Cairo, Eqypt - Riots Chaos Protests

[Pam]

When banks are manipulating food prices, how long before we feel it?

We already are. I've noticed food price increases in the last year or two.

[gdogslim]

What banks are manipulating prices?
The price of fuel determines a large portion of food prices. The environmentalists fight refineries to be built and Obama won't let oil to be drilled for so prices will continue to go up.
Obama wants energy prices to go up, as he said so himself, so get used to more higher prices.

[maxx]

gdog: Did you read the story?

Egyptians want democracy and sharia. That sounds like the beginnings of a theocracy.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7116ND20110202

[maxx]

We already are. I've noticed food price increases in the last year or two.

Our bread and wheaties prices haven't increased by a multiple of four. Someone else is taking the hit for us.

[mjs]

In my line of work, the people who came up with an idea get credit for it.
Who proposed the Eye-Raq invasion? Who played the endless soundbite of mentioning eye-raq and 9/11 in the same sentence over and over again?

Let the intellectual authors of not one but two ridiculous wars be the first to apologize. If the families of the US military killed in this fiasco don't deserve an apology, certainly the families of Iraqi civilians killed do. Not one Iraqi citizen was involved in 9/11.

Revisionist biased history. The American public was angry as hell after 9/11 and they wanted to kill mass numbers of people somewhere. Public opinion was overhwelmingly supportive of going to war. The debate or pause or questions were virtually non-existant at the time. People where asking why in the hell was it taking Bush so long to start the killing. I was there at the time. Where were you?

I could see Obama using thought over emotion, but not the majority of the Democratic leadership that could have been President had the Democrats won in 2000. I have got to hear what the armchair quarterbacks think President Gore would have done under the circumstances. I can't even fathom why you think Afghanistan is the second ridiculous war. I guess you must also hate Obama since he has expanded the number of soldiers we have in that conflict.

Here's some questions you should be prepared to answer if you want your vague statements to sound like informed viewpoints rather than viscious emotional attacks:

What exactly is the civilian casualty count in Iraq? By civilians, I mean civilians. Not soldiers, guerriellas, and others that made themselves targets by picking up lethal weapons.

Do you really, honestly, believe Iraqis and arabs had better live's under Saddam's leadership or that their were fewer civilian casulaties? The Iraq-Iran war alone is estimated to have cost as many as one and a half million dead or injured. Saddam targeted missles at Israeli women and babies. He killed, tortured, pillaged, and raped Kuwaitis because he felt they flaunted their wealth. He routinely gassed Iranian civilians and even his own people and killed and brutally tortured tens of thousands more. He even sent Iraqi children to clear mine fields with their bodies. I can't imagine that Iraqis would say that life was better under Saddam, but you must have a poll where they have said as much. Better yet, lets go back to your number for the Iraq war civilian casualties and compare the data.

As for the men and women of our armed services, how long was a tour of duty in Iraq? How many US soldiers that joined before 9/11 had to go over there and see action before their tour was complete? If they didn't believe in it, why did they reenlist? If they did believe in it, as every vet I've met from the war has said they did, how can their fight be a waste of their time or their lives? Are you saying your belief's are more important than the soldiers you claim to fight for? Isn't that a little paternal and ethnocentric?

Finaly, why in the hell do you keep calling it eye-raq? Its obviously meant to be disrespectful to someone as its the most common characterisitc of your debating style. Somehow in your mind, taking the low road is the best way to prove someone else takes it or some convoluted logic. I just can't figure out who are trying to disrespect. Are you trying to be disrespectful to the Iraqi's you claim to care so deeply about?

[gdogslim]

What banks are manipulating prices?
Have you ever heard of commodity exchanges around the world?

Most all Egyptians Don't Want Sharia Law, Most Iranians don't either. Unless you are a brainwashed Muslim or some radical left wing extremist Cleric that wants to return to the dark ages.
Why didn't Osama Obama help out the Iranian's when they needed it, or does Obama want Sharia law?

Whats up with Katie Couric, Christiane Amanpour and Anderson Cooper posing as Egyptian attack victims? I only wish they got their noses broken, that would have made for good TV.
Boo hoo, I'm in the middle of a riot and someone pushed me, I feel so bad for them.
If Mubarek wanted to do real damage to the protesters he easily could of.

[barnesfoto]

The American public was angry as hell after 9/11 and they wanted to kill mass numbers of people somewhere. Public opinion was overhwelmingly supportive of going to war.

You can make the argument that Afghanistan was justified, and that our efforts should have been concentrated there.
There was not nearly as much opposition to that invasion; after all, OBL was allegedly residing there.

That war has turned into a quagmire, and yes, I am unhappy that the Janitor-President has not gotten us out.

You can make the argument that Saddam was a bad guy.
[[For that matter, so were a lot of other people that we supported, including
Suharto in Indonesia, The Shah of Iran, Rios-Mont in Guatemala, Gulbuddin Hakmatyar in early 1980's Afghanistan, etc).

As for Eye-Raq [[that's the way Bush pronounced it) The folly of it was clear from the start in the content of the propaganda [[Again,recall the constant use of 9-11 and Saddam Hussein in the same sentence by Bush)

I don't see any evidence that we accomplished anything over there. It's the biggest failed government program since Vietnam. Democracy is organic; to see it exploding on the streets of Cairo is refreshing.

The idea that we can point guns at people and force them to be a democracy is absurd, no matter how many times you apologists remind us that SH was a cruel dictator. We never argued that he wasn't.

There were also people that fought in Vietnam and thought their efforts to be important [[It's pretty illogical that one would serve in such an effort while not believing that somehow they were accomplishing something. What did Vietnam accomplish again?)

Finally, again a question. What Iraqi citizen was involved in 9-11?

As a footnote, the best source of news from that part of the world right now is Aljazeera, unavailable to much of the US. [[Surprise!)
Here's a link that readers can send to their local cable companies.

http://english.aljazeera.net/demanda...2.html?z=90021

[mjs]

You can make the argument that Afghanistan was justified, and that our efforts should have been concentrated there.
There was not nearly as much opposition to that invasion; after all, OBL was allegedly residing there.

So, then you think they were the authors of just one, but not two ridiculous wars?

I don't see any evidence that we accomplished anything over there. It's the biggest failed government program since Vietnam. Democracy is organic; to see it exploding on the streets of Cairo is refreshing.

I don't see how you can talk about Iraq and Egypt back to back like that and not see that they influence each other. The idea of seeing democray exploding on the streets is incredibly exciting. Do you believe its good for Egypt, but not Iraq? Where's the difference? Iraqi's get to vote and speak their minds the same as Egyptians.

Even our democracy wasn't a completely new idea, but rather built upon earlier ideas and was only possible with the help of outside governments with ulterior motives. The ideas of American democracy were built upon Europe's enlightenment period and especially France's desire to spread democracy around the world. Thomas Paine never stepped foot in America. The French experiment in North America was as contagious as they had expected and even changed their own government.

Besides all of that, I believe that the overthrow of a mass killing psychopathic leader is an accomplishment in itself. Ending death, torture, and national aggression is not success enough for you?

The idea that we can point guns at people and force them to be a democracy is absurd, no matter how many times you apologists remind us that SH was a cruel dictator. We never argued that he wasn't.

Was it absurd when the American citizens did it to the King? When the French citizens did it to their King? The French put military personnel into our war and there were Americans supporting the King and French miltary personnel even killed some of those Americans. Civilians died in that war as well. Private property was destroyed as well. Was that an invasion? Should France have apologized to America? Its our support of their democracy. Its human nature to want freedoms and not be oppressed by the elite. I agree that we should get out. If its not a democracy, it will fall as it should.

Iraq couldn't have fallen as Egypt appears it will. They tried that there and Saddam slaughtered them by the hundreds of thousands. Like our founding, violence was the only hope for freedom.

There were also people that fought in Vietnam and thought their efforts to be important [[It's pretty illogical that one would serve in such an effort while not believing that somehow they were accomplishing something. What did Vietnam accomplish again?)

It was a piece in a larger battle that ultimately brought about freedom through the collapse of oppressive communist regimes. Besides Iraq's historic justification of bringing down Saddam, its a piece in the larger battle to bring about freedom through the collapse of oppressive regimes.

[Gistok]

Finaly, why in the hell do you keep calling it eye-raq? Its obviously meant to be disrespectful to someone as its the most common characterisitc of your debating style. Somehow in your mind, taking the low road is the best way to prove someone else takes it or some convoluted logic. I just can't figure out who are trying to disrespect. Are you trying to be disrespectful to the Iraqi's you claim to care so deeply about?

mjs.... there's enough silly [[on both sides) name calling going on.. from "Osama Obama"... to "Nobama"... to all sorts of other silly names leftist and conservative names...

Calling out just one example seems rather disingenuous...

[mjs]

Finally, again a question. What Iraqi citizen was involved in 9-11?

I guess I never specifically answered it because I don't understand it. Are you saying that someone told you that Iraqi civilians were the target of the invasion in Iraq because somebody in the White House believed they were involved in 9/11? I thought we went in there to remove Saddam from power. Did this person tell you that Saddam and his sons were accidently killed in the cross fire? A casualty of our war to kill the civilians that Saddam had left alive? If the idea was to kill civilians, I agree it was a horrible failure. Saddam was much more efficient.

If you mean to imply that we should never, ever, under no logic, no set of circumstances, no number of deaths, torture, threats, killing, anything, ever attack if there's going to be one single civilian death, I guess we just can't agree on that.

If you mean it needs to be balanced amongst other issues, I though I addressed all the other issues that supercede it.

You know I didn't like Bush either, but unlike you that doesn't mean that every single thing he touched must be wrong. All I ever heard him speak of was the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam did in fact own and use at one time. He talked of how Saddam would conspire to kill Americans if he felt he could get away with it so we should stop him before he gets the chance. Kill those that desire to kill us. I see the overthrow of Saddam as a worth while success regardless of whatever you may believe were the motives. If I were an Iraqi, I would see the relatively small civilian deaths as justifiable in relation to all the lives that were saved and the freedoms I have gained. If I were a soldier, I would consider that a worthy cause to fight and die for.


If you're that much of a pacifist that you think we should never go to war ever, I respect your convictions, but must disagree. If you're that much of a Bush hater that you believe anything tied to him must be wrong regardless of how much support he had for it or how it came out, for your own mental sake, go seek help.

[Relayer76]

Zbiggie was on CNN saying that the U.S. wants democracy in Egypt. Guess what, Zbiggie? I want democracy right here in the U.S. instead of the plutocracy we're getting.

Ditto for Canada. We are in somewhat better shape than you are but Harper is working hard on changing that. This Egyptian revolution is really inspiring. Sure there has been some bloodshed and violence but considering the protests have been going on for 12 days now, it is pretty mild. Western nations also need to have one of these peaceful revolutions. Too bad this story is taking over the wikileaks to some extent though. The CBC public affairs program [[our 60 Minutes) did a great doc on Julian Assange last night - "Wikirebels". http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2010-2011/wikirebels/


If you like horror stories check out. Fast forward to about 16 minutes in and see US soldiers committing war crimes as if they were playing a video game. And where are those damned WMDs anyways.

[Whitehouse]

Egyptian's finest at it's best.


This is callous! Cowards! A man approaches the police with his jacket open, clearly showing he's unarmed..... and gets shot.

[maxx]

mjs :People where asking why in the hell was it taking Bush so long to start the killing. I was there at the time. Where were you?

I was out in Berkley with my candle saying keep the troops home.

gdog: Have you ever heard of commodity exchanges around the world?

Have you ever heard of the national grain reserve that we had before W?

Most all Egyptians Don't Want Sharia Law, Most Iranians don't either

And I'm sure you can supply an info source for your statement which is as credible as the Pew poll I cited that reported that over 70% of Egyptians want to stone people.

[maxx]

mjs : Are you saying that someone told you that Iraqi civilians were the target of the invasion in Iraq because somebody in the White House believed they were involved in 9/11?

All the Bushies spent a lot of time making a link between Iraq and Al Queda who were behind 911. That was the first reason they gave for the war. There were others later.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun17.html
"...The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said after a Cabinet meeting. As evidence, he cited Iraqi intelligence officers' meeting with bin Laden in Sudan. "There's numerous contacts between the two," Bush said.."


http://www.alternet.org/world/80167/
"...
The official reasons -- the threat posed to the U.S. and its allies by Saddam Hussein's alleged programs of weapons of mass destruction [[WMD) and the possibility that he would pass along those arms to al Qaeda -- have long since been discarded by the overwhelming weight of the evidence, or, more precisely, the lack of evidence that such a threat ever existed.
Liberating Iraq from the tyranny of Hussein's particularly unforgiving and bloodthirsty version of Ba'athism and thus setting an irresistible precedent that would spread throughout the Arab world -- a theme pushed by the administration of President George W. Bush mostly after the invasion, as it became clear that the officials reasons could not be justified -- appears to have been the guiding obsession of really only one member of the Bush team, and not a particularly influential one at that: Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz..."

If the idea was to kill civilians, I agree it was a horrible failure. Saddam was much more efficient.

And your basis for this is what? An individual is more efficient at killing civilians than an army?
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

In 2004, the civilian body count was estimated at 100,000.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101001442.html

He talked of how Saddam would conspire to kill Americans if he felt he could get away with it so we should stop him before he gets the chance. Kill those that desire to kill us.

So W was some sort of psychic who knew what Saddam was thinking? Pre-emptive war was counter to past U.S. policy which always emphasized that the nation we invaded should have attacked us first. There wasn't even any sinking of the Maine or a Gulf of Tonkin resolution.

Do you really, honestly, believe Iraqis and arabs had better live's under Saddam's leadership or that their were fewer civilian casulaties?

At least then, they had an infrastructure.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/wo...st/20iraq.html
"...
Wealthier neighborhoods of Basra have as many as eight hours of city electricity a day; during blackouts, they can also afford the $50 or more a month for power from a generator shared by several blocks. The city’s poorer neighborhoods, by far the majority, often have just one hour of electricity a day, a situation not uncommon in Baghdad and other regions. The temperature in Basra on Saturday was 113 degrees.
Sewage still gathers in the streets; the city, about 340 miles southeast of Baghdad and humid because of its proximity to the Persian Gulf, is one of Iraq’s most decrepit..."

[Papasito]

Ogod. Is the invasion of Iraq thing not behind us?
And why not? Is it because of the current administration's occupation of Afghanistan?

[maxx]

No, it is not behind us. It is finally part of the total deficit instead of hidden away in separate books as under the shrub's admin. And it will be with us for quite a long time because the military has built a huge "embassy" there.

[mjs]

So W was some sort of psychic who knew what Saddam was thinking? Pre-emptive war was counter to past U.S. policy which always emphasized that the nation we invaded should have attacked us first. There wasn't even any sinking of the Maine or a Gulf of Tonkin resolution.

I didn't say I agreed with the reasoning then or now. I said what his reasoning was. If I were a congressman on that day, I would not have given the second Bush the power to go to war against Iraq the second time and it actually has to do with Saddam's WMDs.

Chemical warfare is a WMD and Saddam did repeatedly and ruthlessly use chemical warfare. According to Colin Powell himself, when we went to push them out of Kuwait, we swore to his government that we'd go into Iraq and kill every last one of them bastards if they used chemical warfare on US troops. High numbers of American soldiers dying by chemical attack would have been devastating to our John Wayne/ Die Hard self image. They didn't and that, amongst others, was why we didn't remove him from power at the time. To me, that meant he understood not to use WMDs on us. All of his big talk and challenges to the UN weapons inspectors were a big show to gain popular support in the mid-east by standing up to the big American bully.

I think the UN should have gotten off of their chicken shit asses and done something to Saddam for refusing inspections, but thats the UN, not the USA. The USA is not here to wipe the butts of the weak of the world as Europe just crys all day. I never saw Saddam as a significant threat to Americans. Saddam's plan was to mess with his neighbors and he needed to appear to not fear the US to do it. He was constantly testing us for what we would allow him to do to others and figured he could just wait it out if need be. I know that the thinking of the Nixon/Bush administration absolutely believed the next Democratic president would let Saddam get away with far too much.

I believe that the Bush family inability to intimidate Saddam was the actual reason they decided to take him out. They didn't want it to appear that the worst case scenario for challenging the US was a few hours of precision bombing. When they got a report that Saddam may have been involved with Al Queda, they choose to see the worst because they wanted the challenger to American supremecy
removed.

Intelligence collection and analysis is about odds. They're never sure of anything. The opponent is trying to hide things from you and misdirect you and many of your informants are lying sacks of crap trying to play both sides or have you take out their enemies. There was a pretty good amount of reliable intelligence that Al Queda approached high levels of the Iraqi government about working together. It only makes sense that someone in their government was willing to listen. The questionable reports were that Iraq went as far as conspiring to do anything. There was someone claiming they did, but his reliability was questionable. For a wide variety of reasons, most analysts believed that the Iraqi government decided not to participate.

To little Bush, I believe that in his mind, just sitting down to talk with them is every bit as bad as devising the plan and funding it. His Darth Vader like "you're either with us or you're against us" speeches and threats are an example of that. To him, what came of the meetings and whether Saddam sent the Iraqi participants or simply didn't stop them was irrelevant.

Once again, the American public was boiling over with anger wanted them [[fill in any of the popular racial epitaths of the time) dead, dead, dead!!! Our usual lack of leaders in Congress, who had access to everything listed above, chose to roll over to Bush and public opinion out of fear of the repercussions of as much as speaking like leaders.

Maxx, if you were at Berkley saying keep the troops home, thanks for trying. If you support any of these panzies that claim they voted against it before they voted for it, I can't understand. My point is that it can't all be laid on Bush or his recycled war monger Nixonites. America demanded that war and very few in DC tried to stop it, Obama excluded.

[maxx]

mjs: Once again, the American public was boiling over with anger wanted them [[fill in any of the popular racial epitaths of the time) dead, dead, dead!!!

And our bombing the rubble of Afghanistan where the 911 terrorists were trained and where we easily killed 3,000 people from the bombing wasn't enough? That's perverted, but it speaks to the gun culture in this country.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...evolution.html
CAIRO - The Egyptian revolt found its face today.
It's the face of a Google executive with a small goatee who ignited the youthful demonstrations that changed the Arab world with a simple call to action on his Facebook page.

[gdogslim]

Does anyone know what Nobama's stance on Egypt is?
Because the press and the administration don't and it keeps changing like the Fundy tide.

edit- I fogot. Obama said he was a Muslim and he will show them how to deal with Israel.

This was a statement by Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit on Nile-TV. It was made on the «Round table show». This is the statement recorded:
Adul Gheit said he had a one-on-one meeting with Obama, where the US President told him that
He was still a Muslim, the son of a Muslim father, the step son of Muslim stepfather, that his half brothers in Kenya are Muslims, and that he was sympatetic towards the Muslim agenda.
Adul Gheit claimed Obama told the Arabs to show patience. Obama promised that once he
overcame some domestic issues, like the Health care reform, he would show the Muslim World how to deal with Israel.
Read more ivarfjeld.wordpress.com/2010/06/08/egyptian-minister-obama-told-me-he-is-a-muslim/
Update from another source...

[Detroitnerd]

Um, wasn't this a discussion about Egypt? How did it get turned into spirited defenses of the blood-soaked Iraq invasion and criticism of Obama?

[gdogslim]

People have a tendency to change the subject when they can't discuss it logically or disagree with it.

Look at whats happening now. First it was Tunisia, then Egypt and now what have we here.
Countries where a protest took place and Democracy may break out. Was Bush right?
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/...ts-spread.html
Algeria, Lybia, Iran, Bahrain, Yemen, Jordan, Syria. and maybe more.
All on the possibility of toppling and regime changes in these authoritarian, dictatorial, police states.
Iranian lawmakers call for execution of protestors!, Obama where are you? No comment Obama?

And they US keeps funding the terrorists in Afghanistan by buying Opium, Heroin, and our tax money.

[oladub]

Iranian lawmakers call for execution of protestors!, Obama where are you? No comment Obama?

Hilary did speak in support of Iranian protestors as the President's spokesperson. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the US somehow had a hand in helping Israel develop the computer virus destroying Iranian nuclear centrifuges.

[gdogslim]

^Israel has computer smart people to do this on their own. You think the state dept would o.k. that?
I meant to put her in there, but no one in Iran cares what a woman from the US thinks.
I know Obama wants to take credit for only the good news, so maybe she is a trial balloon.
I don't think Obama is smart enough to create or manage these uprisings, and he has always showed disdain for Israel, I don't see him changing his position now. He tried to take all positions on Egypt.

[Dent]

Nothing but Peace Love, and Rape:

http://portal.wowway.net/news/read.p...org%3E&ps=1018

Ya gotta love the left:

http://nation.foxnews.com/twitter/20...sexual-assault

[oldredfordette]

What does the left have to do with the dreadful assault on that poor woman?

By the way, isn't it the right who is trying to redefine rape? Under their new guidelines, she was pushed around a little.