Philosophy Now Forum

artisticsolution wrote:Did America give him the money 30/40 years ago for the soul purpose of him to be a dictator, or did they give it as protection money for Israel, or did they give it to him to help the Egyptian people and then he used it for his own purpose? What happened there. Why would America want to support a dictator by giving him money? What did we get in return?

A few facts and figures on how much aid is going to Egypt from the USA.

Between 1999 and 2010 USAID gave Egypt an average of $24million per year (although it had been increasing and in 2008 it was $55million) in aid for democracy and governance programs which, by its own admission Egypt has been unhelpful and the programs haven't yielded much success. Overall economic assistance to Egypt, including the aforementioned $55million, totalled $415million.

you can confirm these figures for yourself at: http://www.usaid.gov/locations/middle_e ... egypt.html and http://www.usaid.gov/oig/public/fy10rpt ... -001-p.pdf

However, according to the US Department of State:

"An important pillar of the bilateral relationship remains U.S. security and economic assistance to Egypt, which expanded significantly in the wake of the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty in 1979. U.S. military aid to Egypt totals over $1.3 billion annually. In addition, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has provided over $28 billion in economic and development assistance to Egypt since 1975."

So that's $1.3billion per year in military aid and $55million per year promoting democracy.

Decide for yourself whether you think promoting democracy is the number one priority with Egypt.

Peace supports democracy.

Giving money to those in power in Egypt convinced them to stop fighting, such as happened in 1948, 1967 and 1973. Please consider the state of the world if region wide wars had continued in the Middle East every decade since 1973. Money well spent.

Giving money to those in power in Egypt convinced them to walk away from the Soviet Union, the biggest threat to democracy during those decades. Money well spent.

This deal was put in place by Jimmy Carter, a Democrat whose main agenda during his term was human rights. Take your argument up with him.

Thanks, John, for these figures and references. Respect!

Typist wrote:Giving money to those in power in Egypt convinced them to walk away from the Soviet Union, the biggest threat to democracy during those decades. Money well spent.

Regan and El Sadat may have been but no excuse for Mubarak.

This deal was put in place by Jimmy Carter, a Democrat whose main agenda during his term was human rights. Take your argument up with him.

As we keep telling you we perceive no difference between your parties with respect to your 'national interest' foreign policy.

Typist wrote:Peace supports democracy. ...

So why bomb the Iraqis and Afghans? Why not pay them off as well?

John wrote:
So that's $1.3billion per year in military aid and $55million per year promoting democracy.

Decide for yourself whether you think promoting democracy is the number one priority with Egypt.

So then what is the military aid for? Protecting Israel or something else?

Thanks for the link. I can use that in my evil plot to overthrow republicans!

Arising_uk wrote:

Typist wrote:Peace supports democracy. ...

So why bomb the Iraqis and Afghans? Why not pay them off as well?

Oooooh...good one!

As usual, not a good one.

IRAQ: Saddam's Iraq was fundamentally different than Egypt. Saddam liked to invade people. No amount of buying off would have talked him out of it. Egypt only had a complaint about one specific issue, and thus negotiations worked.

AFGHANISTAN: They attacked us you dim wit.

John wrote:
So that's $1.3billion per year in military aid and $55million per year promoting democracy.

Decide for yourself whether you think promoting democracy is the number one priority with Egypt.

I don't see where you got the 55 million figure? USAID says 28.6 billion since 1975. Am I missing something?

artisticsolution wrote:...So then what is the military aid for? Protecting Israel or something else?

Dictators need to be able to threaten their neighbours and their 'friends' enemies, as well as impressing the people, plus they're handy to crush any rebellion in the provinces. But I guess the bulk will have been siphoned off into the politicians and generals swiss and offshore bank accounts. That and all the contracts and work military servicing requires so false jobs for the masses. A chunk will be paying for the secret police and another for the actual 'police', who from all accounts were effectively corrupt thugs.

Oh! It was hoped that Mubarak would reign in the fundamentalists in the Army as it was them who killed El Sadat. Truth be told I don't know if he succeeded but he certainly persecuted the Muslim Brotherhood and any other political opposition come to that, and its always a stupid and dangerous thing to do to a religious movement as they thrive upon this kind of thing.

Typist wrote:...IRAQ: Saddam's Iraq was fundamentally different than Egypt. Saddam liked to invade people. No amount of buying off would have talked him out of it. ...

Oh! I understand, you only liked it when he invaded those you didn't like.

Egypt only had a complaint about one specific issue, and thus negotiations worked. ...

What are you burbling about? The situation today, a past event?

AFGHANISTAN: They attacked us you dim wit.

You're lost in the Democrats, the Tea-baggers are calling.

So Osama is an Afghan? I thought him a Saudi. Al-Qaeda was the govt of Afghanistan?

But I agree, we should have bombed New York, Boston, et al to get to those IRA funding sympathising bastards.

Arising_uk wrote:

Typist wrote:...IRAQ: Saddam's Iraq was fundamentally different than Egypt. Saddam liked to invade people. No amount of buying off would have talked him out of it. ...

Oh! I understand, you only liked it when he invaded those you didn't like.

Egypt only had a complaint about one specific issue, and thus negotiations worked. ...

What are you burbling about? The situation today, a past event?

AFGHANISTAN: They attacked us you dim wit.

You're lost in the Democrats, the Tea-baggers are calling.

So Osama is an Afghan? I thought him a Saudi. Al-Qaeda was the govt of Afghanistan?

But I agree, we should have bombed New York, Boston, et al to get to those IRA funding sympathising bastards.

Typist...he's got a point there. American does do some irrational things. I'll even let you blame in on on the democrats if you agree.

artisticsolution wrote:...
Typist...he's got a point there. American does do some irrational things. I'll even let you blame in on on the democrats if you agree.

I don't see it as irrational AS, as its your 'national interest' foreign policy. Which generally leads you to support rightwing fascist dictators as a matter of course. I'm not even sure I can think of a case where you haven't?

Arising_uk wrote:

artisticsolution wrote:...
Typist...he's got a point there. American does do some irrational things. I'll even let you blame in on on the democrats if you agree.

I don't see it as irrational AS, as its your 'national interest' foreign policy. Which generally leads you to support rightwing fascist dictators as a matter of course. I'm not even sure I can think of a case where you haven't?

Well, then I would ask again...what is our motivation? I don't get it...Why would we want fascist dictators to rile up the people against that sort of regime? Is it because we can come in there and rebuild and our contractors will make lots of money? Is it because we actually like dictatorships? Is it because we want world power? Is it because we want to force people into a western type of democracy?

What I am asking is what is our "national interest'? What is our "foreign policy'? Is it just to fuck with the world because we can? What is it?

artisticsolution wrote:...
What I am asking is what is our "national interest'? What is our "foreign policy'? Is it just to fuck with the world because we can? What is it?

I don't know!? Its your govt and country. I'm just telling you what some of us see. Not that I can't see good things as well, just in this respect not. My guess is its because you are a multicultural country united under the right to make a dollar and be happy, you need an external fear to make it all make sense. Otherwise I'd guess that it protects the interests of and makes very rich those already rich families that get to wield the power every now and then. Or it could be that you never disassembled the industrial war machine after WWII so you gotta get rid of the surplus somewhere. Theres not a simple answer to such things AS, I wish it were so but thats half the problem with political discourse at present, at least in the media.