in a battle for Eeyore's soul! Save him! For the
dark side hath cookies!
Join Date: Dec 2008
No. Yes Mubarak has offered stability regarding Israel (which kicked Egypt's ass in the 6-day war in '67, 11yrs before Mubarak took office; that's something to think about, much like 9/11/01 is still fresh in most adult minds as I remember it like it happend last year), and that was what made the US turn a blind eye to his autocratic rule for 32 fuckin years. Implying that the rebels against Mubarak would in turn eventually have hostility towards Israel is painting them in a similar light as the Pakistanis etc. who can't read (opposed to the many who can) that take whatever negativity their cleric has to say about Israelis as fact. Yes Egypt of centuries and decades ago had hostility towards Israel, but ever since the 1952 revolution there, Egypt slowly built up its education system and is now today in 2011 the most academically forward country in the region: That is to say, most Egyptians -regardless of how they feel about Israel in 2011- know that WAR is BAD for BUSINESS, and thus WAR is bad for the economy, which they are trying to make right after Mubarak has made off w/millions of dollars that belong to Egyptian citizenry. And when you combine the fact that most Egyptians are educated w/the fact that about 85% of Egyptians have relatives in the army (and that's the main reason why they were able to overthrow Mubarak, while Libya & Bahrain still languish, w/thier armies killing harmless demonstrators), it makes for a nationwide business & military infrastructure that doesn't want hostility w/Israel. The messianic madness that swallowed them for centuries & decades (and has still swallowed many pockets of the under-educated Arab world) won't do so again, especially w/the Arab world now having the understanding that autocratic rule from their dictators is much more a poison than anything regarding Israel (a country which seems more of a scapegoat than anything else, to divert attention from Arab dictator's own atrocities).
You saying what you did in your first paragraph has as little documented proof as I'm able to give for all what I claim. However, you've failed to address how folk in all levels of American gov't, even in Obama's own party & cabinet, and all levels of political debate were condemning Obama for not showing any leadership for Egypt's plight against Mubarak for most of the time that the revolution there was happening.
For so many reasons, no one of any motive, be it evil, good, or ambivalent, wants to see another Iraq happen. Hence going in w/ground forces would've made the whole world accuse America of seeking another Iraq on Libyan soil. Not to mention that the international community was calling for a No-Fly zone, and thus if Obama called for ground troops for any reason, it'd be an impeachable offense seeing Gaddafi's forces aren't a threat to America's security (and bombing Gaddafi's compound is straddling the fence regarding impeachment right there; showing 'audacity' like that even one more time, and Congress has full right to throw him out).
Wrong. If he was really putting a tight reign on the military as you claim, he wouldn't have initiated w/so many American sorties when the operation began, in contrast w/the significantly fewer number of sorties from other countries (who are in better economic shape regarding thier GDP's than the US, and are just as committed to helping Libyan citizens as those w/true American values). That he's acting on "spread the responsibility" now instead of when the operation began shows one of two things: ONE being that he had something to gain by putting his foot more forward than the other NATO countries when the operation began; or TWO being NATO is that sick of him (re: bombing the compound when it wasn't part of the operation in the 1st place) enough that they've stripped him of decision making responsibility regarding the mission, and he is now obviously saving face by now executing the strategy of "spreading the responsibility."
Excuse me? I have relatives on both sides of my family and acquaintances on my own in Britain. I know how far reaching the '08 economic collapse is. I don't recall saying it was localized in one area; it simply hit America's midwest the hardest of any place on Earth, and thus America was in no position to launch so many sorties and missiles to begin the operation in Libya. Jet fuel and missiles cost a goddamn fortune. And Britain on a whole has recovered much more quickly and efficiently than America has from the economic collapse.
Of course Britain & France want a go at Gaddafi, that's why they signed up for the coalition. I didn't deny that. And it was never planned to be another Iraq, as Iraq was an invasion based on the false pretense of WMD's there *AND* the United Nations never agreed w/that reasoning and thus never agreed w/that war, only Dubya and Tony Blair did. Here today in Libya, the goal has been clearly stated w/no ambiguity, Al Queda doesn't have heavy operations in Libya, the citizens began the revolution, and the U.N./NATO agree w/creating a No-Fly Zone, and are the ones leading that effort, not the USA or Britain. Thus, all the fundamental factors make this a completely different situation than Iraq. The only thing this has in common w/Iraq is America has a presence in both, Libyans and Iraqis generally have a similar skintone and similar religious beliefs, and both had a psychotic autocratic dictator w/psychotic sons.
And as for you seperate from the issue, you begin your post by subtly disrespecting my demeanor even though I've never had a history of disrespecting you, then you counter my points with things you can't prove in the same way I don't have documentation to prove my points, then you talk about the U.S. putting in ground troups even though the whole issue began w/a "No-Fly Zone," then you imply that I'm out of my mind for something about Britain which I never even said or even implied, and then you close by acknowledging that its a complicated situation, yet finish your statement w/a platitude.
So you are either rude, disrespectful & look down on those who think differently from you, or you simply woke up too early to post effectively in response to me. Either way, is it safe to conclude that you watch the news w/o thinking critically about what they're telling you and not telling you? I mean its socially okay if you don't, as most people don't. (Hey at least I'm asking you this, instead of responding to some imaginary statement which denotes you impyling something, like the 'respect' you displayed to me here)
Last edited by bladeofBG; 03-30-2011 at 02:25 AM.