Can you give us a cite for that, and please quote the part of the cite that supports that statement this time.
So what? As long as one was planned, there is no reason to claim that there was no mechanism to get rid of Morsi.
So what? Two “wrongs” don’t make a right. I put quotes around “wrongs”, but it’s only wrong IMO. As I already noted, the law says Obama gets to decide. I’m saying what I think, even if I disagree with Obama.
You called what I wrote a “silly argument [used] by anti-Obamites” and I proved you wrong. You left out the part where you acknowledged your error.
I did give you a cite and you ignored it and haven’t offer anything to counter it.
Again, there was no equivalent to an impeachment process, and no reason to assume a planned election would be carried out. Do you have any evidence that there was?
And I’m saying what I think. I don’t think there’s any wrong here at all, except for this stupid law we have which is very ambiguous in it’s wording and the nature of it’s enforcement.
You haven’t proven anything, and I’m not in error.
Perhaps a naive question, but just why does Egypt need a huge military? Who is out to invade them? Do they regularly need to “flex their muscles”.
The Egyptian military consumes a vast share of resources (of a very poor country)-why is it needed?
Oh, I forgot-the Zionists are at this moment planning and invasion…not!
May we ask of you John Mace if it is your contention that Egypt has arrived within the past two years at the same level of operating under a constitutionally driven, freely elected government of the people, by the people and for the people, as the USA?
Your cite didn’t substantiate your point. That’s probably why you didn’t quote anything from it. If I missed the part that proved your point, please quote it so we can all see it.
Not until you, or someone else, articulates when Election Mulligans are OK and when they are not. As I said, I’m intrigued by the idea. I just want to understand when they are OK.
See below. It was the main point of the article so I didn’t see the need to quote anything since I posted the link. It indicates there was no means to impeach because the government was not yet fully formed and Morsi intended to interfere with any attempt to establish the means of impeachement. It also corresponds with all reporting I’ve seen and heard on the subject. Since you have not offered a shred of countering evidence, not a splinter, not a hint, nor even the opinion of some random guy on the street to counter my assertion it’s time for you to put up or shut up. Show us how Morsi could have deposed in any way other than what you arbitrarily claim is a coup.
So what if he can’t be impeached, and your article only says that it’s unclear that he can’t be-- do you know what the word “suggests” means? Your cite also clearly states the the whole process was still being worked out. Besides, he can be removed from office at the next election. So, no, you have not proven that there was no mechanism to remove him by impeachment and you have certainly not proven that there wouldn’t be another election.
You’re right, I have not offered the opinion of some random guy on the street. I offered the opinions of two sitting Senators of the United States of America, one from each major political party.
You still have nothing. I contend there was no way to remove Morsi from office under Egyptian law and you haven’t offered anything that negates that. I did not see in your quote anything to the contrary, nor any proof that there was a coup, or even that such a thing could be determined by anyone except the president or a congressional majority.
You can “contend” that all day long, but you haven’t proven it. Not even close.
Besides, are you suggesting that it’s OK for the military to take over whenever a president can’t be impeached, even if the country has an upcoming election and even if the country is still in the process of working out impeachment procedures? Because that is the standard you are setting up. I’ll at least give you credit for outlining the rules for an Election Mulligan (which no one else has done), but I think those rules are laughably loose, and clearly tailored to justify this particular situation.
I don’t have to prove anything. I’ve offered evidence that it’s true, and you’ve offered absolutely nothing to contradict that. It is your claim that is extraordinary, not mine.
I suggested no such thing. I have suggested that there is no reason to consider Morsi to be the legitimate president of Egypt, and that there is nothing about the military takeover that should make us question our aid to Eqypt. There are plenty of other reasons to question it, but that has nothing to do with my contention that there was no other way to remove Morsi from office, and it does not in any way make the situation in Egypt comparable to that in any nation which actually does have a legitimate, democratic, representative government in place.
You made the assertion that there was no way to remove Morsi from power. If you don’t feel you have to prove it, then I’m under no obligation to accept your opinion on the matter.
No reaon? NO reason? Not an election that was praised around the world as being fair? One might fairly argue that there could be reasons to label his presidency as illegitimate (I would disagree, but that’s my opinion), but to claim there is no reason otherwise is absurd on the face of it, given the elections that took place just last year.
Egypt had a legitimate, democratically representative government in place. You and I both didn’t like the way it was performing, but that’s different from saying it was not “legitimate”.
It’s not just my opinion, it is the only opinion that exists. You haven’t been able to show any other.
Yes, no reason. Our foreign policy should be based on our own interests and not the ambiguous and arbitrary laws that congress doesn’t enforce. Of course if you want to include irrelevant and unjustifiable reasons then you are correct, there are some reasons, perhaps a psychic has found it to be unwise by reading Tarot cards. I just don’t see any need to discuss those reasons.
That’s your opinion, and I don’t accept it, and you don’t provide supporting evidence. A legitimate government would be a complete government that carries out it’s mandate and demonstrates that it will use the law to maintain the democratic representation of the people in a reasonably fair and just manner. Morsi was doing the opposite. You can disagree if you want, but you still can’t show that there was any other way to remove Morsi from office or that this was a coup with regard to US law.
I don’t have to show anything. I’m questioning the assertion you made that even you said your cite doesn’t prove. And it is not the only opinion that exists-- it’s the only opinion you’re willing to consider.
I’m as aware of Realpolitik as the next guy, and I’ve already said that only Obama has the legal authority to determine if this was a coup or not. I completely understand why we have to, wink:wink, pretend this wasn’t a coup. I’m simply acknowledging the winking that’s going on.
An absurd definition that you just made up on the spot to fit this particular situation.
Whether this was a coup or not has nothing to do with whether Morsi could or could not be removed from office. When the military takes over, it’s a military coup. It matters not if we’re talking about Obama, Putin or Kim Jong Un.
Obama gets to say whether this is a coup or not, per US law. I’ve said that several times, so I don’t know what you’re arguing about when you invoke"'US law". We agree on that.
No you don’t have to show anything, and it’s not the only opinion I have considered. I have considered all the opinions, which consist of mine, which is shared by others, and yours which stands alone in the world until you can show someone who has a different one.
It’s not out of line to call it a wink-wink. I just don’t think it’s so much of a wink-wink as a shrug. It’s a stupid ill defined law that should be ignored because it can be ignored.
It’s not absurd, or a definition, it’s my opinion, and I made it up a while ago. So there.
I didn’t make any connection between those subjects. And since context doesn’t matter I assume you think we should wait for Kim Jong-Un to hold elections instead supporting any other means of removing him from office.
Read the OP. This thread is about cutting off US aid to Egypt as a matter of law.
We’re clearly at an impasse here, but please note that if all you want to discuss is that, then it’s GQ thread, and it has already been answered: Obama is the decider, and he has decided. Period.
Makes for a not so interesting thread if we don’t discuss anything else.
It would be interesting to discuss the wisdom of continued aid to Egypt without regard to this stupid limitation in the law. I wouldn’t be in favor of the actual delivery of new aid that is specifically going to the military until we see that they are moving ahead with installing a civilian government. And I think we should not abruptly change our policy based on recent changes in the government structure, but we probably ought to be changing our policy based on overall changes in that region and worldwide.
