75 Replies to “Bolton On Egypt”

  1. Posted by: ET at January 31, 2011 11:16 AM
    …yes, there’ve been lots of images of women demonstrating in these throngs. Women wearing the hijab..and even the veil…
    I watched CBC, CTV and PBS footage of Egypt tonight…didn’t see one.

  2. “Liberty and freedom must be earned”.
    Agreed.
    Why are so many convinced that Arab nations, who have lived in one form of tribal tyranny or another for the last unbroken 5000 years so desperately want freedom & liberty?
    They keep telling you they don’t want it in one way or another, over and over again, yet somehow we are convinced otherwise.
    They want bread first and foremost, and then they want what their neighbour has secondly. If they can get more than that, good all the better. Just don’t allow their rivals to have more. Really it’s not much more complicated than that for the average Arab social network.
    They like strong dictatorial leaders that control their lives as judge and shepherd. They don’t want anyone interfering with their local hierarchy especially with their women who are at the bottom of every Arab totem-pole.
    Why that is so complicated for westerners to digest I’ll never know, especially since their system is not only far older but much further mentally and culturally established than our own.

  3. knight 99 – freedom is a basic human right. You don’t earn it. How do you earn it – by being good? According to whom? And who is the Big Boss that declares….ah, now, you’ve been good. You can be free.
    No, your outline of ‘them’…as not wanting freedom and liberty – is your view. Listen to the people on the street; they declare that they want freedom. No, the Islamic fascists are not identical to ALL people in the ME.
    And your view that ‘they’ like dictators is your opinion. Why are they rejecting one now? Why did the Iranians demonstrate for freedom? What’s going on in Tunisia?
    Again, a political system is directly connected to an economic system and a population size. Once your economic system becomes industrial, you must move out of tribalism..and enable and empower a middle class. (Tribalism has no middle class).
    Jamie MacMaster – I don’t watch Canadian channels, but, there are LOTS of women in the footage on FOX and CNN. WOmen in hijabs, in full veils…lots of women among the demonstrators.

  4. ET
    Of course there IS a middle class in Egypt, after all Egypt do have traders, teachers, government workers. This is the middle class Warren talks about. And Warren says that middle class is now demonstrating because it is they who have this notions of freedom, democracy and change. They are also fed and tired of corruption, inefficient government and police on every corner.
    And Muslim Brotherhood (MB)is watching.
    The same happened in Tunisia. Over there the demonstrations were spontaneous and people who demonstrated were shopkeepers, students and so on. Frustrated. Then the army took over. According to blog I read the army told people to save food, they kept order on the streets and they cautioned against poisoned water.There was not MB involved in protests. But they are coming back from exile in London
    .
    Jordan is somewhat similar to Egypt. There is strong support for MB by students and people in Amman. However, somewhat like Egypt, Jordan is supposed to have omnipresent secret police and Jordan military supports the king.
    Coming back to tribalism.
    Of course there is tribalism all over the Middle East. However the tribalism is very important in the Gulf States and the Saudi Arabia. Tribalism is somewhat less important in Jordan – (important among beduins and older palestinians, less important among younger generation). Tribalism is also important in Egypt, but not very important in the cities. In the cities family is important, but tribe is less important. IMHO
    And so we are coming to Muslim Brotherhood. MB is somewhat against tribalism. It is not only a Islamic party but it is also a revolutionary party. Revolutionary in a sense that for them tribalism is a less important than being religious. Especially among young members of MB. . And that is one of the reasons why young people join Muslim Brotherhood. By joining, some of them protest against tribalism of their parents, protest against corrupt government and at the some time they show their religiosity and the commitment to religious revival of Islam.
    And that’s why Muslim Brotherhood is still not moving in either direction. Warren was right. MB is waiting for other demonstrators to get weaker. Then it will take over using the slogans of “no corruption” ( Ahmadinejad also used that slogan), of “getting rid of the Western imperialists” (Khomeini and Nasrallah used that too), of ” helping Palestinian Brothers” and promising better life”- when all these aims will be achieved. In future. Far future.
    And because young are tired of the lack of opportunities, if there would be no dramatical change, MB will probably take over – sooner or later..

  5. ET
    If they are a lot of women among the demonstrators than it probably is a Cairo. In Cairo the situation is different than situation in rural Egypt or even in other cities in Egypt. In Cairo there are a lot of single women with children. There are a lot of universities and schools. that’s why women situation is different in Cairo then elsewhere.
    Further, because many women wear veil they see themselves more free to move around.
    MB (usually) does not prohibit women from demonstrating, sometimes it encourages them to do so. However women can not still move to higher level positions in that organization—it is an Islamic organization after all.

  6. “‘historicism’ is a specific term, meaning that the course of history is predetermined, and operates according to unchangeable laws. [It does not mean ‘experiences of history’ and doesn’t mean the study of history].”
    From the World Book Encyclopedia,””historicism:the excessive use or influence of earlier ideas that substitute or smother original achievement”.
    That,I am guilty of. I very much make my judgements based on historical precedent. Usually, they’re right,not always
    “Tribalism is not ‘natural’ (there’s your historicism again).”
    I don’t know how you can claim tribalism isn’t natural, it’s the earliest form of government, practiced long before there WERE Nations,and the strongest man ruled over the tribe.It’s as natural, in the pure sense of the word,as a wolf pack or ancient aboriginal tribe.
    In nature,the strongest survive and thrive,and tribalism is the first step toward control over a group of people sharing the same ground.Democracy demands the strong share their power with the weak, and THAT, in the purest sense of the word,isn’t natural.
    Not that I’m saying tribalism is desirable. Nor am I claiming the Egyptian people are savages or brutes, but ordinary people,getting on with their lives. Just like us “Beer and popcorners”, no insult intended to anyone!
    In our own sophisticated society, a tiny percentage belong to political Parties,and we have essentially turned government over to political elites.Egypt is no different in that sense.
    In Egypt, political Parties compete with powerful religious forces for control of the government,rendering the possibility of a real democracy remote.
    Egypt is currently ruled by the National Democratic Party, (love that acronym), which is not very democratic,and I believe,is about to be replaced by an even less democratic government.
    My point,before I got sidetracked into a pissing contest with you,ET, was that
    Egypt isn’t “yearning” for a democracy, and that conclusion came from observation of the political situation in the ME the past 50 or so years.
    I’m not an academic,as you are, but do read and search out every bit of information I can get my hands on regarding ANY subject of interest. And I’ve been doing that since long before there was an internet.
    While I have my beliefs and prejudices,you have yours. You state that “Democracy is, to repeat, a mode of governance found in very large, growth populations. It has zilch to do with tribalism..which must be non-existent”
    I never said democracy had anything to do with tribalism,and it is NOT the only form of government found in large growth populations. Countries CAN flourish without democracy,and if I dare mention “history” again,several have, as you very well know.
    If you will look at many of the allegedly democratic societies on the planet,you’ll notice many call themselves “democratic” but are actually tribal. Democracy in it’s theoretic and pure form exists exactly where?
    The political elites from all the colonies of the European powers sent their children to be educated in democracies in Europe, yet how many of them actually created (real) democracies once they returned home?
    Most were part of psuedo-democracies resting on a firm foundation of, wait for it ….tribalism.
    Ho Chih Minh,Patrice Lumumba come to mind.
    Do Egyptians crave democracy? I think not,rather,they crave stability and the firm guidance of a government that isn’t too corrupt or brutal, just like us,the B & P crowd.
    And the void that follows this revolution will be filled initially by another psuedo-democracy,which will give way to an Islamic theocracy once they show their weakness.
    Next time you’re in Kelowna,ET, call me. We’ll have a beer at my favourite golf course. You bring the popcorn.

  7. I’m amazed that Mubarak was able to hang on for so long. I was sure that he wouldn’t last much longer than Sadat. He’s got staying power. I’m not sure that he’s on his way out yet, although he may have amassed enough fortune that it’s not worth his while to hang on. Retire to some nice safe island. That’s the ticket.

  8. “Do Egyptians crave democracy? I think not,rather,they crave stability and the firm guidance of a government that isn’t too corrupt or brutal, just like us,the B & P crowd.”
    Yes, they don’t crave democracy. I even think they do not quite understand what democracy really is.
    I also don”t agree with the rest, but it would take too long to explain why not. And someone might then say that I ……… lecture 😉

  9. ET>
    “freedom is a basic human right. You don’t earn it. How do you earn it – by being good?”
    You are looking at an individual desire for freedom and liberty and proclaiming those ideals as universal. We know that is not true to all people everywhere, or the world would be one big democracy or Republic. Arab people view their world as a collective, one of the major differences of “they” and us in a society. The Arab collective begins with the small family structure and builds its complexity through neighbourhood, tribal alliance, religion and country. These ties are stronger than our western views of family, god and country. That is why they enforce those beliefs quickly and as often as needed with violence.
    My “opinion” on this is based on living in Libya 5 years, Tunisia 1 year, Algeria 2.5 years, Malta 2 years and the various Middle Eastern countries on long term visitations over a 15 year period. Yes engaged with the natives and interested enough to inquire as to how they tick.
    Grandstanding on a platform of freedom and liberty, especially when it’s not fully understood by peoples who have never truly had it is not the same thing as wanting to shift your whole cultural comfort zone into a western value.
    To finish the original quote on this thread “Freedom and Liberty must be earned” + “The tree of freedom is occasionally watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots”
    We can say that Freedom and Liberty is a human right all we wish, you still need to desire it as a collective, and you need to fight for it. It does not just happen.

  10. Some interesting statements made. He discussed the fact that Mubarak and his government is weak, while the military is very strong…this is typical of any ‘facade’ state. He also mentioned that the US has extremely close ties with the military (evident by the use of US weapons, as was alluded to when the interviewer mentioned the large sums of money transfered from the US). An example of modern imperialism, the US sets up a ‘facade’ government with a strong, US backed military force. In the case of Egypt, the US strategy is to secure resources, namely strategic positioning (being in the center of the major oil producing regions of North-West Africa and the ME as well as control over the Suez Canal).
    This of course leads to a deepening of a two class system by making a middle class an impossibility, due to the lack of domestic capitalist ventures and domestic infrastructure as a result of a centralized economic system combined with IMF arrangements (which invariably leads to exporting raw natural resources). A strong army, backed by the US technology and finances, serves to suppress the population despite nearly half living at the poverty line (until now).
    Talk about the Muslim Brotherhood is secondary to these main issues. Extremist organizations develop under certain circumstances, repression/suppression being one of them. Combine this with rising food prices and unrest in neighbouring states and you’re liable to have the lid blow off.
    Freedom, Liberty, and Democracy are universal INDIVIDUAL rights, you cannot have a discussion in their regard without FULLY ACKNOWLEDGING THE RIGHT OF THE INDIVIDUAL…that means refraining from identifying issues in terms of COLLECTIVE IDENTITIES.
    One must identify the components within the broad view of the issue. If the US was interested in spreading freedom, liberty, and democracy they wouldn’t be spreading weapons and money to dictators…it really is as simple as that.

  12. dmorris – again, you don’t understand the term of ‘historicism’. It means that events follow a predetermined path. Web Free Dictionary. And see Popper’s analysis of historicism in: The Open Society.
    1. A theory that events are determined or influenced by conditions and inherent processes beyond the control of humans.
    ella – no, they do not have a middle class. A few small shopkeepers aren’t a middle class.
    knight99 and dmorris – the fact that people in the ME live within tribalism does not negate that freedom is a basic human right. Nor should it be the result of a battle. After all, this implies that slavery is primary..and you don’t get to be free until you fight the forces that enslave you.
    Actually, the most basic societal organization is that of hunters and gatherers – and it’s not tribal. There are no leaders, other than ad hoc on a hunt. Decisions are consensual.
    Tribalism only emerges in a medium size population (in the thousands)that has ownership of property (land, animals)..and it is not, never, about ‘the strongest’…for that would destabilize the system. It’s necessarily hereditary.
    No, democracy is not about ‘the strong sharing power with the weak’. Democracy empowers the productive class. That is what all political authority does – whether in the Hunting/Gathering, or the Tribal or the Civic Democratic economic modes. The political system empowers the productive class/group. In a multimillion size population, with an industrial economy, the productive class are the small to medium size business owners. So – democracy empowers them.
    Moving from tribal to democratic is a tectonic shift and not easy. And what everyone here seems to ignore, for some odd reason, are the basic variables of: population size and economic mode. These must be considered in analyzing a society.

  13. BTJ
    You imply and say some interesting things.
    According to what you wrote the USA “sets up a facade government with a strong US backed military force.” Do you mean that it was a case in Egypt? If so I can only advise you to read history of Egypt and then write such thing.
    You wrote that strong army backed by the US technology and finances, serves to suppress the population despite nearly living at poverty line . You mean that Turkey, South Korea, Taiwan as well as Singapore do not have the middle class, lack domestic capitalist ventures and domestic infrastructure?
    Then you talk that Muslim Brotherhood is secondary to these main issues? Secondary? BTJ, your socialist upbringing shows up. Religion and religious organizations are never secondary.
    You write “Freedom, Liberty and Democracy are universal Individual rights” ……according to whom, BTJ? Americans can say that they are universal, world says that they are not. And Muslim Brothers as well as governments of all muslim countries are important here because they all do not agree with that statement. Do you want to go against the will of people of that countries, BTJ. People over there do not agree with you.
    US is interested in spreading freedom, liberty and democracy, and it did so to the Eastern Europe whose people were interested in freedom, liberty and democracy. It can not spread it to the countries whose people in their majority prefer sharia to the “demokracy and liberty”
    ****
    btw. I wonder what would Egyptians say if someone asked them what they mean by the terms “freedom, liberty, demokracy”
    ET
    They do have middle class. Only you look at middle class from a western point of view. You do not count people working in government. You do not count managers in hospitality industry. You do not count people working at universities. – they do. They count themselves as the middle class.
    In Weberian socio-economic terms, the middle class is the broad group of people in contemporary society who fall socio-economically between the working class and upper class. The common measures of what constitutes middle class vary significantly between cultures.

  14. Don’tcha just love ET’s arguing style? Narrowly define common terms to mean only what she wants them to mean then debate about said definitions. Set her own level of various triggers then reject any counter arguments ’cause she’s an expert doncha know. Her Marxist interpretation lowers everything to the basest level. Well here’s a news flash ET old girl. Man does not live by bread alone and mankind is a much more complex animal than the one you describe. Democracy is a delicate flower that only blossoms after centuries of conditioning and disappears at the hint of distress. Democracy is not the acme of some blind evolutionary determinism. Its roots are in the beliefs of the people and given the wrong roots (Islam) the best a society can muster is a perverted form of thugocracy.
    The US has the most direct democracy in the world. Why? Because of the Evangelical Christian view of the Priesthood of the Believers. The founders beleved we all have access to God therefore we all have a say in how things should be. Canada has a lesser level of direct democracy because we believe that there are certain individuals who perform priestly duties for us. In other words some have more access to God than others therefore those with the greater access should have more say than those who have less access.
    In Islam no one has access to Allah. His will is unknowable. If it happens to you it was Allah’s will. The best you can do is follow rules and attempt to try to be the strongest man in your neighbourhood. Once the pecking order is established it is believed that it is Allah’s will. Except for those who would like to knock off the toughest man in the neighbourhood who believe Allah’s will is that they are to be the ruler.
    The outcome of these riots will not be determined by the number of shop keepers in Cairo. It will be determined by how deeply Islam is ingrained and loved. Do the Egyptians resent Islam as a form of Arabic imperialism and if it exists is that resentment strong enough to keep Islamists out of power. I suspect that the short term answer is no.

  15. Joe – my definition of terms is not ‘narrow’. If you are talking about ‘historicism’ – it’s the basic definition. I gave two references.
    And no, referring to the economic mode and population base of a society is not marxism. Marxism is a utopian ideology of linear progression based around classes as adversarial agents…and focusing on a future of ‘no classes’. Sorry to disappoint you but I’m not into that romantic utopian ideology.
    Talking about the economic mode and population base is basic social analysis.
    And your definition of democracy as a ‘flower’ is pure romantic rhetoric – Democracy would never, ever, emerge in a stable agricultural society, with a no-growth medium size population and a no-growth economy no matter how many thousands of years. Why not?
    Democracy is operative only when the economy moves from a fixed productive system (land base, animal base) to a flexible productive system (manufacturing of goods and services). Got that? The key variables are: Population size and economic mode; namely – Fixed to flexible production.
    Democracy, like ALL political systems, empowers the productive system in the society.
    As for your movement into religious analogies, I disagree. The US system is indeed ‘direct’ but its immediate connections between govt and electorate are strictly mediated by the three tiered govt system, by the set election dates..and the graduated election limited terms..and by the specific powers of each branch laid out in the Constitution. Nothing to do with access to god.
    The Canadian govt system is parliamentary and isn’t three tiered, doesn’t have different election dates for various representatives..and so on. Again, nothing to do with access to god.
    Does Islam, as a religion, need to be reformed? Yes. Islam is less of a religion and more of a sociopolitical ideology. It requires reform..and even though it is defined as dogma straight from god…it’s manmade..and can be changed by man. Not easily..but..it can be.
    What surprises me about the perspective of so many on this thread is the view of Muslims as almost non-human. The view is rather similar to that held, years ago, of Jews, or blacks, or women. In all cases, these ‘groups’ were understood as deficient and not worthy of participation in ‘modern society’.
    All kinds of ‘reasons’ were given for the exclusion of these groups…and the same is obvious in this discussion about the ME. Just read some of the opinions:
    …. ‘these people don’t know what democracy means anyway…and they don’t want what they don’t know. ..and just want a stable life and no worries…and if they talk about democracy….well, democracy isn’t a natural right and they must fight for it and deserve it. And being ‘arabs’…they don’t understand democracy and wouldn’t know how to live that way anyway….Whew.
    BTJ – your hatred of the US seems to be the basic analytic focus for your outline. You are ignoring what is going on within Egypt and the ME world. They aren’t demonstrating against the US; they are demonstrating against Mubarek.
    Ella – that’s not a definition of a middle class! You are defining the middle class (and where did you get that?)..as ‘a group in the middle between the lower and the upper. Heh. Some definition. How about the basic attributes?
    No, I’m not defining the middle class by a ‘western point of view’. I’m not defining it by income; I’m not defining it by linearity. I’m defining it economically and I’ve said this repeatedly – as a class that has individual private property rights.
    The bureaucracy – funded by the statist govt rulers in a ME tribal govt (eg, as in Egypt) is not what I mean by a middle class. The middle class is that group of people with the right and means to own and economically develop private property. These are the small and medium size business owners, factory and industrial owners and developers. These people must be politically empowered ..and are the basic population of power in a democracy.

  17. ET / BTJ >
    You still miss the point. One use of the phrase “Freedom and Liberty” is as an idea or belief. It’s another to put it into practice.
    ET – full quote including attempt at patronizing mockery – “freedom is a basic human right. You don’t earn it. How do you earn it – by being good? According to whom? And who is the Big Boss that declares….ah, now, you’ve been good. You can be free.”
    There are over 1.3 billion Chinese that would not agree, along with countless other people in regimes, political prisoners, freedom advocates etcetera…… What part of your statement “ah, now, you’ve been good. You can be free” Seems ridiculous to these countless and faceless millions.
    Even in our so called free countries, you have millions of people wanting to go from freedom to socialism; they fight us every day for it. If government has overall control of our lives, we aren’t free. If we can’t speak our minds or have the right of peaceful assembly, we are not free, yet millions lobby to this end.
    That’s why “Freedom and Liberty” becomes a defensible right. You can call it Universal Individual Rights all you wish, but unless it’s won and then defended, you will never have it or hold it for long.
    No magic wand makes people automatically free at birth aside from the idea and desire to be free. Society in many forms snatches that idea in 90% of the world today and dashes against a wall. Unless you some sort of meditating Zen Master I suppose.

  18. phantom – I don’t know what to make of Obama; he’s only out for himself. And he’s totally ignorant of history, economics,..and Islamic fascism. Remember, he doesn’t even admit the existence of Islamic fascism…it’s ‘man-caused disasters’ according to him.
    My guess and it’s pure guess – is that it’s part of his pathological narcissism, where he thinks that if HE, the Great One, draws them to His Side…then, they will settle down, forget their violent agenda and so on.
    Knight 99 – I totally agree with you about the necessity to defend freedom. And I agree with you about those socialist sophist elites whose agenda is to take our freedoms away and that we have to defend this freedom against those who want to deny it to us. That’s why we fight socialism and slavery ..etc..
    My point is that, just as we have a ‘right to life’, and this right must not readily be removed from us, so we also have a right to freedom…and this right must not readily be removed from us.
    My point is that freedom is a basic human right; it’s fundamental. I’m arguing against those on this thread who are saying that ‘some peoples’, in this case, Muslims, don’t have that right to it.
    There are quite a few comments on this thread that the people in the Arab world are too backward, too trapped in fundamentalism etc..to have the right to freedom. We are told that they wouldn’t know what to do with freedom, that they probably don’t even want it, …
    But we in the West at one time didn’t have freedom; should we have been denied our attempts to gain freedom because we were ‘too backward’?

  19. So, Mubarek is saying..what?
    – That he’ll step down? When?
    – The he won’t seek re-election? heh..when’s the election?
    Apparently Obama is supporting him in this new agenda that ‘he won’t seek re-election’. But he’s not elected anyway.
    So- what’s going on? Is Obama colluding with Mubarek – against the wishes of the Egyptian people, who want Obama gone NOW..not tomorrow, not at the ‘next election’..but NOW?
    He’s not to be trusted; he won’t give up 30 years of power that easily.
    Does he want the time to set up a new regime where he’d be the BackRoom Power?
    Would he align himself with the Muslim Brotherhood?
    Obama is making a huge mistake. What should happen is that Mubarek goes now, and a transitional government, defined as such with a limited term and limited powers, moves in to oversee an election in..three-to-six months. A full and fair election.
    Instead – what’s going on? Mubarek to stay on until ‘the election’? Never – he’ll consolidate his backroom power.

  20. ET >
    Ok I’m with you on that part, and agree that freedoms are a fundamental human right. The argument was about “practice”.
    Although possibly interpreted as such by my comments, I never stated or intended to state that Arab’s did not deserve to have freedom and liberty. The question I posed in a nutshell was – are they ready and willing to have freedom and liberty? This is a different matter with complete onus on the Arab culture, not my wishes or opinion.
    This is a culture that has never had freedom and liberty as we know it since the dawn of civilization. An imperfect metaphor I would use is the young convict who goes to Jail as a young man and spends his entire life in “the system”. Upon release as an old man, he can’t cope with his new found freedoms in society and commits a crime to return to prison. He intentionally forgoes his freedom for the institutionalized loss of freedom and liberty that he is accustomed to. This in my opinion is not allotting different than a 5000 year old culture of tyrannical hierarchy.

  21. knight 99 – ah, now I get your explanation, and I see your point. It won’t be, most certainly, easy, but I think that they’ll have to take the risks..and move into freedom. Along with a constitution and rule of law that constrains that freedom….

  22. ET.
    The “move towards freedom” is key.
    I believe that brings us full circle to the original comment “Freedom and Liberty must be earned” which I think was not understood by several, in the way I understood it to mean. The discrepancy I believe was in the word “earned”.
    I understand that word in this context to mean (desired and wanted and fought for mentally) every bit as much as politically or physically. It’s one freedom for a prison door to swing open and it’s another for a mental prison door to unlock, individually and collectively within a culture.
    “Earned” is not intended in this case to be a grant from a higher power, but a desire or force of will from something within.

  23. Listening to CBC as I speak.

    Sort of interesting with Peter Mansbridge bringing in Susan Ormiston in Cairo. I sense the beat of excitement, though well concealed by the professionals of CBC.

    What confuses me is the rationale behind these people who broadcast. Seems like they are waiting for a messiah like figure to heap their accolade on. He has not yet appeared.

    Why do they (journalists) get so souped up?

  24. Listening to CBC as I speak.

    Sort of interesting with Peter Mansbridge bringing in Susan Ormiston in Cairo. I sense the beat of excitement, though well concealed by the professionals of CBC.

    What confuses me is the rationale behind these people who broadcast. Seems like they are waiting for a messiah like figure to heap their accolade on. He has not yet appeared.

    Why do they (journalists) get so souped up?

  25. “BTJ – your hatred of the US seems to be the basic analytic focus for your outline.”
    ET, I respect your opinions and you’re clearly the most intelligent person on this board…which is why it always disappoints me when you steep to emotional rhetoric and assumptions.
    I never expressed any ‘hatred’ (a VERY strong emotion in my opinion, not to be taken lightly) for America. I know you don’t equate facts with hate, you’re better than that. On this note, please provide an example of a false statement in my post, or one that harbors ‘hate’.
    “You are ignoring what is going on within Egypt and the ME world. They aren’t demonstrating against the US; they are demonstrating against Mubarek.”
    I assure you I am not. What I described is nothing new and certainly nothing kept secret. It is how Britain and the US has done things for the last century. Lord Curzon openly admitted that Britain would rule Iraq behind an ‘Arab facade’ in response to ‘anti-imperialist agitation’. Saddam was the US’s puppet, he had no real power economically and received TONS of support from the US…much of it in arms. The same goes for Mubarak…he receives more than a billion dollars a year from the US, is a BRUTAL dictator and a close ally of the US…all openly admitted. Now how is this ignoring ‘what is going on within Egypt’? Mubarak is there BECAUSE he’s supported by the US…and continues to be despite the OVERWHELMING majority of the Egyptian population calling for his ousting.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation