FingerLakes1.com Forums
Topic Options
#1406097 --- 06/22/13 02:15 AM O,sending Troops toEgyptput down anti-Muslim riots
Offline

Senior Member

Registered: 01/16/12
Posts: 7644

Obama sending U.S. soldiers to Egypt to put down anti-Muslim Brotherhood riots

As demonstrations and revolts swept the Muslim world during Obama’s first term, he was enthusiastic. He had encouraging words for the “Arab Spring” demonstrators in Egypt and Tunisia, and even gave military assistance to their Libyan counterparts. During the third and last debate of the 2012 presidential campaign, Mitt Romney and Obama sparred over which could express support for the Syrian rebels (who are dominated by Islamic jihadists) more strongly, and as Obama’s second term began, his administration was inching ever closer to military aid for those rebels. Yet there have now been three large-scale demonstrations in Muslim countries that Obama did not support – and those three exceptions are extraordinarily revealing about his disposition, as well as his policy, toward Islam.

The three pro-democracy revolts that Obama refused to support were arguably the only two that were genuinely worthy of the pro-democracy label: the demonstrations against the Islamic regime in Iran in 2009, the anti-Muslim Brotherhood demonstrations in Egypt in winter 2013, and the pro-secularism demonstrations in Turkey in recent weeks. There is a common thread between these three that distinguishes them from all the others: in Egypt in late 2012 and early 2013, as well as in Iran in 2009, the demonstrators were protesting against Islamic states; in Turkey, they were protesting against the Erdogan regime that is working hard now to establish an Islamic state. All the other demonstrations were not against pro-Sharia forces, but were led by pro-Sharia forces, and led to the establishment of Islamic states. To be sure, the Iranian demonstrators in 2009 contained many pro-Sharia elements that simply objected to the way the Islamic Republic was enforcing Sharia, but they also included many who wanted to reestablish the relatively secular society that prevailed under the last Shah. Whether the Sharia or the democratic forces would have won out in the end is a question that will never be answered – in no small part thanks to Barack Obama.

In every case Barack Obama has been consistent: in response to the demonstrations and uprisings in the Islamic world, he has without exception acted in the service of Islamic supremacist, pro-Sharia regimes. For whatever complex of personal affinity and political calculation, he has steered the United States, in the words of the Egyptian newspaper Rose el-Youssef, “from a position hostile to Islamic groups and organizations in the world to the largest and most important supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood.” Maybe he thinks, as Daniel Greenfield has posited, that he can end jihad terror against the West by allowing Muslim states to achieve their heart's desire: reestablishment of the caliphate. In any case, in one of the most shameful episodes of his entire shameful tenure, now American troops will be deployed in service of the Muslim Brotherhood, to put down pro-democracy protestors in Egypt.

"Riot Control Training," from KCENTV.com, June 20 (thanks to Maxwell):

(KCEN) -- A group of soldiers are preparing for their deployment to Egypt with riot training on post.

They're planning ahead for violent protests or riots and the possibility of protecting the country's border with Israel.

Soldiers encountered Molotov cocktails and other dangerous items in the training.

Lt. Matthew Wilkinson says, "Just what I've seen over the course of the past week than we were a week ago."

PFC Perez Alexander says, "We want to be as professional as possible... Know what we're doing."

They wrap up training today before preparing to ship out in the near future.

Top
FingerLakes1.com
#1406147 --- 06/22/13 05:25 PM Re: O,sending Troops toEgyptput down anti-Muslim riots [Re: ]
VM Smith Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 11/29/05
Posts: 38160
Loc: Ship of Fools
LRC used the last phrase, "Let Allah Sort it Out" as the contents page title, which I think is more appropriate, although occasionally even Palin gets something right, even if by sheer dumb luck. And, although Palin isn't too bright, how smart does one have to be, to know not to stick one's face into a hornet's nest?

The neocon interventionists, in both parties, should realize that it's beyond the USG's power, and beyond its moral province, to effectively intervene. No good can come of it, but much bad can, and will, come from meddling, and trying to dictate the outcome.

Not being religious, I merely say let the Muslim factions sort it out. The USG can't pour urine out of a boot without screwing it up; it is its too-typical arrogance and hubris for it to think it can do anything useful in this matter, the roots of which run wide and deep, and are poorly understood by most Americans, including those in government.

Your post is about Egypt, and this is about Syria, but it's the same area, the same centuries-old squabble, and the same Imperial hubris and neocon looniness;


The Palin Doctrine

by Patrick J. Buchanan

Recently by Patrick J. Buchanan: A Reluctant Warrior Tiptoes to War

On U.S. military intervention in Syria's civil war, where "both sides are slaughtering each other as they scream over an arbitrary red line 'Allahu akbar' ... I say let Allah sort it out."

So said Sarah Palin to the Faith and Freedom Coalition conference. And, as is not infrequently the case, she nailed it.

Hours later, Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times, at length, echoed Palin: "Those who are urging the US to get more deeply involved in the Syrian conflict now are living in the past."

Four fundamental changes make it "no longer realistic, or even desirable, for the US to dominate" the Middle East as we did from the Suez crisis of 1956 through the Iraq invasion of 2003.

The four changes: the failures of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the Great Recession, the Arab Spring and emerging U.S. energy independence.

Indeed, with $2 trillion sunk, 7,000 U.S. troops dead, 40,000 wounded, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans dead, and millions of refugees, what do we have to show for this vast human and material waste?


Can a country with an economy limping along, one that has run four consecutive deficits in excess of $1 trillion, afford another imperial adventure?

On the Shiite side of the Syrian civil war are Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Hezbollah and Syrian President Bashar Assad. On the Sunni side are the al-Qaida-affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra, Sunni jihadists from across the Middle East, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.


Is victory for either side worth yet another U.S. war?

Ought we not stand back and ask: What vital interest is imperiled here?

And even if Americans favor one side or the other, how lasting an impact could any U.S. intervention have? The region is in turmoil.

Since the Tunisian uprising that dethroned an autocratic ally, dictators have fallen in Egypt and Libya. There have been a Shiite revolt in Bahrain, a civil war in Yemen and a civil-sectarian war in Syria that has cost 90,000 lives. Iraq is disintegrating. Al-Qaida is in Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, the Maghreb region and Mali.

Now the muezzin's call to religious war is heard.

"How could 100 million Shiites defeat 1.7 billion (Sunnis)?" roared powerful Saudi cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi, calling for a Sunni-Shiite war. Al-Qaradawi denounces Assad's Alawite sect as "more infidel than Christians and Jews" and calls Hezbollah "the party of the devil."

"Everyone who has the ability and has training to kill ... is required to go" to Syria, said al-Qaradawi.


In Afghanistan, the Taliban have made a comeback, and the United States is negotiating with the same crowd we sent an army to oust in 2001. And the press reports we will be leaving behind $7 billion in U.S. military vehicles and equipment when we depart.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the most successful Turkish leader since Kemal Ataturk, appears to have lost his mandate, with hundreds of thousands pouring into streets and squares both to denounce and to defend him.


The United States, says Rachman, "has recognised that, ultimately, the people of the Middle East are going to have to shape their own destinies. Many of the forces at work in the region – such as Islamism and Sunni-Shia sectarianism – are alarming to the West but they cannot be forever channelled or suppressed."

Did those clamoring today for intervention in Syria learn nothing from Ronald Reagan's intervention in an earlier Arab civil war, the one in Lebanon? Result: 241 dead Marines, the U.S. Embassy in Beirut bombed and hostages taken.

Reagan left office believing his decision to put Marines in Lebanon was his greatest mistake. And to retrieve those hostages, he acceded to a transfer of weapons to Iran, an action that almost broke his presidency.

Yet it is not only in the Middle East that we are "living in the past," in a world long gone. As Ted Galen Carpenter writes in Chronicles, under NATO we are committed to go to war with Russia on behalf of 27 nations.

If Russia collides with Estonia or Latvia over the treatment of their Russian minorities, we fight Russia. For whose benefit is this commitment?

Today Japan spends 1 percent of its gross domestic product on defense. Yet the USA is committed to go to war to defend not only the home islands but the Senkaku islets and rocks in the East China Sea that China also claims.

Are the Senkakus really worth a war with China?

NATO was established to defend Europe. Yet Europe spends less on its own defense than we do. Sixty years after the Korean War, we remain committed to defend South Korea against North Korea. Yet South Korea has an economy 40 times as large as North Korea's.

Former Rep. Ron Paul asks: Why, when U.S. debt is larger than our GDP and we are running mammoth annual deficits, are we borrowing money abroad to give away in foreign aid?

Good question. As for those ethnic, sectarian and civil wars raging across the Middle East, let Allah sort it out.

June 22, 2013



_________________________
If you vote for government, you have no right to complain about what government does.

Top