Egyptian Democracy!

[christiefan915]

Here's the bottom line... I am all for democracy; what I am NOT for is mob rule. When a religious party comes into power and forces its moral code onto the general population, there is a problem. Why many liberals refuse to acknowledge this is simply beyond me.

Try and comprehend: it was an election, not an overthrow. The MB won by a <52% - >48% majority. Take it up with the Egyptians and stop with this silliness about American liberals.

 

[christiefan915]

I was at the Presidential Palace last year, he claims that he was in the first wave of tanks to enter the palace. I am sure that the Vietcong were happy about the anti-war movement but it was the behaviour of the US which caused their ultimate downfall. They should have learnt something from the tactics employed by the British in Malaya in the '50s.

http://www.psywar.org/malaya.php

His claim had no eyewitnesses either, which is curious.

 

[apple0154]

I guess your so dense that you can't figure it out, so I'll try to explain it to you.
People in the military go where they are told and fight when they are told to fight.

Yes, with the understanding they are defending the country. The protesters were trying to get the soldiers to understand they weren't defending their country. They were fighting an unjust war. Are you so dense you can't figure that out?

People treat the military personel like they made a choice to go or not.
If you've got a complaint, then address it to the ones who are responsible and those are the politicians.
If it is decided to send in the military, then get the fuck out of the way and let them do what they've been trained to do.
Let the politicians do what they were elected to do, after the military are finished.

The war had been going on for years. Talk, talk, talk while the young people were being lied to. The war had to be stopped, one way or another. If the politicians and the war mongers wouldn't stop it take it to the grass roots level and address the people actually doing the fighting. The propaganda on one side was saying a person would be hero while the other side was countering it by saying one would be killing innocent people. It was a struggle for the minds of men.

As far as I'm concerned it was a turning point in mankind's history telling the government, "Hell no. I won't go!"

 

[apple0154]

Between Mutt's astounding ignorance and Christie's Islamogasms, this thread is sufficient evidence that modern liberals are completely out of their minds.

Spoken like a true asylum inmate. LOL

 

[cancel2 2022]

Try and comprehend: it was an election, not an overthrow. The MB won by a <52% - >48% majority. Take it up with the Egyptians and stop with this silliness about American liberals.

How many times do you have to tell people that he is an interim appointment only, there will be fresh elections later to elect an new president.

 

[apple0154]

I believe that Morsi was elected by majority vote and that the opposition didn't run a candidate that appealed to more voters. Clearly they were tired of the Mubarak regime and had no interest in electing his PM.

I'm really not sure what your beef is, other than the usual hatred of Muslims. The US was the best recruiting tool Muslims could have hoped for, after our illegal, immoral invasion of Iraq. What happened in Egypt is one of the unintended consequences liberals then warned about, while conservatives shrugged us off and continued to chant their shallow-minded slogans about bringing freedom and democracy to the world.

This video sums it all up. It's timeless and priceless.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

If the military had been allowed to do whatever they wanted then the world would have been fried during the Cuban Missile crisis. I suppose that is one way that Vietnam could have been prevented. It was only years after when the Kremlin files were opened up that it was discovered there were 162 missiles primed and ready to launch at US targets. They would have been fired if Kennedy hadn't stopped those crazy bastard generals ordering a first strike.

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/10/05/w...d-armageddon-his-own.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm

So now you want to change the conversation from a war and missle firing, while not at war.
Let me know what cloud you finally decide to land on.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Yes, with the understanding they are defending the country. The protesters were trying to get the soldiers to understand they weren't defending their country. They were fighting an unjust war. Are you so dense you can't figure that out?



The war had been going on for years. Talk, talk, talk while the young people were being lied to. The war had to be stopped, one way or another. If the politicians and the war mongers wouldn't stop it take it to the grass roots level and address the people actually doing the fighting. The propaganda on one side was saying a person would be hero while the other side was countering it by saying one would be killing innocent people. It was a struggle for the minds of men.

As far as I'm concerned it was a turning point in mankind's history telling the government, "Hell no. I won't go!"

And the best way to convince them, is so spit on them and call them murderers.
YEAH, that's the best way to influence people.

But wait a minute.
You're one of the people that want a nanny state government, from cradle to grave, so I don't understand why you want to complain when mommy tells you to do something.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Try and comprehend: it was an election, not an overthrow. The MB won by a <52% - >48% majority. Take it up with the Egyptians and stop with this silliness about American liberals.

It's odd that about 80% of the Egyptians we talk to, say they were opposed to the MB. It's almost as if the 52-48% number was thought up before the election ever happened... but that would mean, the MB were not being honest about things, and that couldn't be the least bit possible, could it?

Let me construct a scenario for your consideration....

Let's say that Obama declared himself, ruler for life! And of course, all you liberals danced in the streets and praised Obama for being a great leader and man... and for years we did this... but over time, Obama becomes more dictatorial and totalitarian... and eventually, even the people who used to like him, are not pleased. So we all get together and decide Obama must go... We overthrow his regime from power, but the group who happened to be the most involved in that, were the Christian Fundies, headed by Pat Robertson. So, as we rid ourselves of the brutal reign of Obama, in his place, we put Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition. Their first order of business, is to completely re-define the parameters of who can hold political office and how laws can be written, or people elected, etc. And they basically form the basis for a Theocratic Christian government... then they hold elections, with the appropriately vetted candidates, and you get to choose! Would you feel like we had a free and open election process? Or would you maybe be concerned that the Christian Fundies, who controlled all parameters of politics, who controlled the election process itself, and who you had to depend on to tell you who won... that maybe they might not be representing the true will of the people?

And what about some idiot Egyptian on an obscure Egyptian message board, lamenting how it was such a great day for freedom and democracy? What would you have to say to them???

 

[cancel2 2022]

So now you want to change the conversation from a war and missle firing, while not at war.
Let me know what cloud you finally decide to land on.

You are the one that has such unswerving faith in the military, but I can see why you find it difficult to talk about what would have happened if Curtis Le May had been allowed a first strike on Cuba.

 

[apple0154]

And the best way to convince them, is so spit on them and call them murderers.
YEAH, that's the best way to influence people.

Let's keep it in perspective. There will always be those who cross the line.

But wait a minute.
You're one of the people that want a nanny state government, from cradle to grave, so I don't understand why you want to complain when mommy tells you to do something.

It is you who terms it a "nanny state". If anything, the way certain programs are now run it's more of a nanny state than anything I envision. The government can help people without telling them what to do.

Take welfare, for example. Why food stamps? Just give the people the money and let them budget it. A person in the country may be able to get cheaper food from a road side stand than someone living in the city and going to a supermarket. Or where a person lives or with whom they live? Maybe someone would be OK living in one room and spend the money saved on proper clothes for a job interview.

Or medical care. No one is obliged to obtain care. It should be there IF a person desires it.

The difference is like going to a bank for a personal loan as opposed to getting a loan from a family member. If the loan isn't huge and ones credit is good the bank will not ask the reason whereas a family member would almost always ask. And we all know what political party likes to place obstacles in the way of help.

Or unemployment. Why were people forbidden to attend school when unemployed? That's the nanny state idea, interferring in people's lives and that's what we have now.

Just help and get out of the way.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

You are the one that has such unswerving faith in the military, but I can see why you find it difficult to talk about what would have happened if Curtis Le May had been allowed a first strike on Cuba.

My "way back machine" is broke, so I'm unable to respond to your "what if"; but since your machine is obviously working, what if Cuba would have gotten the missles?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Let's keep it in perspective. There will always be those who cross the line.



It is you who terms it a "nanny state". If anything, the way certain programs are now run it's more of a nanny state than anything I envision. The government can help people without telling them what to do.

Take welfare, for example. Why food stamps? Just give the people the money and let them budget it. A person in the country may be able to get cheaper food from a road side stand than someone living in the city and going to a supermarket. Or where a person lives or with whom they live? Maybe someone would be OK living in one room and spend the money saved on proper clothes for a job interview.

Or medical care. No one is obliged to obtain care. It should be there IF a person desires it.

The difference is like going to a bank for a personal loan as opposed to getting a loan from a family member. If the loan isn't huge and ones credit is good the bank will not ask the reason whereas a family member would almost always ask. And we all know what political party likes to place obstacles in the way of help.

Or unemployment. Why were people forbidden to attend school when unemployed? That's the nanny state idea, interferring in people's lives and that's what we have now.

Just help and get out of the way.

While you did a great job of explaining why YOU love sucking at the teat of the nanny state, you failed to answer the question.

 

[cancel2 2022]

My "way back machine" is broke, so I'm unable to respond to your "what if"; but since your machine is obviously working, what if Cuba would have gotten the missles?

We will never know now, will we? However the military was dead set on a full scale invasion of Cuba. Did you know that at that time Russia had only 300 nuclear warheads against over 5000 on the US side? They wanted to add 40 more to balance those that were deployed in Turkey.

 

[zappasguitar]

It's odd that about 80% of the Egyptians we talk to, say they were opposed to the MB. It's almost as if the 52-48% number was thought up before the election ever happened... but that would mean, the MB were not being honest about things, and that couldn't be the least bit possible, could it?

Let me construct a scenario for your consideration....

Let's say that Obama declared himself, ruler for life! And of course, all you liberals danced in the streets and praised Obama for being a great leader and man... and for years we did this... but over time, Obama becomes more dictatorial and totalitarian... and eventually, even the people who used to like him, are not pleased. So we all get together and decide Obama must go... We overthrow his regime from power, but the group who happened to be the most involved in that, were the Christian Fundies, headed by Pat Robertson. So, as we rid ourselves of the brutal reign of Obama, in his place, we put Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition. Their first order of business, is to completely re-define the parameters of who can hold political office and how laws can be written, or people elected, etc. And they basically form the basis for a Theocratic Christian government... then they hold elections, with the appropriately vetted candidates, and you get to choose! Would you feel like we had a free and open election process? Or would you maybe be concerned that the Christian Fundies, who controlled all parameters of politics, who controlled the election process itself, and who you had to depend on to tell you who won... that maybe they might not be representing the true will of the people?

And what about some idiot Egyptian on an obscure Egyptian message board, lamenting how it was such a great day for freedom and democracy? What would you have to say to them???

Ah yes...yet another patented Dixie conspiracy theory...100% evidence-free and proud of it!

 

[USFREEDOM911]

You are not paying attention they already had 162 missiles in place primed and ready to go, a first strike on Cuba which Le May favoured would have caused WW3. That is just an example of what would have happened if the politicians had let the military get on with it. Gen. Westmoreland wanted to drop a nuclear weapon on Hanoi in the Vietnam war, no doubt you would have been happy with that.

While you seem real passionate about this, you failed to answer the question.
I bet you can tell every losing team, for just about any sport, how they COULD HAVE won the game; if they would only had done this.

 

[cancel2 2022]

While you seem real passionate about this, you failed to answer the question.
I bet you can tell every losing team, for just about any sport, how they COULD HAVE won the game; if they would only had done this.

The point I am trying to make is that you favour giving the military its head in wartime, I am just pointing out scenarios where that would have been a very bad idea.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

The point I am trying to make is that you favour giving the military its head in wartime, I am just pointing out scenarios where that would have been a very bad idea.

Exactly and by the way; we weren't at war with Cuba, during the time frame you're refering to.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Exactly and by the way; we weren't at war with Cuba, during the time frame you're refering to.

Splitting hairs, the US was on the brink with Cuba.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Splitting hairs, the US was on the brink with Cuba.

So now; the "brink" means the same as "are".

By your standards; since there's been a "War on Drugs" declared, we should have the military handling this.