OFFLINE

Vice President Biden, issuing the Obama administration's most definitive statement to date on the turmoil in Egypt, said President Hosni Mubarak should not step down and downplayed the protests spreading across the Mideast as generally unconnected.

He described the unrest as an expression of "middle-class folks" looking for "a little more access and a little more opportunity."

Though the administration says it's not taking sides, Biden said in an interview aired Thursday that Mubarak has been a U.S. "ally" on "a number of things," praising him for being "very responsible" in normalizing Egypt's relationship with Israel and aiding in Middle East peace talks.

"I would not refer to him as a dictator," Biden said on PBS' NewsHour.

The protests in Egypt followed an uprising in Tunisia and coincide with similar unrest in Yemen and Jordan, as well as the formation of a new and contested government in Lebanon.

Asked whether the wave of protests resembles in any way the public revolts that surged across Eastern Europe before the collapse of the Soviet Union, Biden said: "I wouldn't compare the two."

He went on to downplay the connection among the protests across the Middle East.




just like the iranian protests...

OFFLINE

Yeah, I think Biden said that because he's afraid to completely turn his back on Mubarak.  

This thing is becoming a bit worrisome now.  If the outcome of this uprising were a democracy and freedom...then that's one thing.  But if they wind up with a draconian theocracy (like in Iran)...that signals big trouble for the west.  

This Muslim Brotherhood worries me too.  The Brotherhood's stated goal is to instill the Qur'an and Sunnah as the "sole reference point for ... ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community ... and state".  Outside Egypt, the group's political activity has been described as evolving away from modernism and reformism towards a more traditional, "rightist conservative secularist" stance.  For example, the Muslim Brotherhood party in Kuwait opposes suffrage for women.

Hillary Clinton has urged the Egyptian govt to refrain from violence and not shut down peaceful protest.  (What peaceful protests?).  Hundreds of riot police laid siege to the mosque, firing tear gas in the streets surrounding it so no one could leave. The tear gas canisters set several cars ablaze outside the mosque. Several people fainted and suffered burns.

U.S. White House counter terrorism chief Juan Zarate under George W. Bush, who says "The Muslim Brotherhood is a group that worries us not because it deals with philosophical or ideological ideas but because it defends the use of violence against civilians.

Rachel Aspden's article, The Rise of the Brotherhood states that The Muslim Brotherhood currently advocates suicide bombing attacks on civilians to fight Zionism, and its self-admitted Palestinian wing Hamas indiscriminately targets Jews as such, both civilians and the military, in Israel.

Newsweek journalists Mark Hosenball and Michael Isikoff reported connections between al-Qaeda and Brotherhood figures Mamoun Darkazanli and Youssef Nada.

The Muslim Brotherhood has from its beginnings had a very hostile view of zionists, considering them amongst the ultimate enemies of Islam.  So if this group took control, it would mean bad times for the people of Israel (and, by extension...us).

I thought I saw a few minutes ago that pro-democracy leader Mohamed ElBaradei had been arrested, but I'm not sure.

OFFLINE

Btw...I happen to support Hillary Clinton in her role as Secretary of State.  I think she's a pretty decent one.  But we're gonna find out how good she really is now.  If she can use words and diplomacy to encourage Egypt to relax some of its policies and appease the people there...it would be a magnificent victory for the world!  If she can do this, we should immediately put her on the job of peace in Israel.

But I fear this whole thing will blow up in our faces.

OFFLINE

well i think it certainly won't help if we are seen to side with the corrupt government which caused all this to happen. the admin has since back stepped a bit, and is now trying to play both angles. if there is nothing in place to help encourage a more democratic system, then there is a good likelihood that a **** theocratic movement can take shape. but really, the fact that we support these repressive regimes in the region, all because it politically suits our status quo, only adds fuel to the anti-american fire. it makes us look like a bunch of big hypocrites.

OFFLINE

Agreed.  I must have been hiding under a rock for 30 years though, but I didnt know Egypt was a repressive regime.  I was there when Anwar Sadat was assassinated.  In the years since, americans have been able to visit in safety.  I've talked with penpals in the region too and never heard anything about it being repressive.  Oh well.

Btw, I hav3e a feeling that the govt there is about to fall.

OFFLINE

Looks like the Egyptian govt has been asked to resign and Mubarak will try to appease the protesters.  He said he'll press ahead with social and economic reforms.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
Agreed.  I must have been hiding under a rock for 30 years though, but I didnt know Egypt was a repressive regime.  I was there when Anwar Sadat was assassinated.  In the years since, americans have been able to visit in safety.  I've talked with penpals in the region too and never heard anything about it being repressive.  Oh well.

Btw, I hav3e a feeling that the govt there is about to fall.

of course it's not repressive to westerners. you don't bite the hand that feeds you. how many billions do you think foreign tourists bring in to the country? it's repressive to its own people. up until now, it hasn't been violent to its people, but it hasn't had to either. the military runs just about everything over there, and up until now, mubarak's rule has gone unquestioned. meanwhile, more than half of the population lives in poverty, and they have few economic chances to better themselves. it's the same thing all across the middle east, even more so in oil rich countries. it's crony capitalism, just like is taking form over here. the corporations and governments flourish, while none of that money gets filtered down to the people.

this is the root cause for islamic radicalism, and revolution in general. you have lots of young people, with few economic opportunities, and then you have these authoritarian governments living in the lap of luxury (just like under communism), propped up by the west, and particularly america. this is why we're seen as imperialists, and this is what breeds resentment. this is also what drives the masses into the arms of jihadis.

OFFLINE

Seriously I didnt know any of that.  when I think of repression, I think of N.Korea, Iran, places like that.  I thought Egypt had an honest, democratically elected govt.  But I'm now seeing this is not the case.

I hope for a Jeffersonian Democracy to take hold over there, but this may not happen.  Worst case scenario to me is that it becomes a radical Islamic theocracy ruled by Sharia law.  If that happens and they seize the Suez Canal or invade Israel (or funnel funds and weapons to the PLO or Hamas), it could mean war.

And God... we dont want another war...  I'm war weary right now.

OFFLINE

i think your glass might be a little too half empty. there is some risk, but also great opportunity. what we (the state department) are pushing for now is a transitional phase, led by the new VP, to allow for democratic elections. and i think el baredei might be able to keep this thing held together. he's seen support both from secularists, and groups like the muslim brotherhood as well. abd i don't see a hamas situation rising up because for the most part, they're fairly well educated in egypt, and largely secular. so i'm not quite as worried as i was several days ago. there's cause for hope in all this.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
Agreed.  I must have been hiding under a rock for 30 years though, but I didnt know Egypt was a repressive regime.  I was there when Anwar Sadat was assassinated.  In the years since, americans have been able to visit in safety.  I've talked with penpals in the region too and never heard anything about it being repressive.  Oh well.

Btw, I hav3e a feeling that the govt there is about to fall.

of course it's not repressive to westerners. you don't bite the hand that feeds you. how many billions do you think foreign tourists bring in to the country? it's repressive to its own people. up until now, it hasn't been violent to its people, but it hasn't had to either. the military runs just about everything over there, and up until now, mubarak's rule has gone unquestioned. meanwhile, more than half of the population lives in poverty, and they have few economic chances to better themselves. it's the same thing all across the middle east, even more so in oil rich countries. it's crony capitalism, just like is taking form over here. the corporations and governments flourish, while none of that money gets filtered down to the people.

this is the root cause for islamic radicalism, and revolution in general. you have lots of young people, with few economic opportunities, and then you have these authoritarian governments living in the lap of luxury (just like under communism), propped up by the west, and particularly america. this is why we're seen as imperialists, and this is what breeds resentment. this is also what drives the masses into the arms of jihadis.

You're starting to worry me, Doddy.  I think you are catching on to how we do "bidness" around the globe.  We back a lot of dictators in various countries. That's why it seemed so hipocritical to go after Sadam.  After all, he was once a good pal to us.  (when he opposed Iran)  

OFFLINE

BTW, you do know we've been backing this guy for years, right? It's not just this administration.  And if it becomes a less moderate country, it will mean we have one less "friend" in the area.  By that, I mean someone who tolerates Israel.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Sarah Skinner:
You're starting to worry me, Doddy.  I think you are catching on to how we do "bidness" around the globe.  We back a lot of dictators in various countries. That's why it seemed so hipocritical to go after Sadam.  After all, he was once a good pal to us.  (when he opposed Iran)  

yep, and we've been doing it for too long. the reason saddam had to go is because he got in our way. since the start of the cold war we've had this notion that we can buy loyalty, but when no one believes we actually stand for anything, it blows up in our faces.

OFFLINE

and this goes back to every admin since at least FDR and possibly TR. ron paul makes more and more sense to me, as time goes by. we cant just be conservative on domestic policy, but should be on foreign policy as well.

OFFLINE

you know what's funny sarah? and i didn't know this until yesterday, but all the stuff i've been harping on with egypt over three different threads, glenn beck has also been saying. so if you agree with me, and he agrees with me, then you must agree with him on something too  

OFFLINE

The US gets into a tangle because of the conundrum that is diplomacy.  You want to foillow an Interest driven foreign policy and since the beginning of the Cold War era that has meant supporting a series of horrific tyrants in every corner of the globe.  This has seen the US upholding the Shah, the Diem regime, Saddam, Pinochet, Pol Pot, etc because, in turn, the alternative appeared worse.  This policy of diplomatic SATISFICING (accepting a second best scenario because there is no 1st best available) has got the US in a tangle.

Somehow, the US has got to get round to the idea that US interests are pretty much always bound up in being on the right side of history and working your socks off to find a compatible diplomatic route to pursue this line.  It's things like the Gettysburg address, the Atlantic Charter, the attack upon imperialism in the 30's, the promotion of a League of/United Nations, NATO, etc that enhance the US reputation NOT keeping in office tinpot dictators.  Given that the US supported Chiang and got Mao, supported Diem and got Ho, supported Batista and got Castro, perhaps there's a long term lesson to be learnt.