institutions of the state are determined to stand in the way of what we're trying to achieve, and we won't accept this any more. Egypt will not go back to the old regime through any means, legal or illegal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/18/egypt-muslim-brotherhood-warning

[gabosaurus]

When Mubarak ruled Egypt with an iron fist, the Western nations urged on an uprising that would bring free elections. The uprising happened.
Since 80 to 90 percent of Egyptians are Muslims, doesn't it make sense that they would elect an Muslim government?
Or do we just want to meddle in international affairs again?

[mundame]

When Mubarak ruled Egypt with an iron fist, the Western nations urged on an uprising that would bring free elections. The uprising happened.
Since 80 to 90 percent of Egyptians are Muslims, doesn't it make sense that they would elect an Muslim government?
Or do we just want to meddle in international affairs again?


I'd like to see Egypt have a secular government, not a hard-right fundamentalist theocracy. That is what the military takeover is ensuring.

[ConHog]

I'd like to see Egypt have a secular government, not a hard-right fundamentalist theocracy. That is what the military takeover is ensuring.

I'd like to the US stop worrying about what kind of governments other countries have, unless those governments are harming US interests.

[revelarts]

Now Egypt, well on the surface seems that that wasn't our doing at least.
But Lets see,
Isn't Iraq's gov't more Islamic Now (and pro Iranian) than when Hussein was there.
Isn't Libya's gov't more Islamic Now (real AlQuida in some seats) than when Gaddafi was there?
Should we Invade Syria too, maybe that will work out the same, 3 outta 3 aint bad!

America baby, helping bring fundamentalist Islamic democracy to the M.E., one invasion at a time.

[mundame]

I'd like to the US stop worrying about what kind of governments other countries have, unless those governments are harming US interests.


A fundamentalist Islamist theocracy in Egypt would harm our interests: Egypt controls the Suez Canal and borders Israel. The news today is showing photos of Israel already putting up more border security because they can't trust Egypt anymore: both Israeli and Saudi embassies have been attacked by mobs and actually closed in both cases.

Shortly after the "Arab Spring" revolution Egypt let the first-ever Iranian warship through into the Mediterranean. This isn't good, if Egypt is going to ally with Iran given that we are in a posture of potential war with Iran.

Anyway, I think it's all under control. We pay for the Egyptian military, the Egyptian military staged a coup and took over Egypt. Settles that problem.

Geopolitics MUST be about what actually is going on, I think, not ideas about what ought to be going on in an ideal world.

[jimnyc]

When Mubarak ruled Egypt with an iron fist, the Western nations urged on an uprising that would bring free elections. The uprising happened.
Since 80 to 90 percent of Egyptians are Muslims, doesn't it make sense that they would elect an Muslim government?
Or do we just want to meddle in international affairs again?

Who said anything about us meddling? This wouldn't be JUST a muslim government, it would be just shy of a terrorist organization. Of course you're once again speaking out your ass without knowing facts... And we'll be forking over about $2 billion per year so that they can use it to run Shariah Law and threaten and kill people left and right.

[gabosaurus]

Who said anything about us meddling? This wouldn't be JUST a muslim government, it would be just shy of a terrorist organization. Of course you're once again speaking out your ass without knowing facts... And we'll be forking over about $2 billion per year so that they can use it to run Shariah Law and threaten and kill people left and right.

I know more of the facts than your do. As usual.
If we interfere with the way that free people democratically elect their governments, it is meddling. I have to doubt that the Egyptian people would run from one dictator to another.
And we don't have to give them $2 billion a year. And we shouldn't.
I believe it is you that is speaking out your fat ass. (If you believe you don't have a fat ass, prove it by sending me pictures :cool: )

[jimnyc]

I know more of the facts than your do. As usual.
If we interfere with the way that free people democratically elect their governments, it is meddling. I have to doubt that the Egyptian people would run from one dictator to another.
And we don't have to give them $2 billion a year. And we shouldn't.
I believe it is you that is speaking out your fat ass. (If you believe you don't have a fat ass, prove it by sending me pictures :cool: )

Sure, you know more facts than I, so long as you invent them. I never said anything about meddling, and that's twice you bring that up.

And we DO have to give them the money, it's part of a TREATY we signed. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt%E2%80%93Israel_Peace_Treaty

So who is it that doesn't know what they're talking about? Hell, I think the majority of the time you come into threads and make baseless comments without even reading. Either way, you just got owned, so fuck off.

[ConHog]

A fundamentalist Islamist theocracy in Egypt would harm our interests: Egypt controls the Suez Canal and borders Israel. The news today is showing photos of Israel already putting up more border security because they can't trust Egypt anymore: both Israeli and Saudi embassies have been attacked by mobs and actually closed in both cases.

Shortly after the "Arab Spring" revolution Egypt let the first-ever Iranian warship through into the Mediterranean. This isn't good, if Egypt is going to ally with Iran given that we are in a posture of potential war with Iran.

Anyway, I think it's all under control. We pay for the Egyptian military, the Egyptian military staged a coup and took over Egypt. Settles that problem.

Geopolitics MUST be about what actually is going on, I think, not ideas about what ought to be going on in an ideal world.


I already showed that the Suez is pretty much irrelevant to oil shipments in another thread. As for Israel, let Israel deal with their own concerns. I'm not saying we shouldn't be a loyal ally to them, b/c we should. But toppling governments ? Come on.

We just have too many internal problems right now to be continually trying to right the wrongs in the world. Especially when these morons voted them in.

We should tell them the same thing we tell every other government, "You leave us alone, we'll leave you alone. You harm us, we break your fucking legs"

[mundame]

! The WSJ said today that the military coup government may switch who won that presidential election in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood had claimed they won --- that was expected and why the military took over two days before the election.

So now they are saying there were "problems" and they have to do an investigation and the results are on hold and it could switch around.

No real surprise. The other guy is a Mubarek clone. The military can work with him.

[gabosaurus]

A fundamentalist Islamist theocracy in Egypt would harm our interests: Egypt controls the Suez Canal and borders Israel. The news today is showing photos of Israel already putting up more border security because they can't trust Egypt anymore: both Israeli and Saudi embassies have been attacked by mobs and actually closed in both cases.


Believe it or not, any nation's elections are NOT about "our interests." It about that country's interests. We should have nothing to do with it. It is none of our business.
The U.S. needs to stop playing world policeman and let the chips fall as they may.

[jimnyc]

Believe it or not, any nation's elections are NOT about "our interests." It about that country's interests. We should have nothing to do with it. It is none of our business.
The U.S. needs to stop playing world policeman and let the chips fall as they may.

And we don't have to give them money yearly. And we shouldn't. Isn't that what you said? LOL Good thing we don't have you for Sec of State, as you're the one who is clueless.

[mundame]

I would love to be an isolationist.

I can't only because wars in other regions constantly drag us into them, notably both world wars. Kicking and screaming, we were dragged into both, and isolationists couldn't keep us out because once Germany got hegemony over Europe, it would of course come after us next.

Between so much of our oil coming from the Mideast and Israel in constant danger of annihilation there, it is in our important national interest to prevent war there. We (via Egypt's bought and paid-for military) apparently have Egypt well-sewn-up, despite the wild chaos of their "Arab Spring" anarchy, and I am pleased to see it's back under control so fast. TWO other states went up in terrible civil wars, after all, and Bahrain almost did.

[gabosaurus]

And we don't have to give them money yearly. And we shouldn't. Isn't that what you said? LOL Good thing we don't have you for Sec of State, as you're the one who is clueless.

I am totally against foreign aid to countries that don't deserve it. Especially terrorist states or those that support terrorism.

[jimnyc]

I am totally against foreign aid to countries that don't deserve it. Especially terrorist states or those that support terrorism.

Do you think we should abide by treaties we sign?

[jimnyc]

Do you think we should abide by treaties we sign?

and for the record, I'm FOR dissolving this one if the money goes to the MB.

[logroller]

and for the record, I'm FOR dissolving this one if the money goes to the MB.
Im curious about treaties. We sign them with a country, but what happens when that country changes is structure; how significant do the changes have to be before the treaty's signees are no longer bound to it? It would think we'd have to redo firm or something.

[Kathianne]

Im curious about treaties. We sign them with a country, but what happens when that country changes is structure; how significant do the changes have to be before the treaty's signees are no longer bound to it? It would think we'd have to redo firm or something.

I believe we 'withdraw' from treaties that no longer seem in our interest. I'm guessing the Senate has a role in this.

[jimnyc]

Im curious about treaties. We sign them with a country, but what happens when that country changes is structure; how significant do the changes have to be before the treaty's signees are no longer bound to it? It would think we'd have to redo firm or something.

That was my point a bunch of posts back, that we now have to fork over money to what many think is close to a terrorist organization, or risk things exploding between Israel and Egypt, which might happen anyway with these idiots in charge.

[fj1200]

I believe we 'withdraw' from treaties that no longer seem in our interest. I'm guessing the Senate has a role in this.

Bush withdrew us from START didn't he? No Senate role in that iirc.

[fj1200]

Im curious about treaties. We sign them with a country, but what happens when that country changes is structure; how significant do the changes have to be before the treaty's signees are no longer bound to it? It would think we'd have to redo firm or something.

It's not a change in structure of the country but more either country merely withdrawing or one country beginning to violate the terms.

[logroller]

That was my point a bunch of posts back, that we now have to fork over money to what many think is close to a terrorist organization, or risk things exploding between Israel and Egypt, which might happen anyway with these idiots in charge.
What were the conditions of the treaty? I'm just wondering if the new guard is still bound to them, and if not, than neither are we. However, it would seem it is still beneficial to have that treaty given Egypt's location. The financial aid thing is different IMO; is that part of the treaty or just how we grease the wheels?

[revelarts]

I'm busy working , just popin in. But.

my question is how we can claim to have an UNDENIABLE need to cross boarders and smart drone bomb any "known" terrorist and Muslim insurgents who have home made bombs in some parts of the ME but we support some the same peoples colleges who are now in office in Lybia and elsewhere in the ME where they will have access to various nat'l military storehouses. Some of those folks who actually fought in Iraq against our guys. What kind of labyrinthine double-think does it take to make the war on terror seem rational to anyone?

[jimnyc]

What were the conditions of the treaty? I'm just wondering if the new guard is still bound to them, and if not, than neither are we. However, it would seem it is still beneficial to have that treaty given Egypt's location. The financial aid thing is different IMO; is that part of the treaty or just how we grease the wheels?

Here is the text, which I'm about to read, so not sure if it addresses your questions. But I can answer this - the financial aid IS a part of the treaty.

Full text - http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/egypt-israel_treaty.html


As part of the agreement, the US began economic and military aid to Egypt, and political backing for its subsequent governments. From the Camp David Accords (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_Accords) in 1978 until 2000, the United States has subsidized Egypt's armed forces with over $38 billion worth of aid. Egypt receives about $1.3 billion annually.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt%E2%80%93Israel_Peace_Treaty

[jimnyc]

So with that said, and the money we give them in financial aid and money for their armed forces - I'm personally not comfortable giving that money to them if the MB is running the show.

[jimnyc]

I'm busy working , just popin in. But.

my question is how we can claim to have an UNDENIABLE need to cross boarders and smart drone bomb any "known" terrorist and Muslim insurgents who have home made bombs in some parts of the ME but we support some the same peoples colleges who are now in office in Lybia and elsewhere in the ME where they will have access to various nat'l military storehouses. Some of those folks who actually fought in Iraq against our guys. What kind of labyrinthine double-think does it take to make the war on terror seem rational to anyone?

Home made bombs? I believe we crossed into other countries to kill leaders of Al Qaeda and such. People who lead an organization who have killed thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands with these so called home made bombs.

As for the rest, while I have no idea what it has to do with the MB, I'll try and answer... We sent chemicals and viruses and such to Iraq and other places back in the day. Apparently they turned around and might have made some of it into weapons. We support an educational system, but not what they might do with it. It's retarded to think we are purposely propping up terrorists while fighting them. Some people have other motives, but we can't stop every little thing that transpires. And regardless of all of that, it shouldn't prevent us from remaining vigilant and taking out terrorist extremism when we have the opportunity.

[mundame]

So with that said, and the money we give them in financial aid and money for their armed forces - I'm personally not comfortable giving that money to them if the MB is running the show.

No, indeed: that is why their military just took over the country. It was obvious that the Muslim Brotherhood was going to win --- time to take over.

That's what we bought, we got what we paid for, it's all working very well.

We need to get better hold of Libya, really. Maybe we can now that Qaddafi is gone.

Geopolitics is very dirty, I admit, but it stops all these rogue countries from dragging us into wars, so I accept that we have to play it to win.

And besides, it's plain Egypt is better off as a military-controlled secularized nation than as a theocracy controlled by a fundamentalist organization like the Taliban. Win--win.

[gabosaurus]

I say we allow the Egyptians to decide what they want to do with their country. If we don't approve, we can cut off all foreign aid.
Which is what we should do to EVERY country in the Middle East.

[Kathianne]

No, indeed: that is why their military just took over the country. It was obvious that the Muslim Brotherhood was going to win --- time to take over.

That's what we bought, we got what we paid for, it's all working very well.

We need to get better hold of Libya, really. Maybe we can now that Qaddafi is gone.

Geopolitics is very dirty, I admit, but it stops all these rogue countries from dragging us into wars, so I accept that we have to play it to win.

And besides, it's plain Egypt is better off as a military-controlled secularized nation than as a theocracy controlled by a fundamentalist organization like the Taliban. Win--win.

I beg to differ that it's 'working very well.' In this case it would seem you'd have said the same about Iran in 1972. How's that going now?

[revelarts]

I would love to be an isolationist.

I can't only because wars in other regions constantly drag us into them, notably both world wars. Kicking and screaming, we were dragged into both, and isolationists couldn't keep us out because once Germany got hegemony over Europe, it would of course come after us next.

Between so much of our oil coming from the Mideast and Israel in constant danger of annihilation there, it is in our important national interest to prevent war there. We (via Egypt's bought and paid-for military) apparently have Egypt well-sewn-up, despite the wild chaos of their "Arab Spring" anarchy, and I am pleased to see it's back under control so fast. TWO other states went up in terrible civil wars, after all, and Bahrain almost did.

I guess I'll have to keep repeating myself until folks realize it. there re at lest 3 (not 2) options in handling foreign affairs
1. Isolationist: Little to no influence/trade/contact to or from any foreign countries
2. empire: attempting to control foreign countries through war power, political intimidation and influence.
3. broad laissez–faire: doctrine opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights. And abstaining from most entangling alliances and wars.

As I've asked several times but no one give me a strait answer? so i'll answer it my self
Is China Isolationist. NO. Are they are neck deep in foreigners militarily politics? NO Do they do have ships off the coasts of or bases in the midst of over the half the countries in the world to maintain their oil or other resources? NO. or to help their various allies? NO no no.
I'm not sure why this point doesn't seem to make an impression on folks opinion. But we've been raised in a ww2. cold war, or general siege mentality so long that maybe it's hard for us to believe that there are other legitimate ways to deal with foreign issues than wars or threats of wars?
Is India Isolationist? No.
etc etc

concerning Israel, they are in a bad neighborhood, but they are not defenseless. they have been handling their affairs for years we've been trying to help and we've it's made little progress. It appears to be festering sore. However (i know this will fall on deaf ears because the some think the most Muslims are crazier than Imperial Japan Charlie Manson and HITLER combined, except the Suadis, the Yemanes and those over in Dubai etc. who we need the oil and finances from of course.) However again notice China and North Korea, I'll step out on a limb here and say that it it where NOT for China being an Ally of N.K. the U.S. would have probably already toppled it. But the cease fire has held why? just because WE don't want to risk a war with China. None of the politically minded Mullahs want to risk a war with the U.S. either. It will probably never look peaceful over there but Israels no wimp. it is the MOST powerful military in the region and they are fairly ruthless.

You know what's unrealistic about the current dominate POV, Is the Idea that we can somehow ALWAYS make sure Israel is NEVER attacked. That's POLLYANNA thinking, there is no such thing as perfect security, not for them and not for us. It's a joke to think we are going bar every door and window to every possible event.


No, indeed: that is why their military just took over the country. It was obvious that the Muslim Brotherhood was going to win --- time to take over.

That's what we bought, we got what we paid for, it's all working very well.

We need to get better hold of Libya, really. Maybe we can now that Qaddafi is gone.

Geopolitics is very dirty, I admit, but it stops all these rogue countries from dragging us into wars, so I accept that we have to play it to win.
sigh...
spoken like a true 2-fisted imperialist, Control/manipulate/crush those brown people for the greater good of the white race or western civilization at least. has to be done. oh well, lets get busy. brrr.
but Mundame at lest your honest about it, thats kinda refreshing really.
However you're assuming that we have to be dragged into ANY war. (like Switzerland is dragged in to them all the time) Tell me why is it that we have to fight minor wars all over the world again? Oil? really? we cannot get oil ANY OTHER WAY EVER? that's BS. always was.



And besides, it's plain Egypt is better off as a military-controlled secularized nation than as a theocracy controlled by a fundamentalist organization like the Taliban. Win--win.
I beg to differ that it's 'working very well.' In this case it would seem you'd have said the same about Iran in 1972. How's that going now?
agreed.

we are generating animosity that could last generations. Paybacks a B.

[mundame]

I beg to differ that it's 'working very well.' In this case it would seem you'd have said the same about Iran in 1972. How's that going now?


Yes, well, you do have a good point there.


Nothing lasts.

[mundame]

I guess I'll have to keep repeating myself until folks realize it. there re at lest 3 (not 2) options in handling foreign affairs
1. Isolationist: Little to no influence/trade/contact to or from any foreign countries
2. empire: attempting to control foreign countries through war power, political intimidation and influence.
3. broad laissez–faire: doctrine opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights. And abstaining from most entangling alliances and wars.


Your "laissez-faire" is surely what this country has always called isolationism? We were very isolationist between the wars but never abjured trade, and even acquired some colonies (Philippines, Dominican Republic). I think your isolationist definition is what is often called autarky: it's what North Korea and Albania does and what Romania used to do, try to exist wholly without foreign contact as much as possible.

I'm surprised at your definition of Empire, also -- I think that is usually about acquiring colonies, like the British Empire or the Roman Empire. There is a lot of debate about whether our forward power projection bases qualify as Empire. I myself think they do. Like the giant "embassy" in Iraq --- that's a base.




You know what's unrealistic about the current dominate POV, Is the Idea that we can somehow ALWAYS make sure Israel is NEVER attacked. That's POLLYANNA thinking, there is no such thing as perfect security, not for them and not for us. It's a joke to think we are going bar every door and window to every possible event.



True. It's not even obvious why Israel is useful to our national security in the Mideast. I hate to think of them being blown to oblivion, but I'm not sure it would change much for the USA.





spoken like a true 2-fisted imperialist, Control/manipulate/crush those brown people for the greater good of the white race or western civilization at least. has to be done. oh well, lets get busy. brrr.
but Mundame at lest your honest about it, thats kinda refreshing really.



Thank you, revelarts. :rolleyes:



However you're assuming that we have to be dragged into ANY war. (like Switzerland is dragged in to them all the time) Tell me why is it that we have to fight minor wars all over the world again? Oil? really? we cannot get oil ANY OTHER WAY EVER? that's BS. always was.



No, I think our habit of ten-year losing wars are a terrible mistake and are responsible for our huge international deficit, our declining power, and a lot of the financial crisis roiling the world.

But I don't think they are about oil. That, we handle with money. All these petty losing wars that go on forever and suck our GDP into Asia are a form of security colonization, I think. Attempted security colonization, anyway, like we did and do occupy Germany all these decades to secure Europe from another war. We are trying that again, but wow, is it ever not working. And why? Because for it to work we have to do it like we did Germany: TOTALLY defeat, into utter submission, the whole country minus a lot of their population. And that we are not willing to do, so it never works, not in Vietnam, or Iraq, or Afghanistan.

I like what DOES work to stop WWIII. The forward power projection has worked for 65 years, wow. The bribery works, so far (Egypt's military).

[taft2012]

Is China Isolationist. NO. NO Do they do have ships off the coasts of or bases in the midst of over the half the countries in the world to maintain their oil or other resources?

China's military is over half of the world, disguised as various trading and private enterprises.

To secure our oil supply in the manner that China does would mean embracing the same bunch of international gangsters they embrace, which is repugnant to American sensibilities, and in the long run will only enrich and empower those same gangsters to a level that war will become inevitable and at an even greater cost.

[taft2012]

http://www.softwar.net/panama.html


Panama has been the only country in Central or South America to
host an active US military presence [SOUTHCOM] and permanent
military training and operations bases. All of the American
military bases, including counter-narcotics operations centers,
are scheduled to close by June 30, 1999. The People's Republic
of China, through the Hong Kong-based Hutchison Whampoa Ltd.
company, which has close ties to the PRC government and People's
Liberation Army (PLA), was granted a 25-year lease, with an
additional 25 year option, for control of the Canals Atlantic
and Pacific Ocean ports of Balboa and Cristobal and adjacent
facilities. The delegation witnessed Hutchison Whampoa
conducting major construction and port facility expansion at
both the Atlantic and Pacific Canal ports.

http://www.conservativeusa.org/redchina-military-old.htm


"From Panama to the Philippines, an arm of Hutchison-Whampoa, Hutchison Port Holding (HPH), has become the world’s largest seaport operator, embedding itself in strategic seaports all across the globe.

"Hutchison holds the exclusive contract to operate the Panama Canal. An animated map on the Hutchison-Whampoa Web site shows the extent of the encircling movement with seaport operations in Africa (Tanzania International Terminal Services Ltd.) in the Western Hemisphere with seaport services in [Buenos] Aires, Argentina; Freeport, the Bahamas; Veracruz, Mexico; and at both ends of the Panama Canal."

[mundame]

I say we allow the Egyptians to decide what they want to do with their country. If we don't approve, we can cut off all foreign aid.
Which is what we should do to EVERY country in the Middle East.


I thought about this overnight. It was an interesting post.

It's what we do already, isn't it? Assuming we don't decide to go to war, as we have with Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, maybe Syria and Iran........

Well, anyway, we DO say that to Egypt, and even Pakistan. We may cut off aid to Pakistan because they won't cooperate, but we seem to want to avoid war there.

The Egypt thing is just like you say: we say, hey, don't let the Muslim Brotherhood run Egypt and we'll continue to pay you money beyond the dreams of avarice to beef up your military so you can control the only actual threat Egypt faces ------ its own people. Most of these countries mainly face danger from their own people, after all; Tunisia, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Libya --- they fight with internal enemies, not with each other. We arm their militaries so they can control their own people.

As Kathianne points out above, that only lasts until the people actually win, which occasionally they do (Iran). But often for the worse for everyone in the country, since fundamentalists take over and do horrible totalitarian control. I think these medieval sandpits are WORSE off "free" to be theocracies than under military control bribed by us, the USA.

[revelarts]

China's military is over half of the world, disguised as various trading and private enterprises.

To secure our oil supply in the manner that China does would mean embracing the same bunch of international gangsters they embrace, which is repugnant to American sensibilities, and in the long run will only enrich and empower those same gangsters to a level that war will become inevitable and at an even greater cost.

"..To secure our oil supply in the manner that China does would mean embracing the same bunch of international gangsters they embrace, which is repugnant to American sensibilities..."
LOL!!!
sorry Taft
LOL!!!

[taft2012]

"..To secure our oil supply in the manner that China does would mean embracing the same bunch of international gangsters they embrace, which is repugnant to American sensibilities..."
LOL!!!
sorry Taft
LOL!!!

Typical liberal mindlessness.

[revelarts]

Typical liberal mindlessness.

LOL
I was the right wing nut yesterday for not wanting the U.N. telling us what to do.
today i'm liberal for laughing at the idea that the U.S. gov't and the oil biz people have "sensibilities " so they can't deal with certain kinds of gangsters and thugs.

It's just funny. we just supported Alquida in Libya, the exact same Alquida that Left Libya to fight U.S. soldiers in Iraq. They flew home and started to fight Ghadafi. Despite our "sensibilities" we are NOW supporting them so U.S. oil companies and others can get their cuts of the spoils. We are Now supporting the Jundula terrorist in Iraq to go to Iran to kidnap, threaten and Bomb innocent people the way we claim is so horrific that "people like that don't have souls and aren't human" etcetc. .Our sensibilities seem fine there. We PAY Taliban U.S. tax dollars NOT to attack us. and We have U.S.troops protecting the poppy fields and "allowing" (running) the horrible gangster dealers to transport it out of Afghanistan to come to the U.S.. Evil ol Saddam Hussin was our friend for years. Oil companies have paid protection and bribes to gangsters, political cronies and murderous despots in various countries for years. I'm just not sure what your talking about when it comes to sensibilities.

there no brand of low life that the U.S. gov't hasn't dealt with, propped up or created.
I'm really not sure how acknowledging those facts make me liberal either. makes me more of a of realist when it comes to the full range of the U.S. gov't's and some U.S. companies practices.
the good, the bad and ugly.

[mundame]

From Reuters.com today --
Egypt on alert as election result imminent (http://www.debatepolicy.com/article/2012/06/24/us-egypt-election-idUSBRE85G01U20120624)7:16am EDT
CAIRO - Egypt's ruling armed forces were on alert on Sunday as fears of violence mounted in the final hours before the state election committee is to name the winner of last weekend's presidential election at 3 p.m.
*************************************************


They had to vote, those who bothered, on two unacceptable candidates: one from the Muslim Brotherhood and one a stooge from the old Mubarek regime.

That's pretty much how I feel about our election coming up, neither candidate acceptable.

[jimnyc]

Well, the people have spoken in Egypt and they want the MB and perhaps Shariah Law. Now we look forward and see how the newly unfolding government will work with other countries. The MB has already stated in the past that they will "never recognize that Israel exists". I suppose that's not a problem, so long as they don't get involved with Hamas or directly with Israel themselves.


Islamist Morsi wins Egypt presidential voteCAIRO (AP) — Mohammed Morsi was declared Egypt's first Islamist president on Sunday after the freest elections in the country's history, narrowly defeating Hosni Mubarak's last Prime Minister Ahmed Shafiq in a race that raised political tensions in Egypt to a fever pitch.

The country's last four presidents over the past six decades have all came from the ranks of the military. This is the first time modern Egypt will be headed by an Islamist and by a freely elected civilian.

Throngs of Morsi supporters in Cairo's Tahrir Square erupted in cheers and dancing when the result was read out on live television. Some released doves with his pictures over the square where the uprising that ousted Mubarak last year was born. Others set off fireworks.

Morsi's spokesman Ahmed Abdel-Attie said words cannot describe the "joy" in this "historic moment."

"We got to this moment because of the blood of the martyrs of the revolution," he said. "Egypt will start a new phase in its history."

The announcement was the culmination of a tumultuous, 16-month transition that was supposed to bring democratic rule, but was tightly controlled and curtailed by the military rulers who took power from Mubarak.

http://news.yahoo.com/islamist-morsi-wins-egypt-presidential-vote-143750771.html

[jimnyc]

Egypt's New President: Our Capital 'Shall Be Jerusalem, Allah Willing'That didn't take long at all!

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9znepNvkrxI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[jimnyc]

It wouldn't surprise me to learn that there were no arrests or punishment. This kind of crap, abuse of women, is a staple in Egypt and part of daily life.


Egyptian beats pregnant wife to death for not voting for MursiAn Egyptian plumber in Alexandria beat his pregnant wife to death upon learning that she had not voted for Muslim Brotherhood presidential candidate Mohammed Mursi, reported the Egyptian daily al-Wafd on Sunday.

According to police reports, the initial argument between the couple who was not named escalated into violence, despite her pleas. Battered and bruised, she was reported to have died at the hospital from injuries sustained.

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/06/24/222413.html

[Gaffer]

Unless the army steps in there will be an egyptian taliban govt. The brotherhood created hamas so there's no doubt what will happen there. The US is going to have to stop all aid, as the original agreement with Israel, set up by carter, is about to become null and void.

Al quaeda is also an off shoot of the brotherhood, so basically al quaeda is now running the show in egypt. It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

You can bet whatever our govt does it will be wrong.

[jimnyc]

Unless the army steps in there will be an egyptian taliban govt. The brotherhood created hamas so there's no doubt what will happen there. The US is going to have to stop all aid, as the original agreement with Israel, set up by carter, is about to become null and void.

Al quaeda is also an off shoot of the brotherhood, so basically al quaeda is now running the show in egypt. It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

You can bet whatever our govt does it will be wrong.

Yup, and I argued this with a Muslim buddy of mine yesterday. He thinks the Brotherhood is the greatest thing, NEVER did anything wrong, had anything to do with Hamas and is FAR from the type of people that would harm others, as it goes against their religion. Yes, my buddy is brainwashed too.

I can only HOPE that the State department announces the long standing treaty as null and void. I don't want to see a single penny go to this organization.

[DragonStryk72]

I'd like to see Egypt have a secular government, not a hard-right fundamentalist theocracy. That is what the military takeover is ensuring.

And we have no more right to determine their government than they ours. This is against everything we were founded on. This sort of thing is literally denying the will of the people. The military could work within the system to gain power, but decided that just wasn't good enough for them. Accepting Democracy means accepting that sometimes, your side doesn't win, but that you can build up to win the next one.

The ME has different needs than the US, so it's simply not feasible for them to have a Western-style democracy. You didn't see John Adams attempt a coup when Washington's brand of decentralized government got power over the course of the Union. No, he bided his time, and eventually, he came to be the one behind the desk.

You can't have a democracy if every time the decision goes against you, you try to overthrow the government. It just doesn't work like that. I don't like the Muslim Brotherhood any better than you, but the frank point is that they were the ones the people chose, and right now, the military is proving the detractors right, since they have just chosen to not abide by the very rules they wanted set up.

[Toro]

I've been told by someone who does business in Egypt that the Muslim Brotherhood is pro-capitalist and pro-free trade. Don't know if it's true or not. He was going to send me their manifesto but never did.

[Drummond]

I wonder just how this is all going to play out.

The Muslim Brotherhood won their election .. we are TOLD it was a fair election (at least, that's what the BBC is reporting ..). All the same, the vote was close, with only around a million votes extra winning it for them. Now, their army holds power, and judging by the reports I've seen, nobody is sure how much of it they'll be willing to relinquish.

I think that, internally, Egypt has more tough times ahead. This election win isn't very likely to be the end of the story, as to who has power, or to what extent, or what will be done to jockey for more of it.

I agree with 'Jimnyc', the Muslim Brotherhood either IS terrorist or a long way to becoming a terrorist outfit. Though, if everyone relied on the BBC's output, they'd never be acknowledged as being that.

I've looked at their reporting on this. They've been screening live shots of Tahrir square (I think that's how you spell it), showing the square crammed with people, apparently followers of the victors. The BBC has addressed the issue of Christian concerns as to how the new Islamic State will treat them, by interviewing a woman who's acting as a spokesperson for the Brotherhood, in the interview saying that nobody has anything to fear from them ... Christian concerns are groundless, women in that country know, and will continue to, freedoms and equality in the Muslim State-to-be.

All in all, the BBC is doing what it usually does, transmitting reports that lend themselves to the opinion that nobody can have cause to be less than tolerant and accepting of Islamists, their 'freedom fighters' .. they might as well be PR agents for the Muslim Brotherhood !!

[Jimnyc, by the way .. I saw that you offered a Guardian link ? Are you aware that the British Guardian newspaper is broadly Left wing ? Back in 2004 .. they tried to interfere in the US election, by getting Brits to interfere in Clark County, a swing state at the time, hoping to switch some votes away from Bush.

Here's what I mean. See for yourself what the Guardian tried to do, and how they primed their readership ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/oct/20/uselections2004.usa


In a bid to give the rest of the world a say in the US election, the Guardian is urging non-Americans to write to voters in Clark County, Ohio, one of the most marginal areas in a key swing state. To receive the name and address of a Clark County voter, visit www.guardian.co.uk/clarkcounty. By last night, more than 14,000 people had requested the name of a voter ..

Read more of the link than this, to get the full measure of what was done ...]

[mundame]

However, the military has control. They staged a coup because they knew the Islamist would win, so they stripped him of any power before the vote.

From the New York Times today:

"the generals ... shut down the democratically elected and Islamist-led Parliament; took over its powers to make laws and set budgets; decreed an interim constitution stripping the new president of most of his power; and re-imposed martial law by authorizing soldiers to arrest civilians."

So much for the Islamist "president." I hope.

[Drummond]

I've been told by someone who does business in Egypt that the Muslim Brotherhood is pro-capitalist and pro-free trade. Don't know if it's true or not. He was going to send me their manifesto but never did.

Time will tell, but I'd say ... don't kid yourself.

Remember Libya, and the 'freedom' the anti-Gaddafi fighters said they were fighting for ? Once their lot had won out and started implementing Governmental power, they shocked the world by announcing that Libya would be run on Sharia principles.

What the Muslim Brotherhood claims for itself, and what it will DO, are likely to be very different.

[Gaffer]

And we have no more right to determine their government than they ours. This is against everything we were founded on. This sort of thing is literally denying the will of the people. The military could work within the system to gain power, but decided that just wasn't good enough for them. Accepting Democracy means accepting that sometimes, your side doesn't win, but that you can build up to win the next one.

The ME has different needs than the US, so it's simply not feasible for them to have a Western-style democracy. You didn't see John Adams attempt a coup when Washington's brand of decentralized government got power over the course of the Union. No, he bided his time, and eventually, he came to be the one behind the desk.

You can't have a democracy if every time the decision goes against you, you try to overthrow the government. It just doesn't work like that. I don't like the Muslim Brotherhood any better than you, but the frank point is that they were the ones the people chose, and right now, the military is proving the detractors right, since they have just chosen to not abide by the very rules they wanted set up.

We have every right to determine their govt if that govt is going to be a threat to us. They are islamists aka nazis. Just because the majority of the people put them in power doesn't mean it was right or should be allowed to stand. I think the egyptian military did the right thing. It's a choice between a military dictatorship of a fundamentalist theocracy. It's a prime example of majority rules not being a good idea.

[ConHog]

We have every right to determine their govt if that govt is going to be a threat to us. They are islamists aka nazis. Just because the majority of the people put them in power doesn't mean it was right or should be allowed to stand. I think the egyptian military did the right thing. It's a choice between a military dictatorship of a fundamentalist theocracy. It's a prime example of majority rules not being a good idea.

Link to where that right is enumerated in the COTUS please.

[jimnyc]

[Jimnyc, by the way .. I saw that you offered a Guardian link ? Are you aware that the British Guardian newspaper is broadly Left wing ? Back in 2004 .. they tried to interfere in the US election, by getting Brits to interfere in Clark County, a swing state at the time, hoping to switch some votes away from Bush.

Here's what I mean. See for yourself what the Guardian tried to do, and how they primed their readership ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/oct/20/uselections2004.usa

Read more of the link than this, to get the full measure of what was done ...]

Will check out the link... I have to admit, I'm not up to date on the affiliations of all foreign papers. I read about the story from multiple stories, and I think when I went back to link I grabbed that one. I used the link solely for the quoting of the actual statements from the MB. Same for here in the US, with left and right wing rags, sometimes you have to dig through the crap to get the actual news. Seems anymore that the news is hidden in stories that are 97% opinion pieces.

[Gaffer]

Link to where that right is enumerated in the COTUS please.

I never said it was in the COTUS. Does that mean we have no right to ensure our future safety?

[jimnyc]

Do Our Rights Come from the Constitution?

It is commonly believed that the rights of the American people come from the Constitution. Nothing could be further from the truth.
....
It was in 1776, however, with the publication of the Declaration of Independence, that the historical concept of sovereignty got turned upside down. Government wasn't sovereign and supreme, Jefferson declared to the world. Individuals are. And government officials are subordinate and inferior to the citizenry.
The Declaration emphasizes that men have been endowed with certain fundamental and inherent rights that preexist government. In other words, man's rights don't come from the king or from any other government official. Rights such as life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness exist independently of government, not because of government.

It also emphasizes that the reason people call government into existence is to protect the exercise of these rights. That is, in the absence of government, antisocial people such as murderers, rapists, and thieves would make life quite miserable for everyone else. Therefore, government is needed to arrest, prosecute, and punish these types of people.

What happens when government transgresses its rightful duty of protection and becomes more destructive than what would be the case in the absence of government? The Declaration tells us that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish that government and to implement a new government that is designed to protect, not destroy, the exercise of man's natural or God-given rights.
......
So the next time someone refers to your "constitutional rights," remind him that people's rights don't come from the Constitution. And if you really want to stimulate thinking, ask him whether he believes that today the federal government is destructive of the very rights it was designed to protect.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0699b.asp

[Kathianne]

Do Our Rights Come from the Constitution?

It is commonly believed that the rights of the American people come from the Constitution. Nothing could be further from the truth.
....
It was in 1776, however, with the publication of the Declaration of Independence, that the historical concept of sovereignty got turned upside down. Government wasn't sovereign and supreme, Jefferson declared to the world. Individuals are. And government officials are subordinate and inferior to the citizenry.
The Declaration emphasizes that men have been endowed with certain fundamental and inherent rights that preexist government. In other words, man's rights don't come from the king or from any other government official. Rights such as life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness exist independently of government, not because of government.

It also emphasizes that the reason people call government into existence is to protect the exercise of these rights. That is, in the absence of government, antisocial people such as murderers, rapists, and thieves would make life quite miserable for everyone else. Therefore, government is needed to arrest, prosecute, and punish these types of people.

What happens when government transgresses its rightful duty of protection and becomes more destructive than what would be the case in the absence of government? The Declaration tells us that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish that government and to implement a new government that is designed to protect, not destroy, the exercise of man's natural or God-given rights.
......
So the next time someone refers to your "constitutional rights," remind him that people's rights don't come from the Constitution. And if you really want to stimulate thinking, ask him whether he believes that today the federal government is destructive of the very rights it was designed to protect.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0699b.asp

I would recommend to anyone that they read, Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan. The founders/framers had great familiarity with this work, which emphasizes the need for a strong leader. (Hey, this was written during the Middle Ages, when plague was still being felt. This man really was into very dark places.) A few years later, John Locke also writing on political philosophy, has a much more optimistic outlook. He's more concerned with the rights of the individual, than the right of king. He put great stock in representative government, a natural check on the king.

Rousseau is all about rights and freedom. His greatest contribution was the idea of 'natural rights' and borrowing from Hobbes; the way to measure a government is whether or not the people are more free than in a state of nature.

Seriously, fascinating stuff!

[Drummond]

We have every right to determine their govt if that govt is going to be a threat to us. They are islamists aka nazis. Just because the majority of the people put them in power doesn't mean it was right or should be allowed to stand. I think the egyptian military did the right thing. It's a choice between a military dictatorship of a fundamentalist theocracy. It's a prime example of majority rules not being a good idea.

Yes. In today's world, and considering how terrorist and Islamic links interweave, it would be irresponsible not to take the position that you've every right to do what it takes to pursue your own interests.

Regimes can quickly turn rogue. There are no guarantees that powers such as this new Egyptian Government will behave responsibly on the world stage. In fact, there's a likelihood of the opposite. To just say, or presume, that whatever they say or do 'is right' because it serves the cause of 'freedom' and self-determination, may not be nearly good enough.

With freedom comes responsibility. To think and act responsibly. How likely IS it that the Muslim Brotherhood will do any such thing ? And if they don't, contingency plans are surely needed in case of trouble.

[ConHog]

Do Our Rights Come from the Constitution?

It is commonly believed that the rights of the American people come from the Constitution. Nothing could be further from the truth.
....
It was in 1776, however, with the publication of the Declaration of Independence, that the historical concept of sovereignty got turned upside down. Government wasn't sovereign and supreme, Jefferson declared to the world. Individuals are. And government officials are subordinate and inferior to the citizenry.
The Declaration emphasizes that men have been endowed with certain fundamental and inherent rights that preexist government. In other words, man's rights don't come from the king or from any other government official. Rights such as life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness exist independently of government, not because of government.

It also emphasizes that the reason people call government into existence is to protect the exercise of these rights. That is, in the absence of government, antisocial people such as murderers, rapists, and thieves would make life quite miserable for everyone else. Therefore, government is needed to arrest, prosecute, and punish these types of people.

What happens when government transgresses its rightful duty of protection and becomes more destructive than what would be the case in the absence of government? The Declaration tells us that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish that government and to implement a new government that is designed to protect, not destroy, the exercise of man's natural or God-given rights.
......
So the next time someone refers to your "constitutional rights," remind him that people's rights don't come from the Constitution. And if you really want to stimulate thinking, ask him whether he believes that today the federal government is destructive of the very rights it was designed to protect.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0699b.asp



That's real nice, but is speaking completely of personal rights, not of the rights of the US government.

[Kathianne]

That's real nice, but is speaking completely of personal rights, not of the rights of the US government.

What 'rights' would you give the government?

[mundame]

Regimes can quickly turn rogue. There are no guarantees that powers such as this new Egyptian Government will behave responsibly on the world stage. In fact, there's a likelihood of the opposite. To just say, or presume, that whatever they say or do 'is right' because it serves the cause of 'freedom' and self-determination, may not be nearly good enough.




I think they'll behave plenty responsibly because we have them bought and paid for. Securing Egypt has been American policy since at least Nixon's presidency, and every administration since. It is working very well, and this attempt to takeover by the Muslim Brotherhood is without doubt one of the biggest challenges yet, but it looks to me as if the Egyptian military has a good handle on the situation.

[revelarts]

Home made bombs? I believe we crossed into other countries to kill leaders of Al Qaeda and such. People who lead an organization who have killed thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands :link:with these so called home made bombs.

As for the rest, while I have no idea what it has to do with the MB, I'll try and answer... We sent chemicals and viruses and such to Iraq and other places back in the day. Apparently they turned around and might have made some of it into weapons. We support an educational system, but not what they might do with it. It's retarded to think we are purposely propping up terrorists while fighting them. Some people have other motives, but we can't stop every little thing that transpires. EXACTLY
And regardless of all of that, (regardless? we are spending billions in counter productive ways we need to stop the idiocy.) to it shouldn't prevent us from remaining vigilant and taking out terrorist extremism when we have the opportunity. If we are sure that's what we are doing, we've got to take the CIC's word for for it. But again the evil terrorist are small potatos in comparison and if we are Funding them though the back door THAT is where we need to focus seems to me.


Unless the army steps in there will be an egyptian taliban govt. The brotherhood created hamas so there's no doubt what will happen there. The US is going to have to stop all aid, as the original agreement with Israel, set up by carter, is about to become null and void.
Al quaeda is also an off shoot of the brotherhood, so basically al quaeda is now running the show in egypt. It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion.
You can bet whatever our govt does it will be wrong.
Um really Israel created Hamas,
How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Wall Street Journel
By ANDREW HIGGINS (http://online.wsj.com/search/term.html?KEYWORDS=ANDREW+HIGGINS&bylinesearch=true)

Moshav Tekuma, Israel
Surveying the wreckage of a neighbor's bungalow hit by a Palestinian rocket, retired Israeli official Avner Cohen traces the missile's trajectory back to an "enormous, stupid mistake" made 30 years ago.
"Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel's creation," says Mr. Cohen, a Tunisian-born Jew who worked in Gaza for more than two decades. Responsible for religious affairs in the region until 1994, Mr. Cohen watched the Islamist movement take shape, muscle aside secular Palestinian rivals and then morph into what is today Hamas, a militant group that is sworn to Israel's destruction.
Instead of trying to curb Gaza's Islamists from the outset, says Mr. Cohen, Israel for years tolerated and, in some cases, encouraged them as a counterweight to the secular nationalists of the Palestine Liberation Organization and its dominant faction, Yasser Arafat's Fatah. Israel cooperated with a crippled, half-blind cleric named Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, even as he was laying the foundations for what would become Hamas. Sheikh Yassin continues to inspire militants today; during the recent war in Gaza, Hamas fighters confronted Israeli troops with "Yassins," primitive rocket-propelled grenades named in honor of the cleric.
View Slideshow (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123275572295011847.html#) ..Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the founder of Hamas....

...A look at Israel's decades-long dealings with Palestinian radicals -- including some little-known attempts to cooperate with the Islamists -- reveals a catalog of unintended and often perilous consequences. Time and again, Israel's efforts to find a pliant Palestinian partner that is both credible with Palestinians and willing to eschew violence, have backfired. Would-be partners have turned into foes or lost the support of their people....

Instead of working with the secularist the U.S. and Israel keep picking these extremist fundamentalist to prop up and train.
Just as we did with AlQuida, during the Russian Afghanistan war. We trained them and gave them weapons, also the crazy fundamentalist Taliban. You'd think these foreign policy makers would get a clue. Is it really just 50 years of horrific foreign policy stupidity? How many times do we make that mistake before we catch on. Our hands are not clean here, we've help create and feed our own monsters in our vain attempts to control the world.

[ConHog]

Um really Israel created Hamas,
How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Wall Street Journel
By ANDREW HIGGINS (http://online.wsj.com/search/term.html?KEYWORDS=ANDREW+HIGGINS&bylinesearch=true)

Moshav Tekuma, Israel
Surveying the wreckage of a neighbor's bungalow hit by a Palestinian rocket, retired Israeli official Avner Cohen traces the missile's trajectory back to an "enormous, stupid mistake" made 30 years ago.
"Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel's creation," says Mr. Cohen, a Tunisian-born Jew who worked in Gaza for more than two decades. Responsible for religious affairs in the region until 1994, Mr. Cohen watched the Islamist movement take shape, muscle aside secular Palestinian rivals and then morph into what is today Hamas, a militant group that is sworn to Israel's destruction.
Instead of trying to curb Gaza's Islamists from the outset, says Mr. Cohen, Israel for years tolerated and, in some cases, encouraged them as a counterweight to the secular nationalists of the Palestine Liberation Organization and its dominant faction, Yasser Arafat's Fatah. Israel cooperated with a crippled, half-blind cleric named Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, even as he was laying the foundations for what would become Hamas. Sheikh Yassin continues to inspire militants today; during the recent war in Gaza, Hamas fighters confronted Israeli troops with "Yassins," primitive rocket-propelled grenades named in honor of the cleric.
View Slideshow (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123275572295011847.html#) ..Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the founder of Hamas....

...A look at Israel's decades-long dealings with Palestinian radicals -- including some little-known attempts to cooperate with the Islamists -- reveals a catalog of unintended and often perilous consequences. Time and again, Israel's efforts to find a pliant Palestinian partner that is both credible with Palestinians and willing to eschew violence, have backfired. Would-be partners have turned into foes or lost the support of their people....

Instead of working with the secularist the U.S. and Israel keep picking these extremist fundamentalist to prop up and train.
Just as we did with AlQuida, during the Russian Afghanistan war. We trained them and gave them weapons, also the crazy fundamentalist Taliban. You'd think these foreign policy makers would get a clue. Is it really just 50 years of horrific foreign policy stupidity? How many times do we make that mistake before we catch on. Our hands are not clean here, we've help create and feed our own monsters in our vain attempts to control the world.


oh please, that's like saying blacks created the KKK. good grief Rev.

[revelarts]

We have every right to determine their govt if that govt is going to be a threat to us. They are islamists aka nazis. Just because the majority of the people put them in power doesn't mean it was right or should be allowed to stand. I think the egyptian military did the right thing. It's a choice between a military dictatorship of a fundamentalist theocracy. It's a prime example of majority rules not being a good idea.


I never said it was in the COTUS. Does that mean we have no right to ensure our future safety?

Egypt is not much without our aid and it's not much with it really.

Epypt has just as much right to determine there gov't as we do. If we don't like it it's our problem. if they decide that they want to threaten us they need to be ready for the hellfire to fall. But until then we've got no real Biz trying to RUN there gov't. i wish we had control of ours.
I know you think the mullahs are gonna get us but any plan to RUN them by hook or crook just feeds the animosity. the same animosity that fueled the Iranian revolution. And you know revolution took place in the 70's and somehow we are still here, even though the mullahs are in control.


Concerning the new Egyptian leadership, the stuff they are saying is REAL bad.
I don't like it at all. However rather than try run, to coup counter coup, a crazy half thought, cross my mind (never be done though)
The fact that the Egyptian military is bought and paid for by U.S. dollars and the U.S. trained military has control of the the equipment could work to our advantage in this sense. A hard policy where we say our deals for arms etc were contingent on our agreements with the former regime and they don't transfer. And seeing the threat to our allies We demand all equipment back , We say this after we get the generals to start packing it all up on planes. Basically we disarm the country. It's Our stuff. a good lawyer could make the justification stick based on our "loans" "grants" etc.
the Egyptian economies a mess. They don't have cash for weapons. I don't think anyone else would be interested in arming them. And we are the Biggest world arms dealer anyway. Our own Millitary industrial complex would be the biggest opponent to this .

But Whatever the case their military store needs need to be depleted, I think it is something we can legitimately lay claim to, defang them and let them bark at Israel. Give the revolution time and hope that like the Irainas they get fed up with Shria and a lot of that mess dies on the vine. Egypt is not a threat to Us yet. Israel is another story but they are not defenseless and have defeated Egypt before.

Another version of the above idea would be to have our bought and paid for Egyptian military allow us tech access to instal controls, bugs, taps ,trackers, tags etc on every piece of high and low tech military equipment and in every control center. Unlike alquida Egypt's large military could be effectivly tracked and every move predicted, making military attacks impotent.

let the gov't do what it wants, but if they plan on attacking they'll have to learn to make that work for them.

[revelarts]

oh please, that's like saying blacks created the KKK. good grief Rev.

So the wall street journal is Lying and the Israeli commander who admits it is making it up.

Open your Eyes man. Israel found a weed and helps it grow into a strong tree.
that's the reality. Strange as it may seem.
Lets work with the reality fellas and not the myths. or how we want to think the world works Con.

[ConHog]

So the wall street journal is Lying and the Israeli commander who admits it is making it up.

Open your Eyes man. Israel found a weed and helps it grow into a strong tree.
that's the reality. Strange as it may seem.
Lets work with the reality fellas and not the myths. or what we want to think the world works Con.

no now, I didn't say that Hamas didn't spring up because of some of Israel's actions. I'm saying that Hamas is responsible for Hamas.

[revelarts]

no now, I didn't say that Hamas didn't spring up because of some of Israel's actions. I'm saying that Hamas is responsible for Hamas.

I was pointing out a mistake/incomplete statment Gaffer made in saying that Hamas was created by the Brotherhood. Did the Brotherhood join/co-op Hamas after Israel set it rolling it sure.

And my larger point is that the U.s and Israel have made it a habit to create Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups.

Israel has to take some responsibility for Hamas and the U.S. gov't has to take some responsibility for Alqudia and we need to STOP making the same stupid moves.

[ConHog]

I was pointing out a mistake/incomplete statment Gaffer made in saying that Hamas was created by the Brotherhood. Did the Brotherhood join/co-op Hamas after Israel set it rolling it sure.

And my larger point is that the U.s and Israel have made it a habit to create Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups.

Israel has to take some responsibility for Hamas and the U.S. gov't has to take some responsibility for Alqudia and we need to STOP making the same stupid moves.

Believe it or not, I'm in agreement with you RE: Egypt. We need to let them decide their own fate. As long as they don't attack us.

[Gaffer]

Egypt is not much without our aid and it's not much with it really.

Epypt has just as much right to determine there gov't as we do. If we don't like it it's our problem. if they decide that they want to threaten us they need to be ready for the hellfire to fall. But until then we've got no real Biz trying to RUN there gov't. i wish we had control of ours.
I know you think the mullahs are gonna get us but any plan to RUN them by hook or crook just feeds the animosity. the same animosity that fueled the Iranian revolution. And you know revolution took place in the 70's and somehow we are still here, even though the mullahs are in control.


Concerning the new Egyptian leadership, the stuff they are saying is REAL bad.
I don't like it at all. However rather than try run, to coup counter coup, a crazy half thought, cross my mind (never be done though)
The fact that the Egyptian military is bought and paid for by U.S. dollars and the U.S. trained military has control of the the equipment could work to our advantage in this sense. A hard policy where we say our deals for arms etc were contingent on our agreements with the former regime and they don't transfer. And seeing the threat to our allies We demand all equipment back , We say this after we get the generals to start packing it all up on planes. Basically we disarm the country. It's Our stuff. a good lawyer could make the justification stick based on our "loans" "grants" etc.
the Egyptian economies a mess. They don't have cash for weapons. I don't think anyone else would be interested in arming them. And we are the Biggest world arms dealer anyway. Our own Millitary industrial complex would be the biggest opponent to this .

But Whatever the case their military store needs need to be depleted, I think it is something we can legitimately lay claim to, defang them and let them bark at Israel. Give the revolution time and hope that like the Irainas they get fed up with Shria and a lot of that mess dies on the vine. Egypt is not a threat to Us yet. Israel is another story but they are not defenseless and have defeated Egypt before.

Another version of the above idea would be to have our bought and paid for Egyptian military allow us tech access to instal controls, bugs, taps ,trackers, tags etc on every piece of high and low tech military equipment and in every control center. Unlike alquida Egypt's large military could be effectivly tracked and every move predicted, making military attacks impotent.

let the gov't do what it wants, but if they plan on attacking they'll have to learn to make that work for them.

What gives you the idea that we control the military equipment in egypt? We don't have military personnel there other than embassy guards. I think we should stop sending military aid and just supply food and medical aid. If they want more aid they get rid of the theocratic bullshit, create a secular govt and hold elections that don't include fundamentalists. islam is the problem in egypt and all of the ME. The "revolution" has already happened and sharia is what the people are calling for. Just like iran. egypt will just be a sunni version of iran. They'll have a mufti instead of a mullah.

[revelarts]

What gives you the idea that we control the military equipment in egypt? We don't have military personnel there other than embassy guards. ....

I don't think we have control just access, I have no inside info, i may be way off.

...President Mubarak and Vice President Omar Suleiman (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Omar+Suleiman) “were trained by the Soviets,” says retired Maj. Gen. Robert Scales (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Robert+Scales), the former commandant of the US Army War College (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/U.S.+Army+War+College). Yet since then, the Egyptian Army “has gone through this transformation over the past 20 or 25 years. They really are a different army than in Mubarak’s formative years.”

It was the officers who came up through the Egyptian military in subsequent years that were more influenced by the United States (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2011/0203/America-s-best-agents-in-Cairo-US-trained-Egyptian-officers). In the early 1980s, Egypt “started sending a great many of their best and brightest to our schools,” Scales notes, adding that many of the Egyptian officers trained at US war colleges are now generals who brought their wives and children with them during their time in America.
Those officers “learn our way of war, which is the important thing, but they also learn our philosophies of civil-military relations and they socialize – which lasts the rest of our lives,” says Scales....
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2011/0203/US-Egyptian-military-ties-How-much-leverage-does-the-Pentagon-have/%28page%29/2

Many eyes are on Lt. Gen. Sami Anan (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Sami+Anan), the Egyptian Army (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Egyptian+Armed+Forces)’s chief of staff, ...
While he received training in Russia (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Russia) and France (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/France), he has had regular contact with the Pentagon (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/The+Pentagon). Egypt and the US have had close military ties since the 1979 Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty – but especially because the US provides $1.3 billion in military aid to Egypt, or about a third of its military budget. In addition, hundreds of Pentagon officials operate in the country.

But Egypt is one of many friendly but authoritarian-run countries that sends officers to the US for various types of education, usually at institutions such as the Army War College (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/U.S.+Army+War+College) or the National Defense University (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/National+Defense+University). The officers come under a little-known program called International Military Education and Training (IMET)....
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2011/0203/America-s-best-agents-in-Cairo-US-trained-Egyptian-officers




...A state department cable in 2009 leaked by Wikileaks last year about the U.S-Egyptian relationship documented a meeting between a U.S. general and Egyptian military leaders. The cable sumarized relationship: "President [Hosni] Mubarak and military leaders view our military assistance program as the cornerstone of our mil-mil relationship and consider the $1.3 billion in annual Foreign Military Financing as ‘untouchable compensation' for making and maintaining peace with Israel."
In another state department memo labeled “secret” the Egyptian military viewed the "The tangible benefits to our mil-mil relationship are clear," it says: "Egypt remains at peace with Israel, and the U.S. military enjoys priority access to the Suez Canal and Egyptian airspace."
The U.S. mil-mil relations with Egypt are not just about paying for new military weapons for the Egyptian army. The U.S military aid to Egypt, moreover, pays mostly for upgrades of existing weapons, training Egyptian military and regular maintenance and spare parts.
This military relationship, in exchange, gives the U.S. government leverage over Egypt that the new Egyptian leaders realize as an indispensible fact of life. Without the American military aid the Egyptian military, given the size of American-made weapons it has, will degrade and fall behind its potential enemies in the region....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/28/wikileaks-cairo-cables-egypt-president
http://palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=16646


....I think we should stop sending military aid and just supply food and medical aid. If they want more aid they get rid of the theocratic bullshit, create a secular govt and hold elections that don't include fundamentalists. islam is the problem in egypt and all of the ME. The "revolution" has already happened and sharia is what the people are calling for. Just like iran. egypt will just be a sunni version of iran. They'll have a mufti instead of a mullah.

I'm against foreign aid on principal but food and medical should be weaned off. But military should severed immediately.

Just FYI


WIKILeaks 2009 gov't memo
...11. (SBU) We continue to promote democratic reform in Egypt, including the expansion of political freedom and pluralism, and respect for human rights. Egyptian democracy and human rights efforts, however, are being stymied, and the GoE remains skeptical of our role in democracy promotion, complaining that any efforts to open up will result in empowering the Muslim Brotherhood, which currently holds 86 seats in Egypt's 454-seat parliament. Economic reform is ongoing although Egypt still suffers from widespread poverty affecting 35-40% of the population. Egyptian-U.S. trade has more than doubled in the last four years, reaching almost $9 billion in 2008. The U.S. exports to Egypt about twice as much as it imports. Egyptian banks operate very conservatively and have been spared involvement in risky financial products, but the effects of the global economic crisis on Egypt are beginning to be felt. As the global credit crunch worsens, Egypt remains vulnerable as exports, Suez Canal revenues, tourism, and remittances -- its largest sources of revenue -- are all down and likely to continue to fall....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/199866

[ConHog]

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2011/0203/America-s-best-agents-in-Cairo-US-trained-Egyptian-officers

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/28/wikileaks-cairo-cables-egypt-president
http://palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=16646



I'm against foreign aid on principal but food and medical should be weaned off. But military should severed immediately.

Just FYI


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/199866

I'm of the opinion that we should give neither. That is supposedly what the U.N. is for. That may sound cold, but we just don't have the money. I feel sorry for people around me who are hungry or sick, but I'm not going to the bank to borrow money to give to them.

[gabosaurus]

I'm of the opinion that we should give neither. That is supposedly what the U.N. is for. That may sound cold, but we just don't have the money. I feel sorry for people around me who are hungry or sick, but I'm not going to the bank to borrow money to give to them.

We should sever all financial and military ties to every country in the Middle East and Northern Africa. They can all get by without us. That includes every country between Morocco and Turkey. Let them get by and sort things out by their own accord.

[DragonStryk72]

We have every right to determine their govt if that govt is going to be a threat to us. They are islamists aka nazis. Just because the majority of the people put them in power doesn't mean it was right or should be allowed to stand. I think the egyptian military did the right thing. It's a choice between a military dictatorship of a fundamentalist theocracy. It's a prime example of majority rules not being a good idea.

The military isn't any better, Gaff, and they just proved it. They overthrew their own government cause they weren't going to get elected like they thought they would. So how are they any different, exactly?

[DragonStryk72]

I never said it was in the COTUS. Does that mean we have no right to ensure our future safety?

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -Benjamin Frankling

Again, we don't have the right. Also, what threat?! I refuse to believe that Egypt could stand up against us in a fight for even a single month, let alone 90 days it would take for Congress to need to approve a war. That's not a threat. If we can literally roll over their entire country in about two weeks with less than a 1% loss of troops/ammunition, they're not a threat, any more than a squirrel is a threat to your car while you're driving.

[taft2012]

LOL
I was the right wing nut yesterday for not wanting the U.N. telling us what to do.
today i'm liberal for laughing at the idea that the U.S. gov't and the oil biz people have "sensibilities " so they can't deal with certain kinds of gangsters and thugs.



No, you're a liberal because either:

a). You can't read or,
b.) You deliberately distort what other say

When I say "repugnant to American sensibilities" I clearly mean the American people, not isolated groups of businessmen or gov't officials. The Chinese public have no say in their gov't cozying up to Ahmedinejad, Qaddafi, or North Korea. The American people do and would not tolerate it.:salute:

[revelarts]

No, you're a liberal because either:

a). You can't read or,
b.) You deliberately distort what other say

When I say "repugnant to American sensibilities" I clearly mean the American people, not isolated groups of businessmen or gov't officials. The Chinese public have no say in their gov't cozying up to Ahmedinejad, Qaddafi, or North Korea. The American people do and would not tolerate it.:salute:

Well if you read more than a few of My post you'd know pretty quick that I'm no liberal.
But it was not clear that you meant the American public, you didn't say American public. But I think you have a better point there but even there sadly we in the public often play -the see no evil- game to get over any problems like that.

[taft2012]

Well if you read more than a few of My post you'd know pretty quick that I'm no liberal.
But it was not clear that you meant the American public, you didn't say American public. But I think you have a better point there but even there sadly we in the public often play -the see no evil- game to get over any problems like that.

If it wasn't clear, the fact that you *presumed* I was talking about corporations, greed, politicians, etc.... indicates you approach issues with a mindset more in line with the 99 percenters than mainstream conservatism. Re-examine yourself. You may have latent liberal tendencies.

[revelarts]

If it wasn't clear, the fact that you *presumed* I was talking about corporations, greed, politicians, etc.... indicates you approach issues with a mindset more in line with the 99 percenters than mainstream conservatism. Re-examine yourself. You may have latent liberal tendencies.

Taft, I've been feeding my latent find and tell the truth tendencies no matter which group claims it or rejects it. I hope we can both do that.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Time will tell, but I'd say ... don't kid yourself.

Remember Libya, and the 'freedom' the anti-Gaddafi fighters said they were fighting for ? Once their lot had won out and started implementing Governmental power, they shocked the world by announcing that Libya would be run on Sharia principles.

What the Muslim Brotherhood claims for itself, and what it will DO, are likely to be very different.

Our government was not fooled by the true intention of the socalled freedom fighters in Libya , obama knew their pro Sharia law agenda and I am convinced he knew all along and sought to aid them to insure their victory. Obama announced long ago that he would side with Islam, people seem to forget or to pretend that he never said that. All this freedom movement talk about the socalled Arab Spring is propaganda designed to get American citizens going along with obama's agenda to push for Islamist spreading of power over there. -Tyr

[ConHog]

Taft, I've been feeding my latent find and tell the truth tendencies no matter which group claims it or rejects it. I hope we can both do that.

Pretty funny that you just got labeled a liberal who can't read by a guy who's been here about a day and hasn't actually had time to read enough to know anything about you.


Seems to prove a point of some sort.............

[jimnyc]

Seems to prove a point of some sort.............

I don't think it proves anything. People poke at one another and make labels all the time. Perceptions change as people get to know one another. The new members are no 'more wrong' for their perceptions and labels than you are for the same back at them. But if you take issue with any of them, you ARE free to place them on ignore.

[Gaffer]

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -Benjamin Frankling

Again, we don't have the right. Also, what threat?! I refuse to believe that Egypt could stand up against us in a fight for even a single month, let alone 90 days it would take for Congress to need to approve a war. That's not a threat. If we can literally roll over their entire country in about two weeks with less than a 1% loss of troops/ammunition, they're not a threat, any more than a squirrel is a threat to your car while you're driving.

egypt alone is no threat to us. We can wipe them up like a spilled drink. I look beyond that. If they go fundamentalist then they will be joining ranks with lybia, iran, syria after the rebels win, and all the arab countries that already are sharia compliant. That is where they become a real threat. All the ME countries forming their caliphate. islam is the real danger, but our govt won't acknowledge that.

A few greedy generals in the egyptian army are throwing a wrench into the works of the caliphate. More fighting and maybe an outright war is to come.

The Franklin quote doesn't apply here.

[ConHog]

I don't think it proves anything. People poke at one another and make labels all the time. Perceptions change as people get to know one another. The new members are no 'more wrong' for their perceptions and labels than you are for the same back at them. But if you take issue with any of them, you ARE free to place them on ignore.

seems as you misread something since I was in fact not even talking about a member, let alone a new member.

[jimnyc]

Pretty funny that you just got labeled a liberal who can't read by a guy who's been here about a day and hasn't actually had time to read enough to know anything about you.


Seems to prove a point of some sort.............


seems as you misread something since I was in fact not even talking about a member, let alone a new member.

So who is this "guy" then, that has only been here about a day? Sounds like you're speaking about a new member to me.

[ConHog]

So who is this "guy" then, that has only been here about a day? Sounds like you're speaking about a new member to me.

yeah , my bad I got my threads mixed up earlier, in that quote I certainly was talking about Taft. Big fucking deal. I just thought it amusing that he labeled Rev a liberal.

[jimnyc]

yeah , my bad I got my threads mixed up earlier, in that quote I certainly was talking about Taft. Big fucking deal. I just thought it amusing that he labeled Rev a liberal.

And saying it proves some sort of point, which it does not.

Rather then continuing drama and creating a divisive atmosphere - why don't you place the new members you take issue with on your ignore list? It makes little sense to continue on about some, and bitching to others about it, when you can simply place them on ignore and do away with the issue. But if you choose not to do so, it will also make little sense to bitch any further, knowing you have that option.

[logroller]

I don't think it proves anything. People poke at one another and make labels all the time. Perceptions change as people get to know one another. The new members are no 'more wrong' for their perceptions and labels than you are for the same back at them. But if you take issue with any of them, you ARE free to place them on ignore.
Calling rev a liberal based on a or b, neither of which are defining features of liberalism, is deserving of criticism, and ripe with some degree of hypocrisy. I've made similar criticisms of seasoned posters. Regardless of disagreement, one should have to ignore ignorance...that's ludicrous. Of course, one could debate instead of namecalling. But what fun would that be for the losers and morons...ah crap, see what you made me do.:coffee:

[ConHog]

And saying it proves some sort of point, which it does not.

Rather then continuing drama and creating a divisive atmosphere - why don't you place the new members you take issue with on your ignore list? It makes little sense to continue on about some, and bitching to others about it, when you can simply place them on ignore and do away with the issue. But if you choose not to do so, it will also make little sense to bitch any further, knowing you have that option.

It DOES prove a point. Liberal and conservative mean nothing , since its all relative to who is calling who what.

If that point pisses you off , I can't help it.

[logroller]

So who is this "guy" then, that has only been here about a day? Sounds like you're speaking about a new member to me.
Agreed. New/old-- doesn't matter.

[ConHog]

Agreed. New/old-- doesn't matter.

Agreed, except a newer poster wouldn't have any idea if Rev was a liberal or a conservative. That was my only point in calling him a new guy.

I don't care how long someone has been posting except for when it is relative, and certainly being new to a board is relative to labeling someone, especially when you got the label wrong.

[logroller]

Agreed, except a newer poster wouldn't have any idea if Rev was a liberal or a conservative. That was my only point in calling him a new guy.

I don't care how long someone has been posting except for when it is relative, and certainly being new to a board is relative to labeling someone, especially when you got the label wrong.

I agreed with you on the statement's merit; his definition of liberal was wrong. however i disagree his time here had anything to do with it! Time here doesn't make one more or less qualified to make assumptions. Owning the board does though. :cool:

[jimnyc]

Calling rev a liberal based on a or b, neither of which are defining features of liberalism, is deserving of criticism, and ripe with some degree of hypocrisy. I've made similar criticisms of seasoned posters. Regardless of disagreement, one should have to ignore ignorance...that's ludicrous. Of course, one could debate instead of namecalling. But what fun would that be for the losers and morons...ah crap, see what you made me do.:coffee:

Yep, but calling Rev a liberal isn't much different than claiming the new guys are ruining the board or turning it into a bunch of right wing nuts. I'd rather people use the ignore button and get back to discussions instead of the continual animosity and complaints.

[jimnyc]

It DOES prove a point. Liberal and conservative mean nothing , since its all relative to who is calling who what.

If that point pisses you off , I can't help it.

What pisses me off is the non-stop complaints and rumors. Those can disappear if people used the ignore button. If you refuse to do that, then we can't help that, and you should stop with the complaints to staff and complaints to other members about staff and the new members.

[jimnyc]

Agreed, except a newer poster wouldn't have any idea if Rev was a liberal or a conservative. That was my only point in calling him a new guy.

And old members know just as much about the new guys as they do about old members. Reap what you sow. If you can call them right wing nuts based on the exact same amount of time, then surely they can label too?

[aboutime]

And saying it proves some sort of point, which it does not.

Rather then continuing drama and creating a divisive atmosphere - why don't you place the new members you take issue with on your ignore list? It makes little sense to continue on about some, and bitching to others about it, when you can simply place them on ignore and do away with the issue. But if you choose not to do so, it will also make little sense to bitch any further, knowing you have that option.


jimnyc. Most of us NEW folks have seen the real results of using the Ignore feature before.
It's actually just a kind of ploy some choose to use, which somehow gives them a false sense of security...up until the time they realize. There are Unintended Consequences for using it as well.

Namely. Members who need, and thrive on attention in order to participate in any way. Get the short end of the stick...so to speak, by cutting themselves out of the loop, and getting little, if any Attention since it removes their ability to argue Honestly.
When someone claims they are using the IGNORE feature. They turn it on, or off to protect themselves in many cases. And it allows them to pretend...they haven't read words directed their way.
In other words. Using IGNORE is much like switching the MUTE button on your tv, or radio. BUT...the user never admits to BEING ABLE TO READ LIPS.

[DragonStryk72]

egypt alone is no threat to us. We can wipe them up like a spilled drink. I look beyond that. If they go fundamentalist then they will be joining ranks with lybia, iran, syria after the rebels win, and all the arab countries that already are sharia compliant. That is where they become a real threat. All the ME countries forming their caliphate. islam is the real danger, but our govt won't acknowledge that.

A few greedy generals in the egyptian army are throwing a wrench into the works of the caliphate. More fighting and maybe an outright war is to come.

The Franklin quote doesn't apply here.

Okay, but then you have to realize that we are a present and future threat to them by the methodology you're presenting here, so they should have the right to interfere with our government and country, since clearly, we are already doing so with theirs. We meddle, we meddle a lot, especially in the ME and Africa, and so the great wheel keeps turning. We help create the monsters that we use later on as justification for having to interfere.

It's like teaching your kid to ride a bike. Yeah, at first their are training wheels, but at some point, we have to let them ride on their own, or they'll never really learn. Things like this are going to happen, where a group we don't like gets into power, but we can't just knock them to the ground every time they make a misstep, or back one group or the other, since that's how we made both AQ and Saddam. We keep trying to treat it like they are good guys, and bad guys, but the lines just aren't that simple.

These people have been warring for more than 500 years, and there's a ton of built up animosity. It's sorta like trying to break up two Marines in a brawl: There's a pretty good chance you're gonna earn yourself a whuppin in the process, quite possibly from both of them. Better to let them where each other down a ways, and approach with beers.

[Drummond]

Will check out the link... I have to admit, I'm not up to date on the affiliations of all foreign papers. I read about the story from multiple stories, and I think when I went back to link I grabbed that one. I used the link solely for the quoting of the actual statements from the MB. Same for here in the US, with left and right wing rags, sometimes you have to dig through the crap to get the actual news. Seems anymore that the news is hidden in stories that are 97% opinion pieces.

... OK. You're wise to be cautious of the Guardian, though.

I don't remember the details, and this goes back years .. but I recall they once launched an attack on Bill O'Reilly, really lambasting one of his interviews on the O'Reilly Factor. To 'prove' their case that O'Reilly was an 'anti-free speech bigot', they reproduced a transcript of one interview .. EXCEPT .. that they just 'happened' to cut out about 60 percent of it !!

Most Brits haven't even heard of O'Reilly, or his show .. and the only access we get to Fox News is via Sky satellite TV, and then only if you buy into the right subscription package. [These days, I'm not a Sky subscriber, though I was, years ago.] So you'll appreciate that any smear campaign that the Guardian starts is bound to succeed, unfortunately ...

[ConHog]

What pisses me off is the non-stop complaints and rumors. Those can disappear if people used the ignore button. If you refuse to do that, then we can't help that, and you should stop with the complaints to staff and complaints to other members about staff and the new members.

Odd, NONE of that is being discussed in this thread until YOU brought it up.

Again, if you can't acknowledge that a new poster would have less insight into a political stance of another poster than someone who has been here for awhile has been, I can't help you.

Other than that all it seems you were just doing is discussing PMs (alleged) in public.

[Gaffer]

Good points DS, but I see it a little different in the threat part. We want to help improve their lot, make them friends, allies or at least trade partners. They want to control the world and throw everyone back to the 7th century. It's war that has existed since the formation of islam.

I think our meddling is a good thing as long as it's done with the consequences in mind. Let them fight it out and then drop the winner with a beer bottle to the head.

That might make a good slogan for the CIA...Meddle We Must.

:salute:

[jimnyc]

Odd, NONE of that is being discussed in this thread until YOU brought it up.

Again, if you can't acknowledge that a new poster would have less insight into a political stance of another poster than someone who has been here for awhile has been, I can't help you.

Other than that all it seems you were just doing is discussing PMs (alleged) in public.

Don't worry about what I do, we're discussing you giving new members little jabs and a hard time in various places, and then complaining to anyone who will listen about them. And I acknowledged they would have less insight, just as long time members here have less insight about them, no difference. And my last point is, rather than complain so much, WHY NOT just place them on ignore? Wouldn't you rather post at a board where you don't get annoyed by a certain few? Or would you prefer to keep them within view, so you can bitch? I've asked you this question about like 20 members here now, and I don't think once I've ever gotten you to ignore someone and not once have you legitimately answered this question.

[ConHog]

Don't worry about what I do, we're discussing you giving new members little jabs and a hard time in various places, and then complaining to anyone who will listen about them. And I acknowledged they would have less insight, just as long time members here have less insight about them, no difference. And my last point is, rather than complain so much, WHY NOT just place them on ignore? Wouldn't you rather post at a board where you don't get annoyed by a certain few? Or would you prefer to keep them within view, so you can bitch? I've asked you this question about like 20 members here now, and I don't think once I've ever gotten you to ignore someone and not once have you legitimately answered this question.

I WILL worry about what you do when you're complaining about shit that isn't even happening. I wasn't complaining about Taft, I merely made a fucking comment that it was odd to see a brand new poster putting a label on another poster. In fact such comments are made all the time, with nary a peep from you.

The whole board gets it Jim, you're mad at me, ban me or get over it; but quit fucking coming into every thread and acting like I did something I didn't do, and then telling me not to worry about what you're doing.



PS - the few posters who actually do annoy me to the point where I don't even want to see their posts are on fucking ignore.

[Drummond]

Our government was not fooled by the true intention of the socalled freedom fighters in Libya , obama knew their pro Sharia law agenda and I am convinced he knew all along and sought to aid them to insure their victory. Obama announced long ago that he would side with Islam, people seem to forget or to pretend that he never said that. All this freedom movement talk about the socalled Arab Spring is propaganda designed to get American citizens going along with obama's agenda to push for Islamist spreading of power over there. -Tyr

I'm sure there's a lot to what you say, Tyr.

Even so, we Brits have a different perspective on one aspect of this .. namely, Obama's 'enthusiasm' to get involved with the business of air patrols and airstrikes generally, at the time when those attacks were meant to soften up Gaddafi's forces. Over here, it was being reported that Obama was reluctant to assist the British and French forces in any way. Reports here said that Cameron and Sarkosy had to make personal representations to Obama to get him 'on side'. And .. the perception also is that Obama did what he could to take a back seat in all that as soon as he could.

I've dug out this Sky News report ..

http://news.sky.com/story/892944/libya-camerons-political-gamble-pays-off

Partial quote ..


In Libya, protesters demonstrating against the Gaddafi regime were being met with a bloody crackdown by the security forces, with Col Gaddafi vowing to fight to his "last drop of blood" and calling on his supporters to "fill the streets" and "attack them in their lairs".

So the PM cut short that ill-fated Gulf trip, returned to London and attempted to persuade Barack Obama to back him in a liberation of the Libyan people.

But he found the US President was unenthusiastic, dithering and unco-operative.

So instead, Mr Cameron formed a powerful and ultimately hugely successful alliance with President Sarkozy of France in leading the efforts to overthrow Col Gaddafi.

Last month Mr Cameron and the French President were rewarded with a rapturous welcome when they visited Libya together.

The BBC's 'spin' was clear on this throughout the Libyan conflict. Gaddafi was the brutal oppressor, the rebels were merely freedom fighters who deserved all the support they could get. Week after week we were shown horrific images and reports of those at the receiving-end of Gaddafi's forces, and the viewer was left in no doubt that the rebels had to win.

Whether Cameron was conned by the BBC's bias or not (when the announcement came, after the rebel win, of the imposition of Sharia, the BBC refused to report it), he himself took exactly the line that the BBC had taken, and ran with it. So it was that he was reported as being 'exasperated' with Obama's so-called 'dithering', while he made his mind up whether or not to play the part that Cameron wanted him to play.

[jimnyc]

I WILL worry about what you do when you're complaining about shit that isn't even happening. I wasn't complaining about Taft, I merely made a fucking comment that it was odd to see a brand new poster putting a label on another poster. In fact such comments are made all the time, with nary a peep from you.

The whole board gets it Jim, you're mad at me, ban me or get over it; but quit fucking coming into every thread and acting like I did something I didn't do, and then telling me not to worry about what you're doing.



PS - the few posters who actually do annoy me to the point where I don't even want to see their posts are on fucking ignore.

Worry if you like, that's on you. And yes, it was merely a comment, one of which are spread all over the board. You have complained, almost non-stop, since the new members have arrived. So don't try and pass it off as just one comment and I'm somehow harassing you. I'm simply asking you to do your part and to try ignoring those you have issues with instead of the incessant complaining.

[Drummond]

We should sever all financial and military ties to every country in the Middle East and Northern Africa. They can all get by without us. That includes every country between Morocco and Turkey. Let them get by and sort things out by their own accord.

A couple of thoughts on this.

One, is it wise to sever ties with Nation States, when those very ties might give the US some badly needed leverage ?

Wise contacts rather than reckless ones are to be preferred, I grant you that ... thought needs to be given as to who, or what, groups or affiliations might profit indirectly. But straight distancing in any and all cases ? I think that's less than wise.

That said ... I naturally take it that a part of why you wanted to post this, Gabby, is to try and say that Israel should be isolated, that America should renege on its duties as an ally ? You want people here to be convinced of that thoroughly disreputable stance ??

Gabby, could you enlighten me on something ? You see, I've never understood why those of a Left-leaning persuasion so consistently dream up excuses for taking an anti-Israeli line. Why DOES the Left hate Israel so much ?

[DragonStryk72]

Good points DS, but I see it a little different in the threat part. We want to help improve their lot, make them friends, allies or at least trade partners. They want to control the world and throw everyone back to the 7th century. It's war that has existed since the formation of islam.

I think our meddling is a good thing as long as it's done with the consequences in mind. Let them fight it out and then drop the winner with a beer bottle to the head.

That might make a good slogan for the CIA...Meddle We Must.

:salute:

The problem, however, is that we never learn the consequences. We always believe that this time, it'll be different, this time, we'll get it right. The problem is, though, that the war is no longer about islam, just as eventually, the crusades stopped being about Christianity. Now it's about blood and vengeance, with only the barest hint of old verses thrown in, just to give them an excuse.

Islam is no more the problem than Christianity is, they're simply behind us on the curve, in realizing that not every single verse of the holy book is literal writ from God, that men, inherently flawed beings wrote it, however divinely inspired they might have been. I've known a number of muslims who somehow manage to not feel the need to murder anyone, with bombs or otherwise. Tell me, have your children ever cursed at you, or have you ever seen children curse at yourself or their own parents? Did you have them put to death? How can you call yourself a Christian if you don't follow every single tenet of the bible?

"For any man who revileth his father and his mother is certainly put to death; his father and his mother he hath reviled: his blood is on him."
-Leviticus 20:9

Of course we don't follow this sort of thing, it's horrific, and it clearly goes against the core peace as preached by Christ. Even Jewish people don't follow it, because it goes against "Thou shalt not kill", and again, we know now that these are horrible things to do, and pull us further from God, not bring us closer. In the ME, they're just not there yet, and if we would stop poking them with a stick every few years, we might see something happen. The best thing we can really do is leave them all the hell alone, and let them sort out their collective shit.

[ConHog]

L
Worry if you like, that's on you. And yes, it was merely a comment, one of which are spread all over the board. You have complained, almost non-stop, since the new members have arrived. So don't try and pass it off as just one comment and I'm somehow harassing you. I'm simply asking you to do your part and to try ignoring those you have issues with instead of the incessant complaining.


Link to said complaints? In fact that has not happened oh and i sure damn well dont see you publicly advising anyone to ignore me when they call me pond scum or dishonorable or any other manner of names. Why the hypocrisy my friend?

[jimnyc]

L


Link to said complaints? In fact that has not happened oh and i sure damn well dont see you publicly advising anyone to ignore me when they call me pond scum or dishonorable or any other manner of names. Why the hypocrisy my friend?

Shall I count the amount of PM's I received from you on the subject? How many posts have been reported by yourself? How you have complained to others? Please, don't try the innocent routine. Without exaggeration, and without discussing any PM's, I have received about 400-800 of them from you in the past 2 months. 20-30 a day for days on end at one point. And rather than have to moderate anyone because of feuds, I encourage members to place others on ignore. You refuse to do so, and yet continue to complain, to someone, anyone.

Do you deny this endless complaining? And if you do in fact deny it, do you then give me permission to quote the inordinate amount of times you complained to me via PM and what the complaints were about?

I'm tired of the complaints when everyone is involved and everyone is guilty. And there's no hypocrisy, as the others that I have spoken to on related matters have all been positive with me, and 3 thus far have agreed to use the ignore button. None of them have had feuds with no less than 10 members prior either.

[Gaffer]

The problem, however, is that we never learn the consequences. We always believe that this time, it'll be different, this time, we'll get it right. The problem is, though, that the war is no longer about islam, just as eventually, the crusades stopped being about Christianity. Now it's about blood and vengeance, with only the barest hint of old verses thrown in, just to give them an excuse.

Islam is no more the problem than Christianity is, they're simply behind us on the curve, in realizing that not every single verse of the holy book is literal writ from God, that men, inherently flawed beings wrote it, however divinely inspired they might have been. I've known a number of muslims who somehow manage to not feel the need to murder anyone, with bombs or otherwise. Tell me, have your children ever cursed at you, or have you ever seen children curse at yourself or their own parents? Did you have them put to death? How can you call yourself a Christian if you don't follow every single tenet of the bible?

"For any man who revileth his father and his mother is certainly put to death; his father and his mother he hath reviled: his blood is on him."
-Leviticus 20:9

Of course we don't follow this sort of thing, it's horrific, and it clearly goes against the core peace as preached by Christ. Even Jewish people don't follow it, because it goes against "Thou shalt not kill", and again, we know now that these are horrible things to do, and pull us further from God, not bring us closer. In the ME, they're just not there yet, and if we would stop poking them with a stick every few years, we might see something happen. The best thing we can really do is leave them all the hell alone, and let them sort out their collective shit.

Our representatives don't learn the consequences. They keep doing the same things over and over expecting different results. And I don't think you will ever see reformation in islam. Those that try are condemned to death. And the so called radicals far out number the moderates. It's been shown in egypt now. Until reason and common sense can be instilled in islam it will always be a cult of death.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm sure there's a lot to what you say, Tyr.

Even so, we Brits have a different perspective on one aspect of this .. namely, Obama's 'enthusiasm' to get involved with the business of air patrols and airstrikes generally, at the time when those attacks were meant to soften up Gaddafi's forces. Over here, it was being reported that Obama was reluctant to assist the British and French forces in any way. Reports here said that Cameron and Sarkosy had to make personal representations to Obama to get him 'on side'. And .. the perception also is that Obama did what he could to take a back seat in all that as soon as he could.

I've dug out this Sky News report ..

http://news.sky.com/story/892944/libya-camerons-political-gamble-pays-off

Partial quote ..



The BBC's 'spin' was clear on this throughout the Libyan conflict. Gaddafi was the brutal oppressor, the rebels were merely freedom fighters who deserved all the support they could get. Week after week we were shown horrific images and reports of those at the receiving-end of Gaddafi's forces, and the viewer was left in no doubt that the rebels had to win.

Whether Cameron was conned by the BBC's bias or not (when the announcement came, after the rebel win, of the imposition of Sharia, the BBC refused to report it), he himself took exactly the line that the BBC had taken, and ran with it. So it was that he was reported as being 'exasperated' with Obama's so-called 'dithering', while he made his mind up whether or not to play the part that Cameron wanted him to play.

Very informative my friend..
Obama for some reason didnt want too much credit for our actions there . He made sure support for the muslim rebels was given by others too. The fact that he appeared to be not involved is misleading IMHO. For he supported all the other uprisngs involved in the socalled "Arabspring" (Islam power spread)!! Perhaps it was agreed to let Cameron take most of the heat .-Tyr

[ConHog]

Shall I count the amount of PM's I received from you on the subject? How many posts have been reported by yourself? How you have complained to others? Please, don't try the innocent routine. Without exaggeration, and without discussing any PM's, I have received about 400-800 of them from you in the past 2 months. 20-30 a day for days on end at one point. And rather than have to moderate anyone because of feuds, I encourage members to place others on ignore. You refuse to do so, and yet continue to complain, to someone, anyone.

Do you deny this endless complaining? And if you do in fact deny it, do you then give me permission to quote the inordinate amount of times you complained to me via PM and what the complaints were about?

I'm tired of the complaints when everyone is involved and everyone is guilty. And there's no hypocrisy, as the others that I have spoken to on related matters have all been positive with me, and 3 thus far have agreed to use the ignore button. None of them have had feuds with no less than 10 members prior either.

Jim, all I have left to say in this thread, is that you misread and blew things out of proportion. Maybe partially my fault, but in this thread, YOU over reacted. I wasn't complaining about Taft, frankly since he IS new I don't even know that much about him, which was my point being new it was funny that he labeled Rev a liberal. It was MUCH more of an innocent remark than you have turned it into.

Now, I fully realize that you are unlikely to admit that is the case, and that's fine; but I'm done with this childish argument.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Shall I count the amount of PM's I received from you on the subject? How many posts have been reported by yourself? How you have complained to others? Please, don't try the innocent routine. Without exaggeration, and without discussing any PM's, I have received about 400-800 of them from you in the past 2 months. 20-30 a day for days on end at one point. And rather than have to moderate anyone because of feuds, I encourage members to place others on ignore. You refuse to do so, and yet continue to complain, to someone, anyone.

Do you deny this endless complaining? And if you do in fact deny it, do you then give me permission to quote the inordinate amount of times you complained to me via PM and what the complaints were about?

I'm tired of the complaints when everyone is involved and everyone is guilty. And there's no hypocrisy, as the others that I have spoken to on related matters have all been positive with me, and 3 thus far have agreed to use the ignore button. None of them have had feuds with no less than 10 members prior either.

That many complaints from one person clearly should point to exactly who has the big problem. I'm fine with anybody here putting me on ignore for any reason they choose. I have one person on ignore, have no reason so far to add to that! That one was more than enough!--Tyr

[Abbey Marie]

A couple of thoughts on this.

One, is it wise to sever ties with Nation States, when those very ties might give the US some badly needed leverage ?

Wise contacts rather than reckless ones are to be preferred, I grant you that ... thought needs to be given as to who, or what, groups or affiliations might profit indirectly. But straight distancing in any and all cases ? I think that's less than wise.

That said ... I naturally take it that a part of why you wanted to post this, Gabby, is to try and say that Israel should be isolated, that America should renege on its duties as an ally ? You want people here to be convinced of that thoroughly disreputable stance ??

Gabby, could you enlighten me on something ? You see, I've never understood why those of a Left-leaning persuasion so consistently dream up excuses for taking an anti-Israeli line. Why DOES the Left hate Israel so much ?

It is especially hard to understand when American Jews act this way.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It is especially hard to understand when American Jews act this way.

That always confused me and look at the support they gave and still give to obama! It must be some form of insanity IMO.-Tyr

[ConHog]

It is especially hard to understand when American Jews act this way.


Not really if you consider that the average American is an idiot and doesn't even understand their own heritage. American Jews are no different in that regard.

[Kathianne]

Not really if you consider that the average American is an idiot and doesn't even understand their own heritage. American Jews are no different in that regard.

Most of those particular idiots are very well educated and make significantly above the average:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CGEQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.soc.washington.edu%2Fusers%2F burstein%2FBurstein_Jewish_Success_SP07.pdf&ei=1xDpT5GCDOOy2wWt17nsDQ&usg=AFQjCNGY32auDNi3IOet_ChO3EJy8qfT5A&sig2=82Z0R7Op0jygWUTc8gp1Sw

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Most of those particular idiots are very well educated and make significantly above the average:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CGEQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.soc.washington.edu%2Fusers%2F burstein%2FBurstein_Jewish_Success_SP07.pdf&ei=1xDpT5GCDOOy2wWt17nsDQ&usg=AFQjCNGY32auDNi3IOet_ChO3EJy8qfT5A&sig2=82Z0R7Op0jygWUTc8gp1Sw

Most of those "IDIOTS" voted obama last time!:laugh2:-Tyr

[Kathianne]

Most of those "IDIOTS" voted obama last time!:laugh2:-Tyr

I know, but it's not because they are idiots, rather useful tools of the left. Truth is, they vote upon 'feelings' not reason. They do not vote in their own self-interests, rather on behalf of those they 'wish' to see have a better chance. Good people, lousy reasoning. They don't seem to realize that anything unsustainable will fail to be sustained. Then what will happen to those 'unlucky folks?'

Often in the past couple years, folks on other boards have said, 'I'm nuts' supporting conservative or libertarian ideals, as I am in pretty dire financial straits. However, reasoning tells me that more conservative votes in legislature and hopefully coming laws will make a better country for my kids and grandchildren. It's about the future, not myself.

[DragonStryk72]

Our representatives don't learn the consequences. They keep doing the same things over and over expecting different results. And I don't think you will ever see reformation in islam. Those that try are condemned to death. And the so called radicals far out number the moderates. It's been shown in egypt now. Until reason and common sense can be instilled in islam it will always be a cult of death.

That's the definition of insanity right there.

Oh, eventually some movement within Islam will start, likely over here, in fact, that is given the protection it needs to gain traction. It's going to be something that comes from the outside, over time, as they begin to see that there is another way, where their loved ones don't have to die horribly, where they can agree to disagree, and live their lives, just like the "heresies" of Christendom started outside of the Vatican, and in fact, Christianity itself had to start off quietly to avoid getting to "feed the lions".

[revelarts]

I would recommend to anyone that they read, Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan. The founders/framers had great familiarity with this work, which emphasizes the need for a strong leader. (Hey, this was written during the Middle Ages, when plague was still being felt. This man really was into very dark places.) A few years later, John Locke also writing on political philosophy, has a much more optimistic outlook. He's more concerned with the rights of the individual, than the right of king. He put great stock in representative government, a natural check on the king.

Rousseau is all about rights and freedom. His greatest contribution was the idea of 'natural rights' and borrowing from Hobbes; the way to measure a government is whether or not the people are more free than in a state of nature.

Seriously, fascinating stuff!

Passed this up earlier, wanted to make quick comment.
Hobbes and Rouseau are interteresting stuff, I like Locke better
but please read Fredrick Bastiat's THE LAW before or after them. it's short it pointed, it funny and really clears the cobwebs.http://www.freeaudio.org/fbastiat/thelaw.html
the candle makers petition is really good too. Great satire.
http://www.freeaudio.org/fbastiat/candlemakerspetition.html

While i can't go as far as as he does it's hard to argue with.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1365&Itemid=358

[Kathianne]

Passed this up earlier, wanted to make quick comment.
Hobbes and Rouseau are interteresting stuff, I like Locke better
but please read Fredrick Bastiat's THE LAW before or after them. it's short it pointed, it funny and really clears the cobwebs.http://www.freeaudio.org/fbastiat/thelaw.html
the candle makers petition is really good too. Great satire.
http://www.freeaudio.org/fbastiat/candlemakerspetition.html

While i can't go as far as as he does it's hard to argue with.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1365&Itemid=358

I'll read, in fact I'll be going to the library likely Saturday. FYI, I like Hobbes best when I really get into a mood that reminds me of you. LOL! There are worse things than government, which would be no government.

By and by though, I like Locke's political theories and Rousseau's measurements. Probably why I wrote what I did.

I've heard of Bastiat, but can't recall reading any of his works, perhaps a xerox of short work or so, uncertain. After looking up some of the background, I'll remedy that.