Obama goes further over Mubarak departure
He was asked directly, in a news conference with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, if change could happen while Mr Mubarak remained in charge. The president said that Mr Mubarak should consult with those around him, listen to the voices of the Egyptian people, and make a judgment. Mr Mubarak had, Mr Obama said, already made the break by announcing that he was going in September, so he had to decide how to make the transition legitimate. He hoped the Egyptian president would end up making the right decision.
Again, Mr Obama said that it was important that the transition begin now. He said the US was involved in discussions but the decisions would be taken by the Egyptian people.
The Obama administration is relieved that today's huge protest didn't turn nasty. Violence is the biggest threat to the change the US wants. There were real nerves in Washington that the army would be forced to choose between their commander-in-chief and the people. Instead they were judiciously neutral, keeping rival demonstrators apart.
The president's spokesman Robert Gibbs said on Friday that the world was waiting for the Egyptian government to take quick, concrete steps toward an orderly transition. It should have happened on Tuesday, he said. They need to sit down with a coalition representing a broad cross-section of Egyptian society.
The reason this isn't happening is because the opposition won't talk while Mr Mubarak remains in power. Mr Gibbs did not rise to the bait when a reporter suggested that the demonstrators might be asked to change their position.
One brief exchange was tantalising though. Mr Gibbs was asked if there had been an assassination attempt against Vice-President Omar Suleiman in the last few days. Looking rattled, he said he wasn't going to get into that. Other sources are equally reticent as to any detail but certainly suggest something happened. If it is true, the big question would be who would be behind it this attempt.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~55~RS~)
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
© MMXI
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Is there a helicopter waiting to whisk him away? That might be the safest way if the demonstrations are as described.
Complain about this comment
1 JMM...I suppose those with longer memories could make quite a long list of "friends of the USA" who became an embarassment after years of "rendering" faithful service to the prayerful and deeply righteous ones in Washington!
An old pal of mine was a sergeant in the King`s African Rifles with Idi Amin...who was charming ...until elevated into power on our behalf.I wonder how many lives were lost as a result of his promotion?
Complain about this comment
Why not get the UN in to assist with an orderly transfer of power...or some other third party that can help without seeming to act as a puppet of the USA? Or is this really about the US being unable to back down without losing face?
Sometimes I feel that the USA treats other nations as a sort of theatre for their politicians to use for what are really domestic political purposes.
How would you Americans respond if Obama apologised for the way his country has behaved in Egypt over the years and for your part in backing Mubarak`s regime?
Are you big enough to say sorry?
Complain about this comment
ref #3
worcesterjim wrote:
Why not get the UN in to assist with an orderly transfer of power...or some other third party that can help without seeming to act as a puppet of the USA? Or is this really about the US being unable to back down without losing face?
Sometimes I feel that the USA treats other nations as a sort of theatre for their politicians to use for what are really domestic political purposes.
How would you Americans respond if Obama apologised for the way his country has behaved in Egypt over the years and for your part in backing Mubarak`s regime?
Are you big enough to say sorry?
__________
We have spent too much time under Obama saying we are sorry.
The world should be saying thank you to us for our moral leadership and leading the fight against ilsanmic terrorism after leading the fight against stalinism and nazism
Jim you might also say thank you.
As far as the U.N their performance in Lebanon protecting Hezbollah shows they can not be trusted
Complain about this comment
I do say thank you for the existence and good humoured generosity of American people MK...and feel a genuine respect and affection for you folks who post from the USA ...regardless of our differences of opinion.
But your use of the phrase "moral leadership" does cause me more difficulty....and largely because I have come to the sad conclusion that the elites who run our western countries are little more than pirates and thieves and bullies masquerading as something they have no just right to claim to be.
What moral leadership has been shown in relation to Egypt MK?
Go on...stand back and be honest with yourself.It`s time we all grew up and had the guts to see our faults as well as our virtues.
Complain about this comment
The Oldloadr prize is lost already at No. 4
Complain about this comment
I have been following events in Egypt, mostly on BBC. Ease of access to information,events in Tunisia, and restive,young population is finally giving expression to pent up frustration,currently in Egypt and a few other Arab nations.
This expression is certainly welcome, however I fear that a lack of credible political opposition in these countries provide fertile ground for fringe ideologies to fill sudden power vacuum.
I fear we in the west with years of experience of developing our political systems are jumping too quickly on the bandwagon of change. While this is good, it is also a dual edged sword, because this is Middle east, and most western nations are politically unable to be impartial mediators, with regard to Israel.
Authoritarian regimes have existed, managed to survive so long partly because of their nature, and partly due to the tacit support of powerful western governments.
I wonder what we can do if the political democratic and majority choice of the Egyptian people is a a Hamas like government, as in Gaza. In Gaza we could ignore our ideals, and decide not to do business with the elected government, however Egypt is not Gaza.
My thinking is western leaders should go slow on advocating change "NOW", till credible cohesive,viable political opposition, can be identified who can negotiate and initiate a process of change that will reflect the views of the vast majority of youth who were the first face of this movement. It appears to me, organizations like Muslim brotherhood, are piggy backing on a popular movement, to gain political legitimacy.They may well have genuine support, translatable to electoral returns and political power. I think however their political beliefs are not supported by the majority. In our rush to support transition, we may be forcing the Egyptian government to legitimise a group, that is an unknown devil. I prefer a known devil the current president.
Complain about this comment
And did the reporters perhaps think to ask Stephen Harper to answer the same question?
That might have been an embarrassing moment, given the report in the press this morning that the Canadian government is urging caution and stability, and has been considerably less than even luke-warm to democratic change in Egypt unless it involves "continuity" with President Mubarak.
Yes, at any moment, even a moment where the leaders of almost every major western power are supporting democratic change in Egypt, Stephen Harper can still find a way to be small and mean-spirited.
Yes, he must have decided that he has a great deal in common with President Mubarak, I guess: 70 % of his own people want him gone, too.
And if "now" means "yesterday", nobody would object, either.
Some men have the stuff of greatness. Others never will.
Stephen Harper will always be on the outside looking in, on the wrong side of history, time after time after time.
Complain about this comment
Dear MagicKirin,
A point of fact. If you read the actual history, I think you'll find that while the USA bankrolled the defeat of Nazism, it was actually, ahem, us Brits who led the fight, both in standing up to Hitler when no-one else would (and when we didn't actually have to) and in strategic direction of the war. You in the USA remained on the sidelines until you yourselves were attacked. Republican businessmen were happily doing business with Hitler right up until Pearl Harbour.
Complain about this comment
President Obama is still scrambling to position himself at the front of the pack so he can claim he is leading instead of reacting to the polls that tell him most Americans think his position on events in Egypt has been overly cautious and overly frienly to an authoritarian regime instead of supporting the legitimate aspirations of the Egyptian people for more freedom and a government of their own choosing.
It does not matter what western governments think of those who are organizing the protests or of the loss of an ally in the war on terror. The people of Egypt have decided the Mubarak government is no longer legitimate and must go. If we truly believe in the democratic ideals we preach we should support the people calling for change there and trust to their goodwill when they establish a new government. We failed to do that in Iran when the shah was overthrown and it cost us an entire generation of ill will from the Iranian people. We mustn't make that mistake again.
Complain about this comment
7. ap45
ap45 wrote:
"My thinking is western leaders should go slow on advocating change "NOW", till credible cohesive,viable political opposition, can be identified who can negotiate and initiate a process of change that will reflect the views of the vast majority of youth who were the first face of this movement. It appears to me, organizations like Muslim brotherhood, are piggy backing on a popular movement, to gain political legitimacy.They may well have genuine support, translatable to electoral returns and political power. I think however their political beliefs are not supported by the majority. In our rush to support transition, we may be forcing the Egyptian government to legitimise a group, that is an unknown devil. I prefer a known devil the current president."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
My thoughts were quite similar to yours, but you posted them first!
It appears that President Obama is sending a mixed message. Just days ago he was concerned about not developing a power vacuum during the course of Egyptian presidential transition, and President Mubarak's postponement of his departure until September could have allowed time for legitimate presidential candidates to present their plans and for the Egyptian people to make their decisions. That way, President Mubarak leaves office as per popular demand, and the Egyptian people could be confident of their upcoming election decisions. However, it now appears that President Obama favors a too hasty departure of President Mubarak, which could only help to create the very power vacuum President Obama had spoken against. Worse, the moment President Mubarak leaves office, there naturally will be an Egyptian public interest in replacing him, but that works against legitimate presidential candidates and the decision making of the Egyptian people, and could actually benefit a party such as the Muslim Brotherhood. After all, religion is ancient, and everybody already knows where a religious party stands. In that regard, the Egyptian people might then be tempted to vote for the religious devil they know, and not the legitimate presidential candidate devil they do not know.
Complain about this comment
This is what I expect from the president of THE GREATEST democracy in the world.
After a long time we are seeing some principled stand from a US president in foreign policy decision and that too concerning one of its "biggest allay in middle east" and opposing an influential Jewish lobby in US (and Israeli) politics.
I can not help congratulating our President.
Complain about this comment
9. At 11:34pm on 04 Feb 2011, Andy3142 wrote:
Republican businessmen were happily doing business with Hitler right up until Pearl Harbour.
For most of the time USA is governed by businessmen and industrialists. Sometime directly, but most of the time- indirectly, in guise of politicians. It's national policies were more influenced by corporate and/or private lobbying for business purposes rather than welfare of the people of the country. "progress" of common people were were just a by-product, not the main goal. Of course, all such policies were cleverly packaged with some kind of patriotism or "bigger interest of the country" philosophy.
Things will change and are changing lately- although slowly.
Complain about this comment
Mardell: He hoped the Egyptian president would end up making the right decision.
----------
Only God knows what the right decision is!
Personally my opinion is the best decision Mubarack could make is to stay in office til' Sept, when election is due...
But if he does go, I guess that Suleiman guy (hopefully not related to Octomom, just joking) is pretty smart, being the head of the security forces, ect and I believe he is pro-USA?
So I guess maybe Suleiman would be alright...
Who will be counting the votes in the upcoming Egypt election>?
(an independent source?)
Obama may not like Mubarack right now, but what happens if the Egyptian people elect someone who does not like USA?
(obviously their right to elect WHOEVER they want because its their country, I'm just saying, perhaps all this complaining is being done in haste and that perhaps worse things await if he leaves)
Woudl the Egyptian protesters accept Suleiman as President?
Complain about this comment
Cont. to my earlier post (#13):
Just got this informative link to show, "Which american companies did business with Hitler during WW2?":
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090708092549AAlwOnY
Complain about this comment
If wrote: Stephen Harper will always be on the outside looking in, on the wrong side of history, time after time after time.
------
So in your opinion IF what current Canadian would make a great President?
-------
Jim wrote: Why not get the UN in to assist with an orderly transfer of power
------
WHy should the UN have the right to kick leaders out of countries?
Sounds like too much power!
-------
Andy wrote: it was actually, ahem, us Brits who led the fight, both in standing up to Hitler when no-one else would (and when we didn't actually have to) and in strategic direction of the war
--------
A lot of countries played important roles in defeating the Nazis and I don't think we could have done it without each other!!! :)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Scott wrote: If we truly believe in the democratic ideals we preach we should support the people calling for change there and trust to their goodwill when they establish a new government.
-----------
I understand what you are saying Scott...the Egyptians are their own people and have the right to run their country the way they want...but I don't think its so simple...
Can a radical Islamic extremist who is elected by majority of the people and instates Sharia law be considered a democratic leader?
Complain about this comment
Giving more time to such corrupt leaders in such third world, mostly lawless countries, only allow them to either extend their own regime (by using brutal force) or install someone within their inner circle (to token satisfy for change).
Such dictators know that common people cannot go on with their "revolution", without jobs, without huge reserve money and basic necessities. They like to wither away this initial phase of problem and then come back with vengeance. we have seen that far too often in many Asian and some African countries.
I do support the change, NOW, even if that means Muslim brotherhood gains control. It is time for Islam to withstand the trail of time and trust-worthiness to other civilized societies in the world. It should be the right for local people to chose what type of rule, what type of society they like to live in. And if that style of rule or life threaten anyone else, then it's our, all of "civilized" countries to take care of that.
The name "Muslim brotherhood" does not necessarily mean and organization full of fundamentalists or terrorists. Then we should be equally aware of many "Christian Democrat" type of political parties in many western countries and many of them do follow/believe many religious fanatic ideology.
After all, any change among majority of Muslim mindset MUST come from within Muslims. And we must give them chance to show that. Or at least give our support when some Muslims are brave enough to show that terrorism and fundamentalism is not that faith is all about.
Complain about this comment
15. At 00:48am on 05 Feb 2011, Jay wrote:
Cont. to my earlier post (#13):
Just got this informative link to show, "Which american companies did business with Hitler during WW2?":
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090708092549AAlwOnY
Anything on slave labor ?
Complain about this comment
Ref 16 LucyJ-
"So in your opinion IF what current Canadian would make a great President?"
I don't know about you, Interestedforeigner, but I'm finding a three-way dead heat for Canadian President. Either of the McKenzie brothers. Beauty, eh. Or, who is Alex (Remember contestants. Your answer must be in the form of a question) Trevek? Doug McKenzie may have a bit of an edge if he runs on the New Conservative Green Party ticket.
Complain about this comment
15. At 00:48am on 05 Feb 2011, Jay wrote:
"Cont. to my earlier post (#13):
Just got this informative link to show, "Which american companies did business with Hitler during WW2?":
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090708092549AAlwOnY"
It doesn't mention Prescott Bush, George Bush's grandfather whose company helped Hitler. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar
Neither does it mention the Zionists who betrayed their fellow Jews.
http://www.palestinejournal.net/lilienthal_how-zionists-sabotaged-rescue.htm
Complain about this comment
9. At 11:34pm on 04 Feb 2011, Andy3142
You and other Britons with the same complaint have a point, but you do not make the same complaint about the Swiss and the Swedes. The US was neutral, not an ally of Britain, as were they. In WWI we did not join the Franco-British alliance, we entered as cobelligerants. And yes, it was after Germany attacked us.
I understand British impatience, and even of injustice regarding US citizens helping the IRA. I don't like the idea of people like the Fords and Bushes being cozy with the Nazis or trading with Nazi Germany either. You need to understand why Joseph Kennedy liked the Germans and actively disliked Britain, himself being Irish and all. But misrepresentation and outright distortion of history wins no prize.
The US consists of more German and Irish citizens than British [I qualify in both categories] so it was a hard sell for the US government to forsake neutrality in order to join Britain. You need to understand that.
You also need to understand that the US government actually broke the neutrality laws to give Britain support, in both wars, before actually becoming a participant. This support was often supplied indirectly through Canada or disguised as a commercial agreement such as "Lend Lease."
My Irish and German parents and grandparents did not object to helping Britain after we were attacked and fought side by side with you. My father never completely recovered from being the last survivor of his unit who continued fighting with other survivers in the Battle of the Bulge. He was a Master Sargeant, who rounded up other strays to keep fighting, in the winter, under awful conditions.
The eternal carping rubs us the wrong way and sounds quite ungrateful. It is disrespectful of people who fought, bled and died at the side of your Tommys and helped keep Britain free. I hope you will keep this in mind.
Complain about this comment
Excellent picture choice. Needs a bubble above it with Obama's thoughts...
1) How come there are no golf courses in Egypt?
2) Where is my teleprompter?
3) I'm trying to think but nothing happens!
etc.
Complain about this comment
16 Lucy..Forgive me for expressing myself poorly about the UN. I had been watching a television report and a lot of the ordinary egyptians were quite firmly saying they did not want the USA involved any more.
So that set me thinking what the alternatives are ....and like you and MK I have my reservations about the UN ...but it struck me that they are supposed to be the global HQ representing all nations... and the Egyptians might feel OK about their involvement and support while they organised a proper fair election...and just kept an eye out for any jiggery-pokery.
I think the major problem is going to be that given a free choice people may still want a fairly hard line government similar to the Mubarak regime ....but finally free of US control.
It`s important to have a constitution that allows for regular elections but some Islamists have a very strict view that it is God`s job to govern countries rather than ours.
Fortunately they have no oil in Egypt or your government might prefer to leave a dictator or monarchy in charge for stability`s sake...as in Libya and Saudi Arabia.
What we British found was that you were lucky to please some of the people some of the time...but you will never please everybody.
Hopefully we can all stop interfering and let the Egyptians take control of their own destiny from now on..and concentrate on making our own democracies work better for us.
Complain about this comment
15. At 00:48am on 05 Feb 2011, Jay wrote:
"Cont. to my earlier post (#13):
Just got this informative link to show, "Which american companies did business with Hitler during WW2?":
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090708092549AAlwOnY"
There is also the little matter of the alleged treason of George Bush's grandfather Prescott Bush; http://www.prisonplanet.com/audio/240707_bbc_prescott_coup.mp3
Complain about this comment
Jay, (#19. At 01:06am on 05 Feb 2011)
"... It should be the right for local people to chose what type of rule, what type of society they like to live in. And if that style of rule or life threaten anyone else, then it's our, all of "civilized" countries to take care of that ..."
For the historically challenged: Once the Taliban "freed" Afghanistan from the yoke of Soviet occupation, they provided the safe haven for al-Qaeda to launch terrorist attacks. Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.
"... Then we should be equally aware of many "Christian Democrat" type of political parties in many western countries and many of them do follow/believe many religious fanatic ideology ..."
What nonsense. Examples of Christian democratic parties include the German Christian Democratic Union (CDU), the Christian Democrat Party of Chile, the Christian Democratic People's Party of Switzerland, the Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA) in the Netherlands.
http://www.cdu.de/en/3440.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Democrat_Party_of_Chile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Democratic_People's_Party_of_Switzerland
http://en.old.cda.nl/default.aspx
Christian democratic parties in Europe tend to be conservative, and in several cases form the main conservative party in their respective countries. Germany, Spain, and Belgium come to mind. Where is the "religious fanatic ideology" there? In Latin America, by contrast, Christian democratic parties tend to be progressive and influenced by liberation theology. Is that what you call "religious fanatic ideology?"
How many of them "do follow/believe many religious fanatic ideology?" None, probably. You just made it up because you thought is sounded good.
So how many are there? Details please.
Complain about this comment
In any free and fair election in Egypt, The Muslim Brotherhood, founded by Ayman al Zawaheiri, would at the very least, be one of the major opposition parties, and almost certainly a partner in any ruling coalition. This seems to frighten the Israelis and the Americans.
And yet Israel's ruling coalition has minority partners with radical religious views, and such parties are members of government in many other Muslim states.
Is democracy only suitable for Europeans and Americans, and those in the West? Should those with strong religious views be banned from partaking in government?
This is a question worth asking. If so, where do you start?
Complain about this comment
I reckon Neil Young for Canadian President!
" Think I'll go out to Alberta, weather's good there in the fall..."
Keep on rocking in the free world.!
Complain about this comment
Mark,
I appreciate your columns while maybe not always agreeing with them, however as time goes by, you are getting a better understanding of this country. Unlike your younger cohorts in the media and elsewhere.
Isn’t it about time to quit beating a dead horse regarding Egypt and what lawyers (aka liars) like Obama “assume” (appropriate term) about a nation, they have no understanding of. Not much different than what he “assumes” about the US, considering the way he was indoctrinated in his younger years as well as being taught how to articulate so well!
There are far more important things occurring in this country which need to be recognized.
“Unemployment falls in January to 9% but the number of new jobs created falls well short of expectations.” That’s because people exhausted their unemployment benefits and now have nothing, including a job!
“Some of the toughest anti-smoking measures to be adopted in a major city have been approved by councilors (misspelled counselors) in New York.”
Next they will want to adopt Malawi’s new bill to criminalize flatulence (farting) in public, to promote public decency.
What next will be rubber stamped to protect the citizenry?
Complain about this comment
#23 JMM
Well written!!!!!
Complain about this comment
jamesthefoodie, (#28. At 02:52am on 05 Feb 2011)
”... Should those with strong religious views be banned from partaking in government? ...”
No, they should not.
”... This is a question worth asking ...”
No, it is not.
”... If so, where do you start?”
You don’t.
Complain about this comment
16. At 00:53am on 05 Feb 2011, LucyJ wrote:
"So in your opinion IF what current Canadian would make a great President?"
__________
Note the trick question!
Trying to lure me into another one of those "birther" issues, eh?
No Canadian can ever be President. There was one Canadian, an American by birth, who could have been, and he would have been a great one: Clarence Decatur Howe.
__________
Who would be a great Prime Minister?
Much tougher question.
The best qualified party leader, right now, is Gilles Duceppe. He is extremely capable, highly intelligent, thoughtful, sincere, articulate, dedicated, experienced, and well respected. A man of integrity.
One minor problem though: he is a separatist.
----------
I think that Elizabeth May, the leader of the Green Party, is a lot smarter and tougher than people give her credit for being. I'd say she's got more character, and courage, than the other (male) party leaders, too - a bit of a shame, since every vote for the Greens is effectively a vote for Stephen Harper, and he isn't, (and never will be), a tenth the man she is.
----------
Great leaders only come along only once in a while.
Pierre Trudeau was clearly one, although I campaigned for his opponents. I think Allan Blakeney is another, but he never served federally.
Tommy Douglas was certainly one.
So were Sir Robert Borden (a truly great Prime Minister), Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Sir John A. MacDonald.
These guys were all giants.
Complain about this comment
ref #28
jamesthefoodie wrote:
In any free and fair election in Egypt, The Muslim Brotherhood, founded by Ayman al Zawaheiri, would at the very least, be one of the major opposition parties, and almost certainly a partner in any ruling coalition. This seems to frighten the Israelis and the Americans.
And yet Israel's ruling coalition has minority partners with radical religious views, and such parties are members of government in many other Muslim states.
______________
Do any Israel so call radical groups expound the desire for the genocide of moslems in other countries. Because that is what the moslem brotherhood does in regard to Israel
Complain about this comment
ref #26
Jackturk wrote:
15. At 00:48am on 05 Feb 2011, Jay wrote:
"Cont. to my earlier post (#13):
Just got this informative link to show, "Which american companies did business with Hitler during WW2?":
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090708092549AAlwOnY"
There is also the little matter of the alleged treason of George Bush's grandfather Prescott Bush; http://www.prisonplanet.com/audio/240707_bbc_prescott_coup.mp3
____________
and anyone who know Mass could tell you joe Kennedy was a Nazi
Complain about this comment
ref #9
Andy3142 wrote:
Dear MagicKirin,
A point of fact. If you read the actual history, I think you'll find that while the USA bankrolled the defeat of Nazism, it was actually, ahem, us Brits who led the fight, both in standing up to Hitler when no-one else would (and when we didn't actually have to) and in strategic direction of the war. You in the USA remained on the sidelines until you yourselves were attacked. Republican businessmen were happily doing business with Hitler right up until Pearl Harbour.
____________
Not denying what U.K did but no U.S lead invasion on D Day no victory, learn your history
Complain about this comment
ref #33
As far as Candian PM what about Michael Coren
Complain about this comment
There are many unknowns and it might be best to wait before we judge if Obama's move was a good one. Mubarak is a son and heir of a mongrel bitch; but to some degree, he is our mongrel. What if he is replaced by something worse? What if his leaving facilitates those who are actively trying to kill us?
Egypt will probably be Obama's El Salvador.
Complain about this comment
WJim,
The idea that you should say thank you to our Western leaders is ludicrous, except for the idea that they DO leave at the end of their terms. (limited by law)
I'm scared that someday enough people will not care and let someone take unlimited control..as long as they feel "it does not affect them."
That is something for which I AM grateful.
Also, this idea that it is absolutely true that all leaders are thieves and cheaters is not true if you realize there those people whom do not vote in elections.
It does say in ancient texts that the Rich always get richer and the poor get poorer--which is unfortunatly tooo true these days, especially.
Potential voters often feel they are not informed enough for participating in elections. Those people I do not feel grateful to. And I have friends who practice this art of being above it all. I, of course, keep my feeling to myself--unless asked ...
usually they respond, "my vote does not mean much or anything, therefore why bother."
Complain about this comment
For those who are worried about an Islamist government taking over Egypt.
What about the BORN AGAIN government that ruled America, and the damage they brought to the Iraqi people, the world and to America itself?
These are signs of the falling of the American Empire and I can't wait to see it on the floor.
I really laugh when people describe America as a democracy, it's a PLUTOCRACY ! period.
Complain about this comment
28. At 02:52am on 05 Feb 2011, jamesthefoodie wrote:
In any free and fair election in Egypt, The Muslim Brotherhood, founded by Ayman al Zawaheiri, would at the very least, be one of the major opposition parties, and almost certainly a partner in any ruling coalition. This seems to frighten the Israelis and the Americans.
And yet Israel's ruling coalition has minority partners with radical religious views, and such parties are members of government in many other Muslim states.
Is democracy only suitable for Europeans and Americans, and those in the West? Should those with strong religious views be banned from partaking in government?
This is a question worth asking. If so, where do you start?
+++++
That is a good and fair question. In the US our Constitution codifies that there will be a separation of church and state. This was done in order to ensure that all religions could be observed without government interference. At least that's the theory.
We struggle all the time to keep this ideal alive. It seems that a lot of people wish to convert everyone to their own flavor of religion - be it Christianity, Islam, Jewish, atheist (although not so much with the Jews). They try to install their own moral code into our laws.
Although democracy is generally viewed as "majority rule" it is, in the US anyway, actually set up to protect the rights of any minority (be it race, religion, etc.) from majority rule. That way everyone is supposed to get a fair shake. This is the hardest part of our brand of democracy.
So it's not an easy question. My view, any person regardless of religious persuasion must be allowed to participate. But once religious views are allowed to be inserted into the mix things begin to go down hill. At that point it is only a true democracy or those who voluntarily agree with the majority opinions.
So when an American speaks of "democracy" they not only mean "majority rule" but also "equal rights for all". Not sure if others will always agree with that and THAT may be where the disconnect lies.
Complain about this comment
36. At 03:50am on 05 Feb 2011, MagicKirin wrote:
ref #9
Andy3142 wrote:
Dear MagicKirin,
A point of fact. If you read the actual history, I think you'll find that while the USA bankrolled the defeat of Nazism, it was actually, ahem, us Brits who led the fight, both in standing up to Hitler when no-one else would (and when we didn't actually have to) and in strategic direction of the war. You in the USA remained on the sidelines until you yourselves were attacked. Republican businessmen were happily doing business with Hitler right up until Pearl Harbour.
____________
Not denying what U.K did but no U.S lead invasion on D Day no victory, learn your history
++++++
Please - both of you - to be perfectly honest the Allies would never have defeated Hitler had the US not entered the war. BUT had the Brits not done such a brilliant job of holding him off until we did enter it we would all be speaking German now. Had he defeated GB the rest of the Allies (you must include the Aussies, Canadians, etc) would probably not have been able to defeat them.
Complain about this comment
27. At 02:26am on 05 Feb 2011, Chryses wrote:
For the historically challenged: Once the Taliban "freed" Afghanistan from the yoke of Soviet occupation, they provided the safe haven for al-Qaeda to launch terrorist attacks. Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.
Well, my post was not for any ignorant or frog-in-a-well type of person.
Do you, Chryses, know that US has its own responsibility to make a good part of Talibans and also Pakistan to go towards terrorism and that ultimately turned against US itself? US patronizing of successive military dictators in Pakistan and Afghanistan was equally responsible for that. US did not hesitate much to depart from that land, rapidly lost its interest once ITS own strategic interest was achieved (by 'defeating' Soviets in Afghanistan), leaving a huge trained (by CIA and US army) militia and lots of arms and ammunition. If US had acted in good faith to restore true democracy in Pakistan (rather than supporting many dictators and war-lords in that part of the world) we would not have got the taliban, Al-quida menace in the first place. Creation of a terrorist like Bin-Laden was not an exception but a eminent fall out of our own self-centered policies that exploited others to achieve own goal and left the people in limbo later. A policy without a moral ground or obligation does not always leave us with good results. People are not that stupid to trust us (or anyone) for long. Once the trust breaks, many may seek revenge (whether we like it or not).
Christian democratic parties in Europe tend to be conservative, and in several cases form the main conservative party in their respective countries. Germany, Spain, and Belgium come to mind. Where is the "religious fanatic ideology" there? In Latin America, by contrast, Christian democratic parties tend to be progressive and influenced by liberation theology. Is that what you call "religious fanatic ideology?"
My intension was to highlight that a name that bears a religious word does not necessarily mean extremism or religious fundamentalism.
There are some instances that some christian Dems are indulged in religious fundamentalism, as in Australia.
"....attacked the Christian Democratic Party itself, stating that the party was a cult,[14] a hypocritical, anti-Christian, anti-democratic dictatorship that adhered to the values of extremist fundamentalism": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Democratic_Party_(Australia)
So far "Muslim brotherhood" is concerned, it will be suffice to say that, "Jeremy Bowen, BBC Middle East editor, says "Unlike the jihadis, it does not believe it is at war with the West. It is conservative and non-violent,"[6] and "untested in government and poorly understood - especially in the West"[7]. : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_brotherhood
US must not frame its policies for short term gain or to please its dictatorial allies but to support the people of that country, not the regime, per se. We have paid a heavy price for such policies in countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arab etc. Marriage of convenience does not last long and when it break up, it creates a very messy footprints; as we are seeing in post British colonialism and partly US adventures from time to time in different parts of the world.
Complain about this comment
actions of the vice president in the past days earned my trust. i think most of the Egyptians agree. some won't agree because they will think he'll be a copy of President Mubarak
i agree with everything said above and all the comments. it makes no difference if it's with or against President Mubarak delayed resign or retirement.
except for:
19 Jay
the brotherhood in control =
1. civil war in Egypt or Egypt turns to a new Afghanistan
2. a first step towards wwiii
of course i may be just jumping to conclusions and my judgement is affected a little by my worries, but it is almost this bad.
Complain about this comment
i mean it may not seem like this, but this immediate change might be similar to placing a time bomb in a neat "democracy and change to the better" cover if it is not achieved with patience and extreme caution. notice that what increased the protesters who want Mubarak to leave numbers is the extremist Muslims who think this would be very beneficial to them. (besides, they were behind much of the propaganda that spread that President Mubarark is a dictator)
Complain about this comment
It seems to me that the West has been over hasty in regarding the Egyptian crisis as a 'victory for democracy'. Obama's congratulating the people for such noble aspirations when it's obvious that they are very divided on the issue could be read as irresponsible interference. What is taking place in Tahir Square isn't necessarily an accurate reflection of the opinion of the majority of a population of almost 83,000,000.
It obviously isn't as simple as that. Hosni Mubarak, faced with a very delicate problem, isn't an example of a leader of State who would hang on in just to satisfy personal ambitions.
The pressure Obama is trying to exert on him now could well be ill-advised. The French President Sarkozy checked himself on the issue yesterday, suggesting that the outside world should now refrain from the temptation of interfering. This appears to be more a clear message to Obama, who, let's face it, doesn't have the greatest reputation in foreign affairs, if the acceptance of the 'democratic outcome' in Afghanistan was anything to go by. It would not improve his reputation if the outcome of such Western pressure was either a putsch or a civil war in Egypt, either of which could have catastrophic consequences for the nation, which geographically and strategically would naturally mean for the world.
There is no organised opposition to speak of, and obviously more time and consideration is needed to work out how best the authorities can organise a transition that would lead to real democratic outcome. Under such circumstances external pressure from the West could be an expression of dangerous and arrogant oversimplification of what is obviously already a volatile situation. Fanning flames of any Iranian interference here, could well be inadvisable. America may have succeeded in forcing the issue in Tunisia, but the problem in Egypt isn't the same.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Rise of Islamic fundamentalism is one of the consequences of prolonged dictatorial rule in many Arab states. Local people are not allowed to express their views, do not get much education, hardly have the right and also ability to think for themselves. Govt does it all for them, since long. And government does not represent people in any way.
As economy (the only good point in some Arab states) is going downhill, as unemployment is increasing, so is the frustration. Now they can not trust the same people who MAY be right in saying that this economic downturn is not their creation or even under its control. It's better that people in Egypt is revolting directly, rather than joining underground, well organised extremist organization (as they did in countries like Pakistan) to seek "justice" or employment or just for security (for themselves and their families).
Many blame Jimmy Carter for allowing Muslim theocracy to replace the US's puppet regime of Shah in Iran. I think, Iran is a much better country so far world peace is concerned, as compared to countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan. Many people think that Saudi Arab (besides Pakistan and Afghanistan) is far worse to exporting Islamic terrorism and enemy for world peace than Iran; even though Jimmy Carter (or any other US president) did not over throw the fundamentalist, barbaric rulers of that kingdom.
Probably that's why there are many in Iran (even among ruling elites) who still challenge sham democracy in Iran, as compared to Saudi.
So far nuclear arms is concerned, UN or US should be equally critical about Israel's nuclear ambition as well (which is a open secret but not much discussed in media for many obvious reasons).
Complain about this comment
if you hear something with the meaning "execute the dictator" in a Friday prayer, while it is supposed to be calming people and calling for peaceful actions, in a mosqure right in front of the place where you live, perhaps you'd be worried too. (this is not the mosque where i went to pray, by the way)
Complain about this comment
9. At 11:34pm on 04 Feb 2011, Andy3142 wrote:
Republican businessmen were happily doing business with Hitler right up until Pearl Harbour.
_____________________________________________________
While it may be true that Republican businessmen (how do you know they were all republican?) were making money from the 3rd Reich (IF has pointed out that Godwin was violated in #4):
1. The Democrat in the White House was making a mockery of the Neutrality laws in effect at the time.
2. Once the US entered the war, it carried the lion’s share of the combat, both on the ground and in the air. Do you remember that RAF bomber command was afraid to fly in the daytime and so therefore contented themselves with terror raids on cities, all the while the 8th AF took the fight to the enemy’s war production facilities (in daylight so they could use their bomb sight) while taking a higher casualty rate then the any ground unit of comparable size. Your great hero, Montgomery’s only real accomplishments after El Alamein, was getting in Paton’s way, using up Paton’s resources, and planning the disaster known as Operation Market Garden (at least there was a movie, “A Bridge Too Far”. At least, the unintended consequence was the 101st Airborne was near Bastogne, licking its wounds, so they could get in position to stop the German counter offensive, later known as the battle of the bulge.
Complain about this comment
Seems to me like Obama is just buying time so the CIA can get their own pro-Israel, pro-Western candidate to the forefront of the polls so to ensure that the Brotherhood will not win. Mubarak was originally the CIA's choice when he first came to power and ofcourse his replacement must be able to ensure "stability in the region".
Why must countries - and I'm not just talking about the US here - meddle in the diplomatic affairs of others? Have we not learned our lesson from Iraq & Afghanistan?
Complain about this comment
51. At 08:49am on 05 Feb 2011, POW - Right in the kisser wrote:
Why must countries - and I'm not just talking about the US here - meddle in the diplomatic affairs of others? Have we not learned our lesson from Iraq & Afghanistan?
__________________________________________________________________
2 things:
1. What lesson would that be? Iraq seems to be improving every day, so the “War of Choice” as The One referred to Iraq when he was running for office has produced the best outcome so far in the practice of “Nation Building in this generation.” There was no choice (even according to The One) but to invade Af’stan, unless we wanted to continue to watch tall building full of civilians come crashing down. The fact that Af’stan is a tough nut to crack doesn’t change the fact.
2. Yet, you could have a valid point, if these were the only 2 instances in the history of the world that a western nation (or alliance) has conducted regime change. However, we have some glaring examples of that working quite well (e.g. Germany, Japan, Panama).
Complain about this comment
just returned. streets are very peaceful and quiet now. there are no longer people holding weapons in public (i don't mean the army). everything seems normal. the only danger is speedy cars. but, there is nothing to worry about. trains are working again. people started joking about the whole thing with a little bitter taste left. (that's in Alexandria which is usually calmer than Cairo)
since i came here originally to try to help with clarifying the image, now i don't have to. many people here understand the situation very well, perhaps even much better than i do. also, i have to add that the new government and specially the vice president were very wise in dealing with the situation. i can't imagine how fast the 'circus from hell' left the country. i hope it won't come back again. it's almost a miraculous change. (this is somewhat personal, but i'll say it anyway. i was considering donating blood just to compensate for being a little harsh in my judgement of the protesters sometimes. i'll definitely do it once things get back to normal)
i'll start helping people feel less worried instead of encouraging people to say to which side they belong to without fear. i'm thankful to everyone here for their patience and for their wisdom in dealing with this topic. (even those who were just unnecessarily too sarcastic or those who want to add more fuel to fire)
now it's time to reunite and rebuild Egypt, hopefully even to become better than it was.
i'll get back to the state that i used to be. (ignoring politics altogether) just pure hard work is enough for me as a goal
it was my pleasure discussing things with everyone here. thanks for your patience and your consideration
Complain about this comment
one thing more, the BBC was among the most honest and neutral sides of media i've seen during the crisis. also, that reporter who was in Alexandria was very brave! i can't imagine how hard it was for him to do all this.
Complain about this comment
#48 Jay
"US must not frame its policies for short term gain or to please its dictatorial allies but to support the people of that country, not the regime, per se."
Pure hyperbole. So, if USA supports "the people of that country", what does that make the USA: government-in-exile or coloniser or rebel government or home office or offshore-call centre helpline?
Let's be specific, Ben Ali's Tunisia and Mubarack's Egypt are just friends with benefits of USA. For a longtime in fact, and both learn nothing on how to reduce unemployment, conduct legitimate elections and how to run a transparent criminal justice system. Which are USA’s claimed expertise.
Tunisia did their thing and has now moved on. The Egyptian people do not need USA's help in 'manufacturing' a government for them. Any sign of USA's 'handiwork' will destroy the credibility of the political consensus. After 30 years of 'friendship', the Egyptian people are adult enough to realise play-time and quality time with Uncle Sam is over.
One more thing, since we are in the growing up mood. We will be celebrating 100 years anniversary of WW2 in about 28 years time, can we not wait till then to reminisce. This grandpa's story telling makes this blog sound like a retirement home's sitting room.
Complain about this comment
ref #40
samlebon wrote:
For those who are worried about an Islamist government taking over Egypt.
What about the BORN AGAIN government that ruled America, and the damage they brought to the Iraqi people, the world and to America itself?
___________
are you talking about christian Conservatives? Well I don't think President Obama fits that category so unless you are outraged that chrismass is a federal holiday, chrstinalty has very little influence on goverment business.
the people of Iraq were liberated, just ask a Kurd why don't you? they still live under oppression in Turkey and Iran.
Complain about this comment
Obama bet on an Afghan leader who doesn't seem to have a great deal of respect for the very principles of democracy that young soldiers of NATO are supposed to be defending and sacrificing their lives for. The consequences are evident. It's never to late to learn from even recent history, but populist Obama, who always seems to be more awe-struck and media influenced by a waving crowd of angry opposers in one particular place, than by a silent majority of Egypt's entire population of almost 83,000,000; so far, in my modest opinion, doesn't inspire the confidence behoving to his position.
Complain about this comment
Can I vigorously object to MK` and Oldloaders disgusting spielburgisation of history in the very strongest of terms and ask them to please be less abusive towards a British people who went bankrupt fighting WW2 and have never recovered from it.
Also let`s remember that twenty million Russians died in WW2 plus Chinese and Japs and countless ordinary Germans and other Europeans ...a war which I believe was caused by CROOKS on Wall Street doing much the same things that they were still getting away with in 2008!
Yet STILL the USA waddles about the world owing trillions of pounds arrogantly dispensing "justice" to the rest of mankind and grandly deciding our futures .......as though we are no more than bit part players in the absurd soap opera of American domestic politics...a politics so pitifully bereft of reason or rationality or choice that you are the laughingstock of mankind!
Have you folks no SHAME or are you so brainwashed that you really don`t understand what damage you are doing?
Obama probably knows about as much about Egypt as the rest of us...not a lot....but he will not be making decisions. His financier backers are more likely to decide what the USA is doing in collaboration with the media tycoons who are their close associates.
And let`s not forget that the same type of "financiers" that made a lot of money out of WW2 are getting away with the 2008 heist... and no doubt having far more influence over what war the USA starts next than we can possibly have.
Is that a way for mankind to organise a just and free and democratic world? NO...it`s like entrusting our grandchildren`s futures to the throw of a dice!
Complain about this comment
58 Jim and 50 Oldloadr - it really is a Grandad's argument (I'm a grandad too) but Jim's right about the Soviet Union's appalling losses in WW2. The war on the Eastern Front made D-day, Normandy, Arnhem and the Bulge look like a scrap in the schoolyard by comparison.
Britain finished paying its war-debts to the USA when -- a year or two ago I think.
Younger bloggers please, look forward. Don't read what follows. The past contains too much bitterness. Now Grandad's reply:
My uncle was a Bomber Command pilot; shot down over Germany he lost 4 of his crew and was a POW for 3 years, repatriated with tuberculosis in the end, from which he recovered.
Bomber Command lost over 55,000 men. Afraid to fly in the daytime? An insult. Their daytime losses in the first years of the War were so heavy that they could scarcely keep up with crew-training. They weren't afraid: they were realistic. The American bombers when they arrived were far more heavily armed and benefited from daytime fighter escorts later on. They were highly effective in maintaining the Allied strategy of round-the-clock bombing.
An insult.
Complain about this comment
Jay, (#43. At 06:49am on 05 Feb 2011)
"... 'For the historically challenged: Once the Taliban "freed" Afghanistan from the yoke of Soviet occupation, they provided the safe haven for al-Qaeda to launch terrorist attacks. Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.'
Well, my post was not for any ignorant or frog-in-a-well type of person ..."
Let's take a look, shall we?
"... Do you, Chryses, know that US has its own responsibility to make a good part of Talibans and also Pakistan to go towards terrorism and that ultimately turned against US itself? ..."
You are mistaken. The U.S. supplied the Taliban in order that it might reverse the Soviet Union occupation of Afghanistan. Without American arms and material the Taliban would have failed.
"... US patronizing of successive military dictators in Pakistan and Afghanistan was equally responsible for that ..."
Evidence please. What succession of military dictators in Afghanistan was "equally responsible for that?" You know - the ones the U.S. patronized. It sounds as if you are making it up as you go.
"... US did not hesitate much to depart from that land, rapidly lost its interest once ITS own strategic interest was achieved (by 'defeating' Soviets in Afghanistan), leaving a huge trained (by CIA and US army) militia and lots of arms and ammunition ..."
As the U.S. was not "in" Afghanistan, it could not "leave" it. Having forced the Soviets to leave, the Taliban assumed control of the country. Are you suggesting that because the Taliban had "arms and ammunition," they were compelled to use them? What nonsense.
"... If US had acted in good faith to restore true democracy in Pakistan (rather than supporting many dictators and war-lords in that part of the world) we would not have got the taliban, Al-quida menace in the first place ..."
Pure, unadulterated hypocrisy. You criticize the U.S. for interfering in the politics of another nation by supplying munitions and materiel to the Taliban so that they could force the Soviet occupation forces out of Afghanistan, and in the same post criticize the U.S. for NOT interfering in the politics of another nation by restoring "true democracy in Pakistan." Since when is it the responsibility of the U.S. to impose "true democracy" on Pakistan? If you knew any history at all, you would know that Pakistan falls within the British sphere of influence, as it was created by the separation of British India in 1947. They're also right decent at the democracy thing, or hadn't you noticed?
"... Creation of a terrorist like Bin-Laden was not an exception but a eminent fall out of our own self-centered policies that exploited others to achieve own goal and left the people in limbo later ..."
Foolishness. Terrorism as practiced by al-Qaeda preceded Osama bin Laden.
"...A policy without a moral ground or obligation does not always leave us with good results ..."
A policy witha "moral ground or obligation" may also fail.
"...' Christian democratic parties in Europe tend to be conservative...'
... My intension was to highlight that a name that bears a religious word does not necessarily mean extremism or religious fundamentalism ..."
Yeah. Right! Here is what you actually wrote in post #19. "Then we should be equally aware of many "Christian Democrat" type of political parties in many western countries and many of them do follow/believe many religious fanatic ideology." One of the good things of a blog like this is that you cannot wriggle out of what you actually wrote. Nice try.
There are some instances that some christian Dems are indulged in religious fundamentalism, as in Australia.
"....attacked the Christian Democratic Party itself, stating that the party was a cult,[14] a hypocritical, anti-Christian, anti-democratic dictatorship that adhered to the values of extremist fundamentalism": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Democratic_Party_(Australia)
Wrong again. That is not evidence, it is an accusation by a politician. At least try to understand the material before posting irrelevant spam.
"... US must not frame its policies for short term gain or to please its dictatorial allies but to support the people of that country, not the regime, per se ..."
So you DO advocate that the U.S. should intervene in the politics of sovereign nations. How amusing. You have just advocated that the U.S. should not necessarily work with the government of a nation. And yet in post #19, you wrote, "It should be the right for local people to chose what type of rule, what type of society they like to live in." Either the U.S. works with the government of a nation or not. Do try to get your stories straight. Contradicting yourself looks so foolish.
Complain about this comment
worcesterjim, (#58. At 10:02am on 05 Feb 2011)
”... Also let`s remember that twenty million Russians died in WW2 plus Chinese and Japs and countless ordinary Germans and other Europeans ...a war which I believe was caused by CROOKS on Wall Street doing much the same things that they were still getting away with in 2008! ...“
What evidence can you provide to support your claim that WWII was “caused by CROOKS on Wall Street?” I was unaware of that being the cause of the rise of the Third Reich.
Complain about this comment
Yes, the US thinks everyone wants democracy. And while that's fine and good, and I applaud that desire, Mr. Obama wants the main opposition party, the Muslim Brotherhood, to be invited into the government. They are allies of AlQuieda, Hamas, and Iran. AlQuieda got much of their inspiration from the Brotherhood. After the first and only free elections the Brotherhood will shoot or muscle out any one else, and those will be the last free or fair elections. They will see to it with the army and secret police at their disposal. This has been Iran's pattern. Mr. Mubarek is right about them. Really, Mr. Obama, is it our business to be handing Egypt to Iran on a silver platter?
Complain about this comment
To Chryses. Why didn't the Americans deal more directly with the Afganis (with Massoud, for example) instead of with Pakistan who fostered the Taliban in the first place? Apparently Commandant Massoud was even approached at one time (in the mid 90's) by a certain Mrs. Raphael when she was in charge of the Afghan file of the Departement of State. According to Massoud "she was sincerely convinced that the Taliban movement would be good for the Afghans, which says a lot about the ignorance of the Americans about our country. The USA were greatly influenced by the ISI (Pakstani Secret Service) who had also intoxicated the government of Islamabad about the way to proceed in our concern".
(Massoud, who represented real hope for Afghanistan, was assassinated by the Taliban the 9th September, 2001, two days before the twin towers were hit..).
Complain about this comment
hmmmmmmmmmm
IF Obama wants Mubarek to go theres a reason????
obama is part of the nwo
THIS MEANS
ONE WORLD RELIGION
ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT
ONE WORLD CURRENCY
so think on what he says and what hes told to say and what he does are all different ..............
Complain about this comment
Could the ´old soldiers´kindly fade away or go over to the Hewitt European blog where WWll is constantly discussed between British and American nationalists ?
It is irrelevant if Obama says Mubarak must go or not-- if old oppressive structures remain.
It is the system of oppression that must be dismantled -and that will stay unless it it specifically targeted. The ´old´ Tunisian secret police is again raising its head and the ´elite´ with the most to lose are fighting back.
The Egyptian police, secret police and thugs have not been deterred by the protests -and have no intention to change anything ---unless they themselves become the hunted instead of the hunters.
Civil Rights groups have been telling the world for decades about Mubarak and his murderous cronies -- now the world has seen them in action. It is naive to believe they are going to leave -- without actions that puts fear into them.
While Amr is attempting to give the impression that he (and Egypt) is a victim of the protestors--
"---also, i have to add that the new government and specially the vice president were very wise in dealing with the situation."
"--now it's time to reunite and rebuild Egypt, hopefully even to become better than it was."
"--(besides, they were behind much of the propaganda that spread that President Mubarark is a dictator)"
"--the state TV seemed very fair to me. nothing was said to provoke people."
---Amr knows what side to butter HIS bread.
The compartmentalization of ideas by some contributors is also interesting-- however we have seen and heard it all before --
A right- wing dictatorship is always better that a left-wing dictatorship -- A Nazi Germany was better than a Communist Germany -- which at the time was a possibility had not ´The free world ´ prevented it !!!
Complain about this comment
61 yes i can provide evidence that wall street funded the rise of the weirmar republic and when hitler wouldnt pay back the money they caused the hyperinflation and oncoming disaster
schacht was the finance minister and head of a german bank which was run and funded by the wall street mafia...hitler apposed being held to ransom by the wall street hitmen and decided to go alone sacked schacht(after the war schacht should have gone to the nuremburg trials but was freed without charge ...done as a favour by the finacial elite) hitler built up germany with out wall street money ie vouchers for state works full employment etc etc lots of usa business in germany suffered wall street were angry
wall street didnt like having the doors shut in their faces and starved germany from exporting and trading outside of there own country forcing hitler to expand military and invade poland etc etc
all orchestrated hitler stood up like we should and iceland have same as 2008 financial hitmen terrorises nations for money!!!
Complain about this comment
Whilst the ordinary Egyptian folk long for change & have just begun to find their voice,under the surface is were that change will be won.Egyptian internal state security apparatus witch is larger than the Egyptian standing conventional forces & quite separate will be eyeing each other with no love loss.The Army is more representative of the guy in the street
whilst the internal security the apparatus of oppression.My fear is,this
has all the ingredients for a civil war...
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
Re #60 Chryses:
You are mistaken. The U.S. supplied the Taliban in order that it might reverse the Soviet Union occupation of Afghanistan. Without American arms and material the Taliban would have failed.
For the record:
Taliban has not even existed during the Soviet-Afghan War.
It's been created (in Pakistani madrassas, 'with a little help' from ISI) in 1994; long after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Complain about this comment
66 Thanks iain...and you will find that Wall Street moneylenders financed the First World War as well...but don`t imagine you can get a debate going with these victims of the Hollywood Book of History!
Not only have they been taken over by global capitalism but they have been comprehensively diseducated and brainwashed as well.....just like my parents seemed after the Second World War.
The victor writes the history ....and the powerful use our media to tell us what to think....that`s why the financiers of Wall Street and their media mogul cronies are happy to lose money providing "our" media....it gives them so much power and influence that it pays off handsomely in the end.What do you think privatisation and all those wars are really about....of course...freedom and democracy???!!!!
Complain about this comment
"Why didn't the Americans deal more directly with the Afganis (with Massoud, for example)"
Because Shah Massoud (a moderate Muslim) has been assassinated by al-Qaeda for objecting to Afghanistan becoming a Sharia-based caliphate.
Complain about this comment
Western Europe owes its freedom to the sacrifice of so many from so many
Nations,United States included.For us British to expect perpetual homage
from the occupied for helping free them of the Nazi evil,is just bad form,its not done.
Allies fought & suffered together it was a shared experience remembered with sober reverence.They did not fight for them,they fought with them.To have fought & fallen in that fight is not to find one self in a position of Kowtow with your Allies.If that is the feeling required of them,we are beginning to treat them as did the Nazis.It takes away from those who actually paid the price,& that price was not paid by me or you....
Complain about this comment
65. At 12:48pm on 05 Feb 2011, quietoaktree wrote: "A right- wing dictatorship is always better that a left-wing dictatorship."
I admit that when I was a lot younger I actually believed this, to a point. I never believed that Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy or Falangist Spain were "better" than any other cruel dictatorship. [I believe you are quoting or suggesting other people's beliefs, so take this as addition, not criticism.]
However I am now quite sure that no leftist dictatorship is any better than any on the right. Murders committed by Stalin, Castro, Hitler or Pinochet, are still murders regardles of any spurious philosophical underpinnings.
With all its faults, as Winston Churchill pointed out, democracy is the best choice. Scandinavian social democracy may be the best compromise available between individual freedom and public welfare.
The argument always comes down to two propositions, 1. Those people are not ready for democrace, having never had one. 2. A strong leader or "dictator" may be the best sollution early on.
The history of the US would seem to suggest that both are false [thank God or fortune for George Washington refusing a crown]. Unfortunately through too much success the US population has becom complacent, fat arrogant and ignorant. We are in the process of losing our democracy. I hope it isn't too late to reverse this trend.
Complain about this comment
iain, (#66. At 12:51pm on 05 Feb 2011)
"61 yes i can provide evidence that wall street funded the rise of the weirmar republic and when hitler wouldnt pay back the money they caused the hyperinflation and oncoming disaster ..."
Good. Let us see.
"... schacht was the finance minister and head of a german bank which was run and funded by the wall street mafia ...
The bank to which you refer was Dresdner Bank, which was German. If you want any rational people to believe that Dresdner bank was "was run and funded by the wall street mafia," you'll need to provide some evidence that, a) it was run and funded by the "wall street mafia," and b) that there was a "wall street mafia."
I rather doubt that you will even try, but hey, give it a shot.
As for Hjalmar Schacht, he participated in the introduction of the Rentenmark, which replaced the German Mark, made worthless by the hyperinflation of 1921-1923, quite a bit before Hitler's Third Reich came to power. Schacht was appointed president of the Reichsbank during the administration of of President Friedrich Ebert and Chancellor Gustav Stresemann, NOT Adolf Hitler. You would benefit by bushing up on your European history. Hitler appointed Schacht as his Minister of Economics in late 1934.
"... hitler apposed being held to ransom by the wall street hitmen and decided to go alone sacked schacht(after the war schacht should have gone to the nuremburg trials but was freed without charge ...done as a favour by the finacial elite) ..."
Actually, Hermann Göring fired Schacht, but given the historical ignorance above, it is a mere quibble. The dismissal occurred due to the economic crisis of 1935-1936, again well after the period of hyperinflation. Further, Schacht was arrested by the Allies in 1945, and he was put on trial at Nuremberg. He was acquitted. Do read up on the history. It will save you from making it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjalmar_Schacht#Resistance_activities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjalmar_Schacht#After_the_war
"... hitler built up germany with out wall street money ie vouchers for state works full employment etc etc lots of usa business in germany suffered wall street were angry ..."
You seem to be suffering from the same ailment that afflicts some other posters to these threads; just because you say it is so does not make it true.
Evidence please.
"... wall street didnt like having the doors shut in their faces and starved germany from exporting and trading outside of there own country forcing hitler to expand military and invade poland etc etc ..."
Wow! What an imagination! What did did "wall street" do that "starved germany from exporting and trading outside of there own country?" Further, in what way did that "starvation" "force "Hitler to "expand military?"
"... all orchestrated hitler stood up like we should and iceland have same as 2008 financial hitmen terrorises nations for money!!! "
Other than expressing rage, I don’t understand what you are trying to say here.
One thing I will give you, though. At least you tried to argue the case. As shown above, history does not treat your version of the events kindly, but that can be corrected by studying. Other posters however, just babble the first nonsense that pops into their heads, without being constrained by the shackles of cognitive effort.
Complain about this comment
9. At 11:34pm on 04 Feb 2011, Andy3142 wrote:
Dear MagicKirin,
A point of fact. If you read the actual history, I think you'll find that while the USA bankrolled the defeat of Nazism, it was actually, ahem, us Brits who led the fight, both in standing up to Hitler when no-one else would (and when we didn't actually have to) and in strategic direction of the war. You in the USA remained on the sidelines until you yourselves were attacked. Republican businessmen were happily doing business with Hitler right up until Pearl Harbour.
_________________________________________________________________
For those of you who felt insulted by my comments at #50, I have reposted Andy’s comments at #9 which I was responding to. If you still feel insulted, then now you know how many Americans feel every day due to not only British, but European arrogance, but I digress. For the sake of conciseness, if no other, I should have left what JMM said at #23 since he hit all the major cultural factors.
For the comments about WWII and who did what being out of context, considering that this post is supposed to be a dialogue between Brits and Americans based on a Brit’s perspective of America, WWII certainly fits the total character of the blog better than going on and on about Egypt since no American or Brit will be voting if there are free and fair elections in Egypt.
Now, I would ask worcestorjim to explain to me how the Wall Street elites convinced Tojo and Yamamoto to attack Pearl Harbor. This is relevant since the US did not declare war on Germany after Pearl Harbor was attacked, only on the Empire of Japan. Hitler, honoring his pact with Japan, then declared war on the United States.
Finally, as for those who felt compelled to bring up the Eastern Front and the 20 million (supposedly) soviets killed, 2 things:
1. I would file the Eastern front under the same category as Henry Kissinger put the Iran-Iraq War, “Too bad they both can’t lose.”
2. Russian loses in WWII had nothing to do with Andy’s assertions about US involvement in WWII.
Complain about this comment
ref #58
Worcester Jim I did not mean to insult U.K fight with us against Nazism Stalinsim and islamic terrorism
I was responding to your original post about the U.S apologizing.
I honestly feel that the U.S has given the world so much and yet it is never thanked or recognized for it.
Complain about this comment
powermeerkat, (#69. At 1:22pm on 05 Feb 2011)
”... For the record:
Taliban has not even existed during the Soviet-Afghan War ...”
Good hit! I should have used “Afghan resistance” or some such instead.
Complain about this comment
Oldloadr, (#75. At 3:15pm on 05 Feb 2011)
”... explain to me how the Wall Street elites convinced Tojo and Yamamoto to attack Pearl Harbor. This is relevant since the US did not declare war on Germany after Pearl Harbor was attacked, only on the Empire of Japan. Hitler, honoring his pact with Japan, then declared war on the United States ...”
Don’t hold your breath waiting for a lucid answer! LOL!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
22. At 01:57am on 05 Feb 2011, Jackturk wrote:
15. At 00:48am on 05 Feb 2011, Jay wrote:
"Cont. to my earlier post (#13):
Just got this informative link to show, "Which american companies did business with Hitler during WW2?":
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090708092549AAlwOnY"
It doesn't mention Prescott Bush, George Bush's grandfather whose company helped Hitler. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar
Neither does it mention the Zionists who betrayed their fellow Jews.
http://www.palestinejournal.net/lilienthal_how-zionists-sabotaged-rescue.htm
------
Boring...
Anybody who knows the Middle East conflict knows that it was the Palestinian Arab side that supported the Nazis. It's well documented that Hitler met up with the Palestinian grand mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini who pledged to build concentration camps in Palestine once the Nazis had achieved success in Europe.
And of course, the Arabs supported the losing side in both World Wars...
Complain about this comment
79. At 3:48pm on 05 Feb 2011, Chryses wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
_________________________________________________________
What rule would that be? Bl***y amazing!
Complain about this comment
65 quietoaktree
ok, you have an interesting point of view. i checked my posts earlier, even before you posted this comment, and you're somewhat right.
"While Amr is attempting to give the impression that he (and Egypt) is a victim of the protestors--" from my side, it seems that soon they will demand the Egyptians that do not support their point of view to leave with Mubarak. is this still my country? do i still have a right to be here?
"---also, i have to add that the new government and specially the vice president were very wise in dealing with the situation." this is my personal opinion, or i no longer have any right to say what i think? take a good look. things are much more peaceful now. protesters are well-protected, i think.
"--now it's time to reunite and rebuild Egypt, hopefully even to become better than it was." ... i only tried to think positively now that things seem peaceful...
"--(besides, they were behind much of the propaganda that spread that President Mubarark is a dictator)" ... it's funny since i feel you're almost trying to say that "we're saying he is a dictator, so he must be a dictator."
next time you try to help a country become a better you should give people some warning like: "democracy" is coming; run for your lives!
Complain about this comment
MK I am just too angry with you (and your pet Chryses) to argue with you rationally.
It`s quite clear to me that you are not here to engage in debate but simply to regurgitate your prejudices based on propoganda which I recognise has been very effective not just in the USA but here in Britain as well.
If at any stage you had budged an inch under the welter of confounding information and opinion I would see some point...but if you are proved inaccurate or wrong you simply submerge without acknowleding the point and move on to another subject.
I respect your deeply held views but disagree with them so often and so radically that I would prefer not to engage with you again.
Complain about this comment
22. At 2:01pm on 05 Feb 2011, Cosmologic wrote:
”. . ‘Here are the significant exceptions (in alphabetical order):-
1.
2.
3.
4.
It is amusing how short some people’s memories are, particularly in light of the thread context.
1. 1956 - The U.S. supported Egypt in its contest with France and GB over the Suez canal.
2. 1965 – 1980 The U.S. supported the liberation of Ian Smith’s Rhodesia.
3. 1960 – 1993 The U.S. actively supported the replacement of South Africa’s right wing apartheid government.
4. 1982 - The U.S. actively supported GB against the right wing military dictatorship in Argentina in the Falkland War.
5. 1994 - The U.S. put Jean-Bertrand Aristide back in power after he was overthrown by a military coup..
Etc.
Complain about this comment
80. At 4:20pm on 05 Feb 2011, herecomesthemirrorman wrote:
"Boring...
Anybody who knows the Middle East conflict knows that it was the Palestinian Arab side that supported the Nazis. It's well documented that Hitler met up with the Palestinian grand mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini who pledged to build concentration camps in Palestine once the Nazis had achieved success in Europe.
And of course, the Arabs supported the losing side in both World Wars..."
The fact that Haj Amin al-Husseini was indeed an anti-Semite and a thoroughly reprehensible person, does not detract from the information in my post, which I note you do not dispute. One of the points of which is to highlight the view that it is the aims of Zionist extremism to occupy the whole of 'Palestine' which have caused much of the upset in the Middle East.
Complain about this comment
Nostrano, (#63. At 12:33pm on 05 Feb 2011)
”To Chryses. Why didn't the Americans deal more directly with the Afganis (with Massoud, for example) instead of with Pakistan who fostered the Taliban in the first place? ...”
I don’t know. State still has a few secrets unavailable at WikiLeaks, LOL! but I’ll hazard a guess that they were lazy and relied on the government of Pakistan for intel, rather than gathering it themselves. Just speculation on my part, but State is not generally known as "go getters."
Complain about this comment
Oldloadr, (#81. At 4:38pm on 05 Feb 2011),
”79. At 3:48pm on 05 Feb 2011, Chryses wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
_________________________________________________________
What rule would that be? Bl***y amazing!”
It is a British PC thing. NP, I reposted it without being unPC.
Complain about this comment
quietoaktree:
i understand the reasons behind the distrust.
there is a reason i may seem to side to the current system. in the past days, the voices that kept yelling against Mr. Mubarak seemed too loud (not to mention the violence involved) that it didn't even give anyone a chance to think about what they really want to choose (same thing for the impatient demands if you noticed).
if you're sitting in a football game and you, accidently, sat in a place where everyone is cheering for the team you're not a fan of, probably you'd hesitate to cheer for your team, right? that's what's happening now. i was trying to encourage the hesitant voices to choose the side they really want without fear. we live in a free country and we're free to choose what is best for our country.
i'll say this once more: i came here originally to clarify the picture of what things are like in Egypt. if you ignored my opinion then you won't see the real picture. if you choose to see only the voices that support a certain point of view and ignore the rest, then my presence here is useless.
if i said anything that doesn't seem right, please don't hesitate to point it out. i don't want to give the wrong idea since my worries affect my judgement of events sometimes.
Complain about this comment
#82 Amr
--see next blog!
You have NO Intention to keep us up-to-date.
Why must I --when you are at the source ????
Complain about this comment
worcesterjim, (#83. At 4:53pm on 05 Feb 2011)
"MK I am just too angry with you (and your pet Chryses) to argue with you rationally ..."
Nothing particularly unusual about that.
"... It`s quite clear to me that you are not here to engage in debate but simply to regurgitate your prejudices based on propoganda which I recognise has been very effective not just in the USA but here in Britain as well ..."
Evidence please. If you want reasonable people to be persuaded by your claims, you'll need to begin supplying some.
"If at any stage you had budged an inch under the welter of confounding information and opinion I would see some point ..."
While you have been exceedingly generous with sharing your opinions, the same cannot be said about facts, data, and actual information.
"... but if you are proved inaccurate or wrong you simply submerge without acknowleding the point and move on to another subject ..."
Evidence please. If you want reasonable people to be persuaded by your claims, you'll need to begin supplying some.
"... I respect your deeply held views but disagree with them so often and so radically that I would prefer not to engage with you again."
Would you like me to provide suggestions as to how to achieve that goal?
Complain about this comment
60. At 11:51am on 05 Feb 2011, Chryses wrote:
You are mistaken. The U.S. supplied the Taliban in order that it might reverse the Soviet Union occupation of Afghanistan. Without American arms and material the Taliban would have failed.
And with US supplied arms and training Taliban and Al-Quida has surely been SUCCEEDED to attack US itself and became a major source of global supply of Islamic terrorism. I know that your distorted view of history and deliberate ignorance will not allow you to accept that.
Are you suggesting that because the Taliban had "arms and ammunition," they were compelled to use them? What nonsense.
Again that statement shows your ignorance about history and/or lack of analytical thinking.
US flooded that part of the world (both Pakistan and Afghanistan) with arms and ammunition. When the Soviet left Afghnastan, US did not try much to install a civilized government (replacing the Soviets or its puppet government led by Nazibllah). US also lost interest there without even trying to recover the left over arms. US supplied, shoulder fired stinger missiles later proved to be too lethal to US force as well. The same is true for US handling of Pakistan. US practically supported Pakistan's militery dictators. It deliberately turned a blind eye to Pakistan's use of islamic terrorism as part of foreign policy against its arch rival India (in Kashmir and many other parts of India). In fact US supported Pakistan in many UN resolutions against India/kashmir (a democracy in that region). Such US biased policies practically helped Pakistan's creation of Taliban and use of terrorism as state policy. matter started going wrong lately and US first realized its direct impact on 9/11 and there after.
For more detail about US support for Pakistan's military dictators, you can go through the following article "Pakistan's Dictatorships and the United States": http://www.fpif.org/articles/pakistans_dictatorships_and_the_united_states
the rest of your post is nonsense (like most of your other posts) and does not merit any response.
Complain about this comment
No, US must not interfere with selection or election of local government by local people, ANYWHERE in the world. But if any government used disproportionately high force to suppress civil liberty, then it should take up the matter with the concerned government (in case of "friend") and/or though UN (in case of others).
In this case of Egypt, US is now doing the right thing.
Complain about this comment
62. At 12:27pm on 05 Feb 2011, Joe wrote:
Yes, the US thinks everyone wants democracy. And while that's fine and good, and I applaud that desire, Mr. Obama wants the main opposition party, the Muslim Brotherhood, to be invited into the government. They are allies of AlQuieda, Hamas, and Iran.
---
DO you have any proof to show that "They are allies of AlQuieda, Hamas, and Iran"?
It is all propaganda, mainly started by Israel and then by its lobbyists in US.
Complain about this comment
#80 Hctm
Many trees have been planted in Israel in honor of the Arabs who saved Jews from the Nazis in North Africa.
What is interesting is that their descendants are ashamed of those actions by their deceased relatives.
---Ask why !
Complain about this comment
89 quietoaktree
i saw the news in tv. i think all the Egyptians, who are not busy working, are watching tv too except for the protesters who are busy protesting.
moving to next blog (sorry)
Complain about this comment
i have just realized something. if it's a leaderless protest or revolution, then who makes their demands?
Complain about this comment
23. At 02:03am on 05 Feb 2011, JMM wrote his post...
This blog does not represent the feelings of the entire UK how can it.
Some who participate from the UK have left leanings,& write well even if it is crap.Empty vessels make most noise.Do not tar us all with the same brush.My earlier post was an attempt at describing how many of the people I mix with think.
I love aviation & monthly meet with about 50 or so like minded.The older "boys"many flew with Bomber command are so under stated & quiet even after they flew two tours about 60 trips with many over Berlin its a privilege to be in the same room.Others are just learning to fly & are young.I am not that good at expressing what I feel,but like all my aviation mates there is a deep & quiet affection for the US not spoken loudly,but its there believe me.May be we should be more vocal,but its not our cup of tea...
Complain about this comment
it's strange that i'm the one asking the question. i feel like i just have to 'take a seat and enjoy the show' (with the rest of the Egyptians)...
Complain about this comment
Jay, (#91. At 5:28pm on 05 Feb 2011)
"And with US supplied arms and training Taliban and Al-Quida has surely been SUCCEEDED to attack US itself and became a major source of global supply of Islamic terrorism. I know that your distorted view of history and deliberate ignorance will not allow you to accept that ..."
Deliberate ignorance? Wrong again. The Taliban never attacked the United States.
Distorted view of history? Why do you just make this stuff up? You must know that someone will prove you wrong.
"... When the Soviet left Afghnastan, US did not try much to install a civilized government (replacing the Soviets or its puppet government led by Nazibllah) ..."
Aha! So now you criticize the U.S. for not installing a government of which you approve ("civilized").
"... US also lost interest there without even trying to recover the left over arms ..."
They did not then belong to the U.S. I thought you knew that.
"... shoulder fired stinger missiles later proved to be too lethal to US force as well ..."
Evidence please.
"... The same is true for US handling of Pakistan. US practically supported Pakistan's militery dictators. It deliberately turned a blind eye to Pakistan's use of islamic terrorism as part of foreign policy against its arch rival India (in Kashmir and many other parts of India) ..."
You again suggest that the U.S. intervene in the politics of a sovereign nation.
"... matter started going wrong lately and US first realized its direct impact on 9/11 and there after ...
Are you completely ignorant of history, or just the bits that don't fit your political POV?
1. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania - Aug 7, 1998
2. Nairobi, Kenya - Aug 7, 1998
3. Aden, Yemen - Oct 12, 2000
4. Istanbul, Turkey - Nov 15, 2003; Nov 20, 2003
"... the rest of your post is nonsense (like most of your other posts) and does not merit any response."
Do you think so? Let's take a look.
You skipped the portion where I showed how mistaken you were about Christian Democrats. Why is that? Are you incapable of admitting that you were mistaken? Here is what you actually wrote in post #19. "Then we should be equally aware of many "Christian Democrat" type of political parties in many western countries and many of them do follow/believe many religious fanatic ideology."
I provided various examples that contradicted your claim. I'll wager you had no idea that Angela Merkel, the current Chancellor of Germany, is of the Christian Democratic Union? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Merkel )
I provided various examples that contradicted your claim. I’ll wager you had no idea that Angela Merkel, the current Chancellor of Germany, is of the Christian Democratic Union? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Merkel ) What type of “religious fanatic ideology” do you suggest M. Merkel practices?
I may be mistaken, but based upon your posts, I get the distinct impression that you just invent whatever you think will suit your purposes. One of the good things of a blog like this is that you cannot wriggle out of what you actually wrote.
Complain about this comment
98 Amr
Well you never imagined we were serious about you having a say did you?(joke!) No no...the Americans think the rest of the world is just a big stage on which they play DOMESTIC politics.
Whatever happens it will all be Obama`s fault (or fantastic statesmanship) when Israel is most likely to be making "America`s" decisions anyway..based on keeping stability in the region...which can`t be a bad idea.
Fewer than ten per cent of Americans could point to Egypt on a map...and when Soros/CIA installed an American lawyer to run Georgia in Europe some US Georgians complained!
Complain about this comment
97 UKW Why keep whispering darkly round the saloon bar door about other people being fools and you being far smarter but ...but that it`s beneath you to comment.
If you have a point just be a welshman and make it loud and clear...or we may just think you aren`t really smart at all but just a Tory!
If you want to talk about flying there are almost certainly forums for that.Relax!
Complain about this comment
No Chryses, (at 5:03pm on 05 Feb 2011). It has nothing to do with Wikileaks. This information was first hand through direct interviews between the French journalist Christophe de Ponfilly who filmed his sessions with Massoud whom he greatly admired and believed in. The facts are incredible, yet no one, including wikileaks, seems to be aware of them, and one continues to deal with Pakistan as though it's still perfectly acceptable. It even seems to be getting to the ridiculous stage where the USA is paying Pakistan for the right to wage war against them..
If you can read a bit of French, here are some extracts that are very revealing http://mirino-viewfinder.blogspot.com/2010/07/massoud-1997.htm
I trust that BBC won't feel that the publishing of this link 'breaks the house rules', because, it my view it's important information that should be widely shared.
I'm certainly not anti-American either. I have a sister living in the States and an American Democrat brother-in-law. If I'm anti-anything it would simply be anti-stupidity and I regard the errors made in Afghanistan, and continually being made there by the West, far more seriously than any that were ever made in Iraq.
Complain about this comment
No Chryses, (at 5:03pm on 05 Feb 2011). It has nothing to do with Wikileaks. This information was first hand through direct interviews between the French journalist Christophe de Ponfilly who filmed his sessions with Massoud whom he greatly admired and believed in. The facts are incredible, yet no one, including wikileaks, seems to be aware of them, and one continues to deal with Pakistan as though it's still perfectly acceptable.
If you can read a bit of French, here are some extracts that are very revealing
http://mirino-viewfinder.blogspot.com/2010/07/massoud-1997.html
I trust that BBC won't feel that the publishing of this link 'breaks the house rules', because, it my view it's important information that should be widely shared.
I'm certainly not anti-American either. I have a sister living in the States and an American Democrat brother-in-law. If I'm anti-anything it would simply be anti-stupidity and I regard the errors made in Afghanistan, and still being made there by the West, far more seriously than any that were ever made in Iraq.
Complain about this comment
worcesterjim, (#101. At 7:36pm on 05 Feb 2011),
It is quite apparent why ukwales feels uneasy about the posts of some of the contributors to this blogg.
Complain about this comment
(Dirty Tricks in) Politics is supposed to be a spectator sport like football* to subdue and control the masses where the population only have a passive involvement, religiously cheering screaming and singing along with thousands of other fans for their favorite side while watching 2 teams of 11 players kick the ball and each other. Emotional games (soap-opera and grand-opera dramatics) keep life exciting.
* called 'soccer' to u-s-a! u- s-a!
Complain about this comment
Mubarak must not go free! He must be sent to The Hague and the ICC there to account for the torture, killings all his abuses to his own people and others.
Complain about this comment
I should add,further to my last comment (to Chryses) that Europe and certainly France has a weighty responsibility regarding not taking Massoud's request for help serously when he came to Europe before the 11/9/2001. He then clearly informed Europe that he was convinced that the war against the Taliban wasn't a national war, it was international, and that if the West didn't help, they too would eventually fall victim. He words proved to be fatally true and he was assassinated also for having tried to inform the West via Europe, and for having tried to get the help the Afghans so needed at that time. In fact had he and his moudjahidin received help in 1997, he would probably still be alive, the Taliban would have been defeated and the Twin Towers might never ever have been hit. But that's another story, and such is history.
Complain about this comment
Nostrano, (#102. At 7:53pm on 05 Feb 2011)
”No Chryses, (at 5:03pm on 05 Feb 2011). It has nothing to do with Wikileaks ...”
I was making a little joke about the State Department being unable to manage their classified data. You may have read that there have been a few lapses. As I said, I don’t know why the State Department failed to do the due diligence that Massoud warranted. I just guessed that they were a bit lazy.
Complain about this comment
101. At 7:36pm on 05 Feb 2011, worcesterjim wrote:
97 UKW Why keep whispering darkly round the saloon bar door about other people being fools and you being far smarter but ...but that it`s beneath you to comment.
If you have a point just be a welshman and make it loud and clear...or we may just think you aren`t really smart at all but just a Tory!
IF you want to talk about flying there are almost certainly forums for that.Relax!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
97 UKW Why keep whispering darkly round the saloon bar door about other people being fools and you being far smarter but ...but that it`s beneath you to comment.
-------
PPfftt,all I said some have left leanings write well,even if its crap,I
hope I did not hit a nerve.To them who fit that bill,its so true that in life some folk are wise,& others are otherwise..
-----------------------------------------------
If you have a point just be a welshman and make it loud and clear...or we may just think you aren`t really smart at all but just a Tory!
------
Some on this blog come up with the most fantastic theories of Wall St this,capitalistic that.Its only my opinion if I say that they are extremely stupid.I do not mean that in a derogatory sense,I simply mean they are not very intelligent...
------------------------------------------------
IF you want to talk about flying there are almost certainly forums for that.Relax!
-------
As one of the very few here who pays for this forum,as long as they post & its my opinion on or off topic I will say what ever seems ok to me at that time,thats if its ok with you Cha Guevara...
Complain about this comment
To Powermeerkat (1.35pm on 05 Feb 2011). I'm afraid you've got it wrong.
A few months after Ahmad Shah Massoud had visited Europe with the hope of persuading the 'West' that they should help the Afghans against the Taliban, he was assassinated by two Moroccan suicide bomber members of the Taliban disguised as journalists. It was exactly two days before the Twin Towers were hit. Massoud was the only obstacle at the time between the Taliban taking full control of Aghanistan. In 1997, he was within 20 kilometers of Kabul with an excellent opportunity of routing them then.
He never got the help he needed. He was assassinated. The Twin Towers were hit, two days later, and today the West is still bogged down dealing with the problem via Pakistan- the originators of it all, and after also having accepted Karzai, a Pachtoun, who claims that fraud in elections is perfectly normal and acceptable 'in young democracies' (amongst other affairs such as liberating Pachtoun criminals before their trials, and totally ignoring the interests of all other Afghan ethnics, etc.).
Complain about this comment
42. At 06:10am on 05 Feb 2011, steelbluecactus wrote:
"Not denying what U.K did but no U.S le[a]d invasion on D Day no victory, learn your history"
++++++
Please - both of you - to be perfectly honest the Allies would never have defeated Hitler had the US not entered the war. ..."
___________
Oh, dear.
We re-fight WWII yet again.
You seem to forget that the majority of the troops than landed on June 6, 1944 were not American.
Rather more importantly, you seem to have forgotten that the war in Europe turned against the Germans well before any significant American forces landed anywhere on the European continent, (indeed, somewhat before they landed on the African continent, too).
Germany would have lost the war whether the Normandy landing had been made, or not.
The Normandy landings were not made because Germany was then winning the war.
They were made because Germany was losing the war.
They were made because a much larger, much tougher, battle-hardened, competent army was marching westward across the Ukraine and Poland, and it was time for the western allies to get moving.
Do the names "Zhukov" and "Konev" ring a bell?
"Learn your history", indeed.
Complain about this comment
97. At 6:40pm on 05 Feb 2011, ukwales wrote:
RE 23. At 02:03am on 05 Feb 2011, JMM
My dear friend,
Of course I don't blame all Britons, or even all the English. I don't even blame all left-leaning people, only the ones who swallow propaganda unquestioningly and parrot it forth on command.
There is some truth in mmany of the Anti-American posts. Mistakes, some very bad ones, have been made by many of our administrations [not governments, as we have had one single uninterrupted government since 1789].
The truth is that, as Europeans see things now, the US is right of center politically. As they saw things in 1780, though, they were terrified by the revolutionary leftists that posed an existential threat to their very way of life [hard to believe but true, the Americans were the Bolseviks of the early 19th Century].
They were perfectly correct, there are hardly any European monarchies left, and none that are not constitutional. So far reaching has been American influence that most people are unaware of it except for the most recent and least beneficial actions.
Occasionally I just get so irritated at the the ahistoricity and propaganda that I am compelled to tell one of the parrots off. I try [as, I hope in this case] to give the true facts, what many educated Americans really think and feel, and to avoid harsh retaliatory counter propaganda.
America has its own dim and propagandized parrots [who can be read on various posts]. I hope you will not think them any more representative than the UK parrots. I just try to open some eyes to the necessity to look at the other side. No offense at all intended to you or the majority of UK readers.
I have even admitted that George III has gotten something of a bad rap. When one poster called Americans masters of effective self-serving propaganda I got a good laugh, The American colonists won, in part, because they were very good at it indeed! Not that there weren't real grievances, of course.
So, my friend, I hope neither you nor the silent majority of UK readers were offended by my history lesson.
As you say, "Dymuniadau gorau a noson dda." No hard feelings and best wishes.
Complain about this comment
109..No I don`t mind you posting at all but I do get irritated when you criticise me without advancing an argument...and just make what is called an ad hominem attack.
And it`s CHE not CHA....unless you are referring the obscure tea drinking Swansea revolutionary?
Complain about this comment
99. At 7:20pm on 05 Feb 2011, Chryses wrote:
Deliberate ignorance? Wrong again. The Taliban never attacked the United States. Distorted view of history? Why do you just make this stuff up? You must know that someone will prove you wrong.
Anything that you does not know or like to ignore is surely "wrong". the only truth in this world is Herr Chryses.
After so many years, Herr Chryses, declared that "The Taliban never attacked the United States". But Herr Chryses's political master, and Republican president GW Bush squarely blames the same Talibans for 9/11 attack on USA, for supporting and harboring Al-Quida. You do not have to say that, but I know that I am "wrong again" in your myopic eyes.
shoulder fired stinger missiles later proved to be too lethal to US force as well ..." ..Evidence please.
For a start you can read "Stinger Missiles Supplied By CIA Now Pose Threat To US":http://www.rense.com/general15/pose.htm
matter started going wrong lately and US first realized its direct impact on 9/11 and there after ...
Are you completely ignorant of history, or just the bits that don't fit your political POV?
I said DIRECT. None of those attacks were in US soil, within US territory. 9-11 is the first on that, that too massive American lives.
may be mistaken, but based upon your posts, I get the distinct impression that you just invent whatever you think will suit your purposes.
Yes, you ARE mistaken. I think you do just that and think everyone else also indulge in such practice.
Complain about this comment
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.
View these comments in RSS