Obama Administration to ask for $1 billion in debt relief for Egypt

Excellent point.

How come so many allege that its the rich who run everything in this country, why wouldn't this theory be as applicable elsewhere, both equally and accurately?

And if the rich do run Egypt, why haven't they long-since taken steps to eradicate this sort of lesser and radical element from within their own country, ostensibly, which their enormous wealth must allow them to control?

 

Ftr, most of the hijackers were middle class and educated, many having lived in Germany, the United States, Canada, and elsewhere. It's not the "dumb hilljacks" running the show, or even, in this case, committing the crime.

 

Why don't we just take the $1.3B IOU from Egypt, and exchange it for the same amount of ours to China?

Let China be the world's biggest debt collector / bad guy or charitable entity (by forgiving the debt) for awhile.

 

Wasn't OBL closely related to Saudi royalty, or even a direct member of it?

 

Everytime there is an uprising in one of these countries the left declares that people are fighting for their freedom and democracy. Everytime these countries go more radical Muslim. I have no doubt that our changing times are effecting the middle east, but the reaction there is not to embrace change, but to go back 100 years

 

Yes.

 

With all due respect (I have neither the experience nor knowledge of the ME as you, and others, do) - but just asking...

Is the answer to the question of our likability in the ME region really that complicated, at the end of the day?

I would think that the answer would be so clear as to be self-evident.

 

Intolerant, IMO.

I think that the left thinks it more politically correct to say that they go, "super-duper Muslim".

 

Bin Laden wasn't royalty, but his father was an unbelievably successful government contractor. Bin Laden was one of 50 some kids mind you, so while he was not dirt poor, he also had the advantage of being from that family.

Bin Laden, however, was a very bright and determined person and I think did much of what he did on his own accord.

 

Whoever said I was objective? I have pretty strong views that I'm more than capable of defending. There's also quite a difference between people who choose to express a particular viewpoint that I can legitimately criticize and a group of people who's main crime seems to be living in a place nearby some extremists.

Otherwise, I'm happy to hear I'm some kind of pet project of yours to hold "accountable". I have no doubts as to your objectivity once
someone decides to harangue "the liberals" or any other group.

 

So it's not relevant if they sympathize with said extremists? You could argue the south wasn't racist because only a small percentage of people were in the kkk. Same logic.

 

The left hasn't any trouble saying extremists are out there. We just realize the obvious that all the situations are not the same and many of those countries are not extremist Muslims, but an amalgam of different ideologies that are popularly elected by the people of that country. Besides, it's not like Qaddaffi was some kind of secular leader without ties to extremist groups, carrying our terrorist activities throughout the years.

 

What makes you think they sympathize with the extremists? Opposing US policy does not equal liking al-qaeda.

 

The US is liked, but not well liked.

Not educated on the particulars of the subject whatsoever, but who cares how Middle Eastern governments feel? The question is what will they do re: terrorism? And the answer is almost certainly as little as we'll allow. I don't think it's clearly in their self-interest enough to make enemies close to home just for our sake.

 

Dancing in the streets after 911?

 

I am unaware of anyone who confused your opinions as being objective. But, I at least appreciate your honesty in admitting that you are not objective, as it allows for a fundamental understanding of the prism by which your opinions, thoughts and beliefs should be both viewed and valued. That you can so easily lose (or discard?) a sense of objectivity, but fail to see that it is equally limiting of your ability to provide "legitimate criticism" of those who hold differing or oppositional opinions to your own seems like, while quizzical, is something that you'll need to resolve for yourself. Or, not.

You're no pet project of mine, Un.

I just try, however haltingly, stumbling or begrudging, to believe that the truth - as best I know and can understand it - is most important, no matter to whom it is applied or what end it helps or harms. Even when I don't like it, decry it, hate it, wish it weren't so, or hope that some larger truth will soon emerge.

But then, isn't that true for most people? That is, if they're being objective about it.

 

Only the left is capable of discerning these subtleties? How conveniently gnostic.

Are you saying that there are Muslim-dominated countries who neither shelter nor outright support, some measurable faction of Muslim extremists? And exactly how do these sympathizers continue to be elected, if not by the extremists?

I made no mention of Qadaffi, or of his many atrocities.

 

You can't take the country out of the boy, you can't take the hilljack out of the camel humper.

 

If we want to take our ball and go home, I'm fine with that. Let's pull all the troops too and close all the ME bases. Let's quit playing lifeguard for Israel as well. Deal?

 

There is not a coalition of ME nations who could overrun Israel, and neither the US nor anyone else would need lift a finger in their defense.

If Israel really wanted security, they would have long ago ran roughshod over the entire region and subjugated them beneath Judaic authority. It would take outside intervention to stop them, but no, they wouldn't need help to complete their own conquests.

All of this being said, I am not sure why we protect Israel, anyway, really.