• US claims neutrality on Egypt but funds the military
    16 replies, posted
[QUOTE]What appears to be a military coup in Egypt puts the Obama administration in an awkward position. The state department is clear that Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi has not done enough to meet the concerns of his people, and that democracy is not just about being elected but about responding to their voices. They say he did not do this in last night's speech. This is largely echoing President Barack Obama's phone call to President Morsi at the beginning of the week. The state department spokesperson repeated time and again that the US was not backing one side or the other. But they are funding one side - there are plans to give the military aid worth $1.3bn (£852m) next year, and many senior Egyptian officers are trained in the US. Clearly there are lots of contacts, and the US has a lot of clout. President Obama's administration never wants to be seen as hectoring or picking rulers in the Arab world. But the dilemma is an old one - a choice between a democratically elected leader who has ideas they don't like, or the military who are not elected but may be more pro-Western.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23167490[/url]
For gods sake stop meddling! I know Morsi is horrible news but just let them settle this themselves! Why do they never learn from past mistakes? So many times they offer funding and get backstabbed, it never works.
why do you need to learn anything when you know freedom
Gee that was quick. How about we stay out of it okay?
[quote]But the dilemma is an old one - a choice between a democratically elected leader who has ideas they don't like, or the military who are not elected but may be more pro-Western.[/quote] that shit is still a dilemma?
Why can't we just leave other nations alone? This isn't any of our business.
obviously. the american government supported the military during the "first" revolution as well. we are trying to install someone who is friendly to our interests and seem to be using the egyptian military for that purpose.
The US has been funding the Egyptian army ever since they stopped fighting Israel ($1.3 bill every year). nothing new there, the egyptian army has always been on US's payroll. Morsi tried to change that by replacing the army head with a somewhat islamist general, [URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/03/abdel-fattah-al-sisi-turns-on-president-egypt_n_3540901.html"]but that guy turned on him too[/URL] :v:
[QUOTE=C47;41301831]The US has been funding the Egyptian army ever since they stopped fighting Israel ($1.3 bill every year). nothing new there, the egyptian army has always been on US's payroll. [/QUOTE] This. Why do you think we saw M1 Abrams tanks all over the place back in 2011? The U.S. is neutral by giving $1.3 billion. If they [I]didn't[/I] do that, they'd be taking sides.
Yea, this was the same thing during the Mubarak regime. We spend loads every year on the Egyptian military under Mubarak, who was our buddy. When the people revolted, we approved of peaceful democratic reform and opposed the revolution, funding Mubarak's police, and using the military as a guard for the public against the state police. When it looked certain that Mubarak would lose this, then the military suddenly changed positions to oust Mubarak at the same time America did. And now the military is ousting Morsi when it looks like he'll be in the same position as Mubarak, once again conveniently when the US begins changing its tune. The military is in America's pocket and is the real force in Egypt. It's greater than its own state, more powerful than the democratic process.
[QUOTE=Riller;41301913]The U.S. is neutral by giving $1.3 billion. If they [I]didn't[/I] do that, they'd be taking sides.[/QUOTE] can you explain that? kinda didn't understand.
[QUOTE=Zero Ziat;41304276]can you explain that? kinda didn't understand.[/QUOTE] We've been giving them money every year for a long time. Continuing to give them money is maintaining the status quo. Cutting off the money would be taking a stance against the military, giving them even more money would be supporting the military. At the moment we're continuing policies that were put in place well before the revolution. That seems pretty neutral to me.
[QUOTE]But they are funding one side - there are plans to give the military aid worth $1.3bn (£852m) next year, and many senior Egyptian officers are trained in the US. Clearly there are lots of contacts, and the US has a lot of clout.[/QUOTE] The US was also neutral during the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan I guess?
Anything the US government says should be taken with a grain of salt, it's too hard to trust anything that comes out of it
[QUOTE=NoDachi;41301366]that shit is still a dilemma?[/QUOTE] I think it gets more complicated when the democratically elected regime may support the suppression of minorites and women etc.
[QUOTE=catbarf;41304460]We've been giving them money every year for a long time. Continuing to give them money is maintaining the status quo. Cutting off the money would be taking a stance against the military, giving them even more money would be supporting the military. At the moment we're continuing policies that were put in place well before the revolution. That seems pretty neutral to me.[/QUOTE]Wouldn't the US financing the army influence anything within the command chain and decision taking? I just see it kind of... awkward.
[QUOTE=erazor;41304696]I think it gets more complicated when the democratically elected regime may support the suppression of minorites and women etc.[/QUOTE] lol like the west cares about that
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.