|
ZenMaster posted:Annnnnnddddd... we've reached critical mass whereas some Dems are now accusing Obama of trying to steal oil as his motivation for bombing Lybia as GWB quietly chuckles. Enjoy, Barack... enjoy. Is he wrong? Would there be a military response to Libya if it wasn't strategically important? Clearly that's not the only reason behind it, but oil is no small part of the reason there are Western planes over Libya and not any number of other countries where human rights abuses are taking place.
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2011 15:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 06:24 |
|
|
IRQ posted:For not knowing the people coming at him in the middle of the night after his jet crashed were friendly or not? This whole 'shoot first with the slightest possible justification without any effort to verify if targets are hostile, maybe ask some questions later' attitude the US military has is a large part of why it's vilified the world over. e: That and sticking its nose where no one wants it, but for once that's not the case. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 22:27 on Mar 22, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2011 22:23
|
|
|
IRQ posted:Yes well that's not entirely accurate (assuming the article is correct). How is it inaccurate? Did anyone actually verify who they were bombing and/or shooting, because it certainly sounds like a situation where they saw some people and decided they needed to be dead without any attempt to figure out who they were and why they were there. IRQ posted:Between is not on top of, which you appear to be thinking it was. Yeah the US military, and every other military, will gently caress up, and that's not good. But in this case I really can't find fault, it's just a really lovely situation for all involved. How on earth was anyone supposed to know whether or not the people approaching were friendly or planning to lop off the guy's head? Except the US military does it with callous disregard, then tries to handwave it away after (usually blaming the victim, I guess those people certainly deserved to die for daring to walk anywhere near an American). Constantly. When do you start holding someone responsible for constantly making fatal "mistakes" and making no significant effort to reduce those mistakes?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2011 22:40
|
|
|
cioxx posted:Believe it or not, the military always makes life and death decisions and evaluates the price of human life as conditions change on the ground. So in your view, a Taliban attack on CNN headquarters would be justified?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2011 05:25
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Not quite, they almost certainly wouldn't intervene if Congress itself sued or the like. Its more the Supreme Court has certain subjects that it simply refuses to get involved with ("political question" doctrine) and this strikes me as the best example: the Supreme Court is never going to issue the sort of orders to the military that would be required in this sort of dispute ("the air force is directed to get out of country X", ect). If Congress wants that, the Congress can deal with it itself and impeach the President, and the Supreme Court isn't going to do it for them. There isn't much of an argument for the Libyan intervention being illegal, but the decision certainly was undemocratic as all hell. It's understandable that sometimes the executive will have to use military force without legislative consent because there is an emergency threat to the country, but that wasn't the case here. Based on what has come out in public, Obama clearly had the time for a lot of back and forth within his own administration over the extent and manner of American involvement, even whether it should have happened in the first place. I think that the question of why this was never put up for legislative or public debate is a perfectly reasonable complaint against the president. Especially when Obama himself has decried executive overreach and promised a more democratic approach to the use of force.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2011 19:55
|
|
|
Space Monster posted:Also, the CIA created the AIDS virus to kill off black people and give the continent to the U.S. since we need its resources! And I think 9/11 was an inside job.... (don't tell anyone what I said and you're going to have to start wearing a tin-foil hat like me in order to stop the government from finding out that I told you the truth about them!) What is this nonsense? The Soviets weren't any angels (they weren't exactly supporting a democratic government in Afghanistan, and they were certainly heavy handed with their tactics), but it is common knowledge that the CIA covertly fomented and aided an insurgency to prolong a civil war there. That the CIA was (often illegally, even under US law) funding terrorists all over Central America to undermine actual democratic governments and backing brutal despots all over that region with arms, cash, and advice is also common knowledge, and the CIA's drug running has come to light in open court. Citing events in the past that included the CIA is not the same as making up bullshit conspiracy theories. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Mar 24, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2011 22:26
|
|
|
Slantedfloors posted:One of the most important things to remember about the NTC is that under Ghadaffi, there were basically no organized groups of people larger or more relevant than a football club. There were no unions, no political parties, no special interest groups. The NTC had literally nothing to work with when they were setting up. Nothing. Nobody is saying they should have done all that. Of the people in this thread opposed to how the intervention is playing out, few are calling for an outright noninterventionist policy in Libya and practically nobody is supporting Qadafi. Personally, I think it's great that we stepped in to stop a civilian slaughter when it seemed imminent. The problem right now is that the West appears to be supporting the NTC unconditionally. This means that when all is said and done, they will be the ones with de facto control of the country and be in the best position to take charge going forward. They will be the ones with weapons, training, momentum, and practically every advantage necessary for holding on to power once Qadafi is out. If all of this results in a legitimate democracy, that would be great and wonderful. Unfortunately, the history of Western intervention is usually one of taking sides with a group of rebels who may or may not be representative of the country as a whole, then supporting them materially while they undermine any political competition. If there’s a humanitarian crisis and civilians are threatened, it’s good and noble to step in and protect them. But when we start picking sides and supporting our team by providing them with tactical air cover, arms, and military “advisors”, it ends up undermining the self determination of the Libyan people.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2011 17:23
|
|
|
farraday posted:And what's your alternative? The only one I've seen which even begins to approach reasonableness is a partition of Libya, which is not supported by anyone I've read on the ground and would absolutely just be another "great-power partition" which people have been oh so thrilled about in the past. Prevent attacks on civilians as possible (including on the ground if there are countries willing to provide peacekeeping troops), and let the conflict play out as it will. Recognize whoever comes out on top, and if the country does end up partitioning itself in the process (this is not the same as a partition imposed from outsiders), so what? Certainly not choose a champion and go to any ends to make sure they end up in control of the whole country - again, that only undermines the self-determination of the Libyan people.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2011 17:37
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, who was asked about Misrata in the Washington Post interview, described the fighters there as terrorists, drawing parallels with Grozny in Chechnya and Fallujah in Iraq. The funny thing is, those are rather apt comparisons. Hopefully next time the US or Russia decide to use this excuse to carpet bomb a city, someone will be a bit more vocal on calling them out on it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2011 16:17
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I think they do, actually. How many have been used in Pakistan? Probably thousands of sorties by now, with perhaps a dozen friendly-fire or civilian hits? The real culprit with those civilian hits is a lack of intelligence on the targets, which would not be different if a live pilot were operating a manned plane making precision strikes on the same targets. Contraction mapping posted:You're getting pretty over-the-top, dude. It's just publication bias; how often do you think the media is going to report stories about drones successfully identifying their targets and everything going peachy vs drones misidentifying their targets resulting in a million-billion civilian casualties? There are certainly non-trivial problems with drones and the US militaries' use of them, but they are useful tools nonetheless. Do yourself a favor and read this: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-afghanistan-drone-20110410,0,2818134,full.story The problem isn't a lack of intelligence, it's the hard-on intelligence officers have for blowing up anyone that looks foreign. Sending Predators to Libya can only end in civilian suffering with the kind of people the US military puts in command of those things. Some quotes: quote:The Afghans unfolded what looked like blankets and kneeled. "They're praying. They are praying," said the Predator's camera operator, seated near the pilot. quote:"We all had it in our head, 'Hey, why do you have 20 military age males at 5 a.m. collecting each other?'" quote:At 5:37 a.m., the pilot reported that one of the screeners in Florida had spotted one or more children in the group. quote:The Predator crew in Nevada was exultant, watching men they assumed were enemy fighters trying to help the injured. " 'Self-Aid Buddy Care' to the rescue," one of the drone's crew members said. quote:"What are those?" asked the camera operator. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 12:59 on Apr 22, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2011 12:54
|
|
|
Contraction mapping posted:Yes, yes, I've read that thread too, that's why I said 'There are certainly non-trivial problems with drones and the US militaries' use of them, but they are useful tools nonetheless'. That really depends on how you define what a useful tool is, doesn't it? They're useful tools for slaughtering civilians, alienating populations, and putting bloodthirsty assholes behind the controls of expensive toys, but that doesn't matter much. The goal in Libya should be targeting forces attacking civilians while minimizing civilian casualties, and Predators are demonstrably not a useful tool for that.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2011 14:24
|
|
|
Sten Freak posted:Hyperbolic and incorrect. A drone can linger for long periods at very slow speeds over a target area and methodically identify targets using an array of sophisticated sensors and cameras and launch munitions. Every weapon has the capability to hit the wrong target. Would you argue that a supersonic jet is less likely to hit the wrong target? I'd argue we shouldn't be hitting targets at all until the process to do so is revamped thoroughly, and that any improvements that a drone might provide are overshadowed by the procedures that are in place regardless of weapon. Using drones also distributes any agency behind an attack, so all you get is a bunch of people pointing fingers at other peoples' mistakes with no one ever taking responsibility for errors. Predators allow people like you to go about how this wonderful technology saves lives, the military is working so hard to protect civilians, and so on and so on, all while the drones are still killing far more civilians than intended targets.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2011 15:51
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Libya imported gasoline from Italian refiner Saras in early April, taking advantage of a loophole in United Nations sanctions that permits purchases by companies not on a UN list of banned entities. (nevermind, missed the part about it being an explicit loophole in the sanctions) Seems like Saras would be a good target for a boycott for that stunt. Does Italy have enough spare refining capacity that fuel distributors could take their business elsewhere? AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 14:30 on Apr 26, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2011 14:24
|
|
|
Cartouche posted:Acknowledge that it is cultural. Does not excuse the idiocy of it, however. It's not even all that cultural, I don't think there's a part of the world where guns are readily available that it doesn't happen. People simply like hearing loud things go bang.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2011 16:29
|
|
|
killing_fields posted:Can we talk about the massive Taliban offensive in Kandahar right now in this thread? Popular rebellion against autocratic government? Sounds like it fits into the thread perfectly.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2011 19:11
|
|
|
In news from Afghanistan, it appears that the rebels there are still able to provide a formidable challenge to the occupiers and corrupt "democracy" with its stolen elections. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/09/world/asia/09afghanistan.html quote:The scale and organization of the attack as well as the targeting of government buildings suggested that the Taliban had been planning it for some time — and that they had relied on support from inside Kandahar. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/09/us-afghanistan-violence-idUSTRE7481XX20110509 quote:The U.S. Embassy in Kabul issued a security bulletin in which it said it had received specific threats of attacks in three areas in Helmand province. It gave no details about the nature of the threats. Unfortunately, the attacks against the regime were largely repelled, but then again, unlike the freedom fighters in Libya, the rebels in Afghanistan are being attacked by NATO airstrikes rather than getting air support and supplies from NATO.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2011 22:27
|
|
|
King Dopplepopolos posted:That's because the Taliban are just as awful as Colonel Qaddafi. Hope this helps. It wasn't an entirely serious post, just a friendly reminder that the west picks and chooses whether an undemocratic state is toppled, installed, propped up, or ignored. The Taliban and Libyan rebels obviously aren't entirely comparable, but when it comes down to it, the underlying causes for the insurgency in Afghanistan and the revolt in Libya are one and the same. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 05:22 on May 10, 2011 |
|
#
¿
May 10, 2011 05:12
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Only if you forget the Taliban existed before the rigged election. You know as well as anyone that the Taliban fighting in Afghanistan today share little with the Taliban that were in charge when the NATO invaded except name and ideology. Most of the Taliban around in 2001 have long since been killed, and most of the fighters today are recent recruits. It's not that the Taliban are some beacon of hope and freedom in Afghanistan - nobody is disputing that their goals are to install a theocracy in one fashion or another. The thing that makes them like the Libyan rebels is that they have a measure of popular support because they are seen as fighting a corrupt regime that refuses to give its people a voice. Mr. Sunshine posted:So, in your opinion, should Nato stop fighting the Afghan insurgents and start bombing the regime in Kabul with the ultimate goal of handing power back to the Taliban, or should Nato stop aiding the Libyan rebels and send in ground troops to help the Tripoli regime secure the country? Neither? The NATO action in Libya is supportable on humanitarian grounds and the rebels seem to be genuinely democratic for the time being. And of course the Taliban shouldn't get military or financial support - it's just that Karzai and the current Afghan government is not worthy of Western support either. Do you realize that it's not a requirement for NATO to meddle in other countries' political processes? The hypocrisy comes from pursuing action towards or supporting the overthrow of autocratic regimes (which is commendable) with one hand while installing, ignoring fixed elections, and funding security forces for other autocratic regimes with the other. NATO has no business in funding, training, and fighting for the undemocratic regime in Afghanistan as it continues to consolidate power. How is Karzai any different than Mubarak, except that Karzai was a Western stooge from the very beginning? AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 14:40 on May 10, 2011 |
|
#
¿
May 10, 2011 14:32
|
|
|
No hypocrisy in providing military support to rebels in Libya while bombing them in Yemen, not at all http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/world/middleeast/09intel.html?_r=1&hp quote:The Obama administration has intensified the American covert war in Yemen, exploiting a growing power vacuum in the country to strike at militant suspects with armed drones and fighter jets, according to American officials.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2011 02:35
|
|
|
Xandu posted:What makes you think the people the US is bombing in Yemen are the same ones rebelling against Saleh? Because they're not even remotely the same groups. Who said they were the same groups? It's just that whether rebelling an autocratic, repressive regime will get you bombed or helped is more or less arbitrary.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2011 02:41
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:I wanted to avoid spamming this thread with news of defections, especially as they are hard to confirm, but for example there's 60 special forces apparently defected in Damascus, and 120 tanks defected outside of Damascus, according to reports, plus plenty more. Please keep it up, today seems like it may be an inflection point in the conflict. I think most of us here would appreciate the updates, even if some have to be retracted later.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2012 15:20
|
|
|
Munin posted:Man, there is indeed no cat big enough for that one. Well, we always knew that us westerners were a huge bunch of hypocrits. This was posted earlier in the thread: http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/state-dept-says-it-is-not-consistent-on-human-rights-violations-involving-israel-and-neighbors.html
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2012 15:37
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Oh no, I didn't think that. Money earned so far from all this = Ł0 You are taking notes for the book you'll want to write to make any money off this, yes?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2012 00:06
|
|
|
SavageBastard posted:http://www.youcaring.com/fundraiser_details?fundraiser_id=9332&url=benefitforseansmithsfamily Donated some myself, but it's unfortunate that this kind of thing is necessary. Why doesn't the Department of State have the foresight to provide sufficient life insurance for the people it is sending into harms' way?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2012 18:15
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:I had the same confusion as well, it's a fairly interchangable term in the UK, but I had to check it was the same for international audiences, didn't want people thinking the opposition were building trebuchets. I think catapult is generally an all-encompassing term for a weapon that can mechanically launch projectiles, but at least personally, when I hear catapult (as an American), I assume a device that uses some sort of torsion to store energy as opposed to the counterweight system when I hear trebuchet. Not that it matters much, just my two cents.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2012 13:37
|
|
|
Was "arms researchers" a euphemism for goons?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2012 02:59
|
|
|
New Division posted:The US said that they doubted the Iranians could reverse engineer the systems off the drone they caught, which was entirely intact and almost undamaged. I dunno know about that. The Iranians definitely don't have the technological base the U.S. does, but it seems a bit dumb to write off their ability to learn anything from the captured drone. They could learn some things, but they don't have the engineering capability to meaningfully apply the technology in any way that's threatening to the US, nor the industrial base to apply any advancements they can make in large numbers. The statement was really just an acknowledgment of how much Iran is not a threat to the West.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2012 01:12
|
|
|
Chortles posted:To restate myself, apparently the program was real but the doctor was also supposed to go for a DNA sample on the compound inhabitants. No, they gave the children the first part of a two stage vaccine and then never followed up. It was basically a sham program, and the CIA was rightfully excoriated by international public health agencies. e: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/02/aid-groups-cia-osama-bin-laden-polio-crisis quote:An alliance of 200 US aid groups has written to the head of the CIA to protest against its use of a doctor to help track Osama bin Laden, linking the agency's ploy to the polio crisis in Pakistan. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 13:22 on Dec 19, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2012 13:16
|
|
|
Lascivious Sloth posted:I don't know how they can apparently denounce propaganda yet still deceptively bus in supporters to create artificially non-representative demonstrations, and resulting riots. I don't trust the MB and I'm cynical of what they say they represent and what they actually put into action when in power. They outright lied about not running politically during the revolt against Mubarak. Nothing their party or followers say can be trusted. Unless they're using state resources, why is busing in supporters somehow not democratic? Organization matters, and if they have the depth of support that people are willing to demonstrate and provide resources to the extent that the party can make that happen, all the more power to them. Are they the ones starting riots, or is it resentment to their presence?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2012 17:04
|
|
|
Sereri posted:I don't have a source right now but I heard on the radio earlier that the German Patriots have left Germany via ship and are supposed to arrive and be functional in February. Are they that big? I would have thought they would be sent via plane? It's possible, but expensive and unnecessary. The missiles are mostly symbolic.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2013 15:57
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Not from our political perspective, or we wouldn't have that stupid brouhaha about dangerous dangers of war demanding a direct decision of our pacifist parliament. In cases like this our minister of defense can actually send troops if allies ask for them and the government is OK with it. Leaving the decision open to parliament is normally meant for an actual danger of war. But certain parties cried like little babies to make the government look bad and de Mazičre (our Minister of Defense) simply and surprisingly gave in to those demands. Now of course the parts of the opposition which demanded to take the entire thing to parliament have essentially shot themselves in the foot, for now there is a democratic legitimation and if something happens, sending reinforcements and and expanding the mission has gotten a whole lot easier. Your internal political process aside, the presence of NATO batteries in Turkey is almost entirely for show rather than any military need - which is why I called it symbolic. Once you realize that there's no particular operational need for them, it's quickly obvious why they were shipped rather than rushed over on transport planes (which is the question the original reply was addressing).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2013 17:14
|
|
|
suboptimal posted:And yeah, I too would like to see more discussion of Yemen here. Attention to that country has waned, even as the US expands its drone program there. It's definitely worth keeping on the radar, at least to call attention to the murderous US campaign there, but the fact of the matter is that the status quo is not changing. The US will keep bombing people, the Saudis will keep bombing people, militants will continue to have influence because of those first two things, and the rest of the world will turn a blind eye while both of those countries keep propping up a puppet regime. There's only so much to discuss when things aren't changing.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
cafel posted:I'm rather lacking when it comes to Syrian geography, is that map leaving off any unnaffected major cities or regions for expediency, or is most of developed Syria the site of some kind of armed conflict? The latter. The Alawite area along the coast is about the only one largely unaffected. The scale of rebel activity isn't denoted though, and fighting is much more intense in some areas than others.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2013 13:29
|
|
|
Tardigrade posted:Would foreign intervention even do anything productive at this point? I really want to hope for the best, but Syria looks like it's slipping into anarchy that could mire an army indefinitely. Certainly, any outside forces wouldn't be warmly received. What would it even do? It doesn't seem like much of the remaining forces that the Syrian regime can bring to bear are particularly bombable, and the rebels have done a decent job of making the skies inhospitable. Boots on the ground are obviously out of the question, anything beyond material support for the rebels (which is happening anyway) has a large risk of causing more harm than good.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2013 02:53
|
|
|
Kaal posted:It certainly isn't a foolproof method. The Iraq Body Count, for example, relies much more heavily upon government reports (police and mortuary records) and media coverage. That isn't to say that you cannot gain useful data from going in and interviewing families, but you also really need to be critical about the true value of the data. The biggest problem with the Lancet study was that they came up with more than a million deaths, and then they simply published the study rather than going through any effort to confirm or substantiate the figure. Given how limited and problematic the study was in the first place, it was simply irresponsible for them to do so. Didn't the Lancet study include deaths that wouldn't have been picked up by a different methodology? For example, the US destroyed a bunch of water infrastructure, but a study of police or mortuary records might not pick up that there were suddenly a bunch of deaths from dysentery. A lot of the death toll from the Iraqi invasion was less from an uptick in violence, but rather from a destruction of infrastructure, the collapse of services like healthcare, and an overall decrease in lifespan from the dismantling of the country's economy. Sites like Iraqi Body Count would't pick that kind of stuff up, but it certainly doesn't seem unreasonable to pin that kind of loss of life on the invasion.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2013 23:24
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:The lesson to be learned I think is Soviet era hardware is best used as Hollywood props. If the choice is lovely Soviet era hardware or standing around waving my dick in the wind, I'll take the lovely Soviet era hardware. Especially when the Soviets were more or less giving it away. With the sanctions on Syria, did Assad have the option of buying proper toys even at full price?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2013 15:34
|
|
|
Why the lack of uproar over the Israeli bombing in Syria? Assuming it was SA-17s, wouldn't AA missiles just be a defensive measure against future Israeli bombing campaigns - this seems to be basically Israel coming out and saying "we are going to bomb Lebanon in the future, and we'll be damned if you can do anything to resist that". Or do they have the range to fire at an Israeli airliner or something?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2013 19:21
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Because no sane person wants Hezbollah to have an advanced AA missile. I think it's pretty clear from my first post that I'm not an expert on AA missiles, but why exactly? These aren't exactly weapons you can sneak around (see: Israel bombing the ones being transported through Syria), so it doesn't sound like they could get close enough to shoot down an Israeli airliner if they'd have to be right on the border to be in range (based on PleasingFungus's reply about that). The only conceivable reason for Hezbollah to have these around is to deter Israeli incursions into Lebanon - this is a purely defensive measure. So, at the risk of repeating myself, it basically sounds like Israel is saying "we are planning on bombing Lebanon, and gently caress off for trying to make it more difficult for us." This is acceptable how?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2013 21:31
|
|
|
CapnAndy posted:The military's backing of the people was a big reason why Mubarak resigned. They defended him until they didn't. The military is going to have to be put under demoratic civilian control at some point if Egypt doesn't want to become a junta again, because at this point it's just a bunch of unelected officers arbitrarily deciding what is and isn't the will of the people. Sure, this time there seems to be a broad consensus for the coup. But what happens next time when the military decides to act for lesser reasons? Without checks on this sort of power, it is not a tenable long-term situation.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2013 21:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 06:24 |
|
|
Volkerball posted:Again, the court who has the authority to impeach the President worked with the Minister of Defense all throughout the lead-up to the ultimatum, and the coup. This isn't illegitimate at all, and you can't use it as some sort of precedent for military coups in the future. Things would be substantially different if they were being condemned by the court, and the majority of people. Again, it's nice that the military's internal decision making process ended up working out for the people of Egypt this time, but there's nothing holding them to that except their own decency. Having that kind of power structure outside of a democratic, civilian government is dangerous and destabilizing in the long run. Especially since we don't have any sort of idea what would happen if the eventual civilian government reasonably tries to bring the military's asset holdings (see Antwan's and others in this thread posts) into the civilian government or tries to impose some sort of checks on their decision making. It's one thing if the military was ordered by a court to remove Morsi, but "worked with" is just another way of saying that their interests aligned this time around and the military was kind enough to voluntarily lend its services. Antwan3K posted:The army in Egypt is much larger and more influential than most countries' armed forces. They are a major player in Egypt's economy, not limited to the defence industry. The Mubarak ouster didn't threaten that. What lengths would they go to before giving that up?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2013 21:48
|
|