believer;658217 wrote:Exactly. But Footwedge's erection for Fox News blurs that fact. Everything I'm hearing out of all the networks INCLUDING Fox News is that Islamic extremists could quite easily capitalize on this very bad situation. But I'm not really seeing Fox News accusing the protesters as Islamic extremists. C'mon Footie...really?

I agree with dwccrew's views on it.

How is this a bad situation? It could become one but it currently isn't one. It's a good situation right now.

I Wear Pants;658382 wrote:How is this a bad situation? It could become one but it currently isn't one. It's a good situation right now.

Political chaos in a very important part of the world to U.S. interests is a bad situation.

No it isn't. It's an uneasy and uncertain situation but not necessarily a bad situation. It's only a bad situation if unsavory folks take power.

I Wear Pants;658394 wrote:No it isn't. It's an uneasy and uncertain situation but not necessarily a bad situation. It's only a bad situation if unsavory folks take power.

It is a bad situation. My wife is in Prague right now and there is an international alert for Americans abroad. Avoid the region is what the state department is claiming - likely good advice. Violence is never good.

I Wear Pants;658394 wrote:No it isn't. It's an uneasy and uncertain situation but not necessarily a bad situation. It's only a bad situation if unsavory folks take power.

We will have a better idea tomorrow when the markets open, but the uncertain situation can quickly become a bad situation if it causes oil prices to shoot up. We are so dependent on that part of the world that uncertainty is a bad thing. The radical groups have already helped several terrorists escape from prison. We have no idea what could happen to Israel depending upon who gains power. Americans are being told to leave Egypt because of the bad conditions.

"Americans are being told to leave Egypt because of the bad conditions. "

Indeed. And not just Egypt, any area that has flights from Cairo. The State Department has put out the alert.

Hopefully the situation in Egypt doesn't escalate any further. I'm not sure what will happen, but I think Mubarak needs to step down (although I don't see it happening). The people don't want you, if you stay in power, you will be viewed as a tyrant. The only way he is going to stay in power is if things turn violent. That makes a bad situation even worse.

Footwedge;657869 wrote:Fox News should be absolutekly ashamed of themselves for the fear-mongering regarding Egypt. To state that radical extremists are trying to overtake the Egyption government is disgusting. Good Gawd people...how can anyone watch that channel?

Standing up to a virtual dictator defaults one to jihadist status? SMFHBAF.

I've been working in Mexico since Monday and Fox News is one of the few U.S. channels we get in the city I'm in. I've watched their coverage these past two days and I think, with the exception of John Bolton, they've been quite restrained in their coverage. Of course, they don't air the political commentary programs on the weekend, but their straight news hasn't been slanted, in my opinion.

Engaging in wars that have resulted in more than a million deaths to set up democratic governments = good. Yet we can't even support (and by that I mean even acknowledge that this very well may be a good thing) the people of a nation trying to rid themselves of a dictator.

I Wear Pants;658759 wrote:Engaging in wars that have resulted in more than a million deaths to set up democratic governments = good. Yet we can't even support (and by that I mean even acknowledge that this very well may be a good thing) the people of a nation trying to rid themselves of a dictator.

First, back-up the "million deaths" figure. One death is too much so that's not my point. But a million deaths? Really? You can do better than that.

Second, realpolitik says that turning our backs on long-time ally yet acknowledged dictator Mubarack because it's now politically correct to empathize with the protesters will show weakness in American foreign policy. Can we be counted on to back-up our allies even if they flounder? By doing so are we doomed to create another Iran situation?

This is not a black & white pick & choose issue. Frankly we're in a damned if we do, damned if we don't scenario. That's hardly a "good thing."

I've been in Virgina all weekend, but was watching bits and pieces.
The Obama administration is now supporting the overall message of the protesters with a peaceful reform and transition. A good move in my view. We have gotten 30 years out of Mubarack, but time to support a new, peaceful, democratic process that brings in a free and fair government.

The fear that an Islamic government would be bad is annoying and far from the truth. The Muslim Brotherhood has dramatically reformed itself from the 1990s, and has taken the IRA route of the 1990s, trying to be involved in the process and abandon its military roots. Also, Egypt is large enough and diverse enough to have a moderate Islamic government like present Iraq or Indonesia and Bahrain.

It will be interesting to really see what happens the next few days. Elbaradei is trying to form a party, and he might, but a democratic transition will take months and could be very fragile for a while. Obviously, what happens to the Suez and Israel is important, but I'm more optimistic right now. Although, having al Jazeera shut down in Egypt is not good.

In other states, Tunisia is still protesting, and is still trying to figure out its new government. This could take a while. Yemen is still having protests, not at the Egypt level, but the President there is getting pretty antsy.

Lebanon is quiet, which is good, as its new government, with Hezbollah backing, is starting to take shape.

Overall, the region is on edge, as it is trying to figure out where it is going. The Kingdom states are naturally a little on edge as they should be. As for the U.S., I agree in some cases that the U.S., for strategic reasons, needs to support some bad men, or repressive regimes. The Arab kingdoms are examples of states that a fall is a very bad thing. Egypt to me is different, given it is more moderate and built up.

BTW, here are some amazing photos from the weekend:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/25/day_of_rage?page=full

I'm sorry, P-town, I don't have any faith in an extremist organization being good government -- ever. I don't trust them. I'm still hoping for some decent Democratic reforms that don't put extremists in charge of the government.

Writerbuckeye;658889 wrote:I'm sorry, P-town, I don't have any faith in an extremist organization being good government -- ever. I don't trust them. I'm still hoping for some decent Democratic reforms that don't put extremists in charge of the government.

Problem is, most governments that rise to power are seen as extremists by some.

stlouiedipalma;658733 wrote:I've been working in Mexico since Monday and Fox News is one of the few U.S. channels we get in the city I'm in. I've watched their coverage these past two days and I think, with the exception of John Bolton, they've been quite restrained in their coverage. Of course, they don't air the political commentary programs on the weekend, but their straight news hasn't been slanted, in my opinion.

I saw Huckabee's show and a portion of Geraldo's show. The fear mongering was as clear as the nose on my face.

Protesters in Tiannemon Square....good. Protesters in Iran good. Protesters in Egypt...a pile of potential jihadists. In all 3 scenarios, the common denominator was that the populous en masse were disenchanted with their strong armed despot running the show.

Too bad that we don't grasp the wise words of TJ..."Friends with all those abroad...alliances with no one".

My cousin and his classmates are currently at the airport with military transport to, in the truest sense of the acronym, GTFO of Cairo and head to Europe then home. I guess the locals saying things would simmer down were way off.

believer;658769 wrote:First, back-up the "million deaths" figure. One death is too much so that's not my point. But a million deaths? Really? You can do better than that.

Second, realpolitik says that turning our backs on long-time ally yet acknowledged dictator Mubarack because it's now politically correct to empathize with the protesters will show weakness in American foreign policy. Can we be counted on to back-up our allies even if they flounder? By doing so are we doomed to create another Iran situation?

This is not a black & white pick & choose issue. Frankly we're in a damned if we do, damned if we don't scenario. That's hardly a "good thing."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Overview._Iraqi_death_estimates_by_source

The million was on the high end of the estimation but if you actually go and read through the source links and put together all the different catagories (Iraqi civilian, Coalition forces, Insurgents) then the toll is at minimum in the several hundred thousand catagory.

Deaths in the Afghanistan war are estimated between about 10,000 and 50,000.

I don't think backing the people of a nation telling a dictator they want no more of him shows weaknes. I think it shows that we will not support those who do not support their people.

Writerbuckeye;658889 wrote:I'm sorry, P-town, I don't have any faith in an extremist organization being good government -- ever. I don't trust them. I'm still hoping for some decent Democratic reforms that don't put extremists in charge of the government.

Honestly, I'm not sure one can call the Muslim Brotherhood now, extremist. To me, it is more like the modern day IRA. They have a violent history, but over the years, with the export of the more radical members to Iraq/ Afghanistan/ Pakistan, it has left the moderate members in control. Same came with the IRA in the late 90s/ early 2000s. Some elements of the Brotherhood may have radical views, but according to the things I've read and from my friends/ colleagues who have studied the area, they are not extreme.

Besides, Elbaradei provides a secular option for the country that I expect will grow.

ptown_trojans_1;659005 wrote:Honestly, I'm not sure one can call the Muslim Brotherhood now, extremist. To me, it is more like the modern day IRA. They have a violent history, but over the years, with the export of the more radical members to Iraq/ Afghanistan/ Pakistan, it has left the moderate members in control. Same came with the IRA in the late 90s/ early 2000s. Some elements of the Brotherhood may have radical views, but according to the things I've read and from my friends/ colleagues who have studied the area, they are not extreme.

Besides, Elbaradei provides a secular option for the country that I expect will grow.

Didn't Elbaradei pretty much turn a blind eye to Iran acquiring nukes when he had power to help shut them down?

Iran um, doesn't have nukes?

Writerbuckeye;659026 wrote:Didn't Elbaradei pretty much turn a blind eye to Iran acquiring nukes when he had power to help shut them down?

Yeah 1. They don't have nukes. Just the basic technology that may lead to a nuke if they so chose. (Just like Japan, South Korea, Brasil, etc.)
2. The IAEA never had power to shut it down, they are not an enforcement agency, just to verify. Yes, they were caught off guard in 2002 with Iran and Nantanz, but they could not have said Iran had to shut down the facility-that is the UN Security Council.
3. Elbaradei would be a perfect fit for Egypt as he has voiced his support for Israel before, is for an open Egypt, and is well respected in the region and world.

I Wear Pants;658993 wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Overview._Iraqi_death_estimates_by_source

The million was on the high end of the estimation but if you actually go and read through the source links and put together all the different catagories (Iraqi civilian, Coalition forces, Insurgents) then the toll is at minimum in the several hundred thousand catagory.

Deaths in the Afghanistan war are estimated between about 10,000 and 50,000.

I don't think backing the people of a nation telling a dictator they want no more of him shows weaknes. I think it shows that we will not support those who do not support their people.

Not to mention the astronomical number of permanently wounded....or the 2 million Iraqi citizens that today, live as nomads in neighboring countries.

But.....with the "Nobel Peace Prize" winner in office, there's very little mention of casualties anywhere....especially in Pakistan.

ptown_trojans_1;659047 wrote:Yeah 1. They don't have nukes. Just the basic technology that may lead to a nuke if they so chose. (Just like Japan, South Korea, Brasil, etc.)
2. The IAEA never had power to shut it down, they are not an enforcement agency, just to verify. Yes, they were caught off guard in 2002 with Iran and Nantanz, but they could not have said Iran had to shut down the facility-that is the UN Security Council.
3. Elbaradei would be a perfect fit for Egypt as he has voiced his support for Israel before, is for an open Egypt, and is well respected in the region and world.

If ElBaradei and the IAEA had any power to do anything at all, they would have stopped Bush from invading Iraq......on bogus WMD charges.

Footwedge;659169 wrote:Not to mention the astronomical number of permanently wounded....or the 2 million Iraqi citizens that today, live as nomads in neighboring countries.

But.....with the "Nobel Peace Prize" winner in office, there's very little mention of casualties anywhere....especially in Pakistan.

Neither the Bush or Obama administrations have ever really touched on the civilian casualty counts or the refugees created by these wars. Probably because we wouldn't like what we'd be hearing.

Footwedge;659169 wrote:Not to mention the astronomical number of permanently wounded....or the 2 million Iraqi citizens that today, live as nomads in neighboring countries.

But.....with the "Nobel Peace Prize" winner in office, there's very little mention of casualties anywhere....especially in Pakistan.

Out of sight, out of mind. If we don't hear about it, we forget that it's happening.

I Wear Pants;659180 wrote:Neither the Bush or Obama administrations have ever really touched on the civilian casualty counts or the refugees created by these wars. Probably because we wouldn't like what we'd be hearing.

Indeed.