Quote:
Originally Posted by mixedmedia
It's not so convoluted. It's the arrogance that is behind conservative (and not so conservative) American opinion. When it is expedient for us, we back internal struggles for freedom.
|
There was a change in administration, if not for the change I think our national view of these matters would be more consistent.
From the conservative point of view the first priority, typically being most vocal and most supporting of, those causes which are viewed as in our nation's interest, because of that outlook there has been and will continue to be more interest in the ME than in other areas.
Quote:
|
For example, during Iran's elections in 2009 - I don't recall any claims being made in the American media at that time that they should remain calm and patient. But when it could be potentially difficult for us, we suddenly become concerned about stability. And, of course, when it becomes our interest to invade, we can't be stopped until the target is completely and utterly broken. Woops.
|
If you refer to the invasion of Iraq we been through that thousands of times, otherwise I don't know what invasion(s) you are referring to.
Quote:
|
What's more, it's unbelievably arrogant to purport that the protesters in Egypt just don't understand the economic situation in their own country. Surely you can see that.
|
I have not said that they don't understand it. My critique is towards the American intellectual types who present this conflict in a way that you would think only a Phd. could explain it, it ain't that complicated. When people can not provide for their family, while they see a ruling class failing to manage or even exploiting national wealth - they get a bit upset. The last straw was the move to end food and energy subsidies.
---------- Post added at 05:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:55 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Neo-cons like Bolton want to have it both ways.
|
True. I don't think that is unique to what you call Neo-cons. Hence, "I" want you to be free, but "I" want you to do it my way or "I" want to eat cake and not gain weight. People want it both ways, but the real question is when they can not have it both ways, what do they do? People who truly support free election will recognize legitimate winners of elections, however that does not mean you have to trust them.
Quote:
|
They're all about the peoples right to self-determination UNTIL it might include an opposition party they dont like (or, in their words, is Anti-American).
|
We are total opposites. I see absolutely no problem with Americans opposing those who are Anti-American. Again, the real question is how the conflict is managed. If an Anti-American sentiment is just that and nothing else, there does not need to be any problem. However, if an Anti-American sentiment translates into actions that are harmful to America, I think we need to do something about it.
Quote:
|
In a democracy, no reasonable person would dispute the right of the people to elect their own representation not representation that foreign interests (ie the US) deem better for the people.
|
We can have an opinion.
Quote:
Reasonable people understand that the Muslim Brotherhood has a (relatively small) following in Egypt and will undoubtedly win seats in parliament if and when there are elections.
That is how democracy works....like it or not.
|
I don't dispute that, and I like the way democracy works.
I also like the free flow of information so people can make informed decisions. For example, people should know that the election of the Muslim Brotherhood candidates may have consequences.
Quote:
|
Reasonable people who understand Egyptian politics (as opposed to Bolton) also know that the Muslim Brotherhood does not have anywhere near the support of the majority (or even a plurality) of the people....and virtually no chance at the presidency, where the real power lies.
|
History supports Bolton's concerns. And, his concerns are his, he has no official role in our government.
Quote:
|
Bolton, Huckabee et al have demonstrated their anti-democracy stripes....the right of the Egyptian people is not as important as what is best for the US (and Israel).....and to that end, they play the "radical religious regime" or "terrorist sympathizer" card.
|
You made an illogical leap. To be concerned about the Muslim Brotherhood does not mean one has to be anti-democracy. And there is legitimate cause for concern...but that does not mean there has to be a problem...but the basis for concern is real.
---------- Post added at 05:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:19 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
Part of the problem is the assumption that the Muslim Brotherhood is a radical/terrorist organization. They're a conservative Islamic organization.
This is simply more Islamophobia.
|
Perhaps it is not Islamophobia, but not really understanding their message. I admit that I don't and I have many questions.
To start, does the Muslim Brotherhood support a woman's right to vote? Education? Holding elected office? Owning property? Driving? Being able to choose her clothing?