There seems to be some disagreement in this thread as to whether “cutting off aid” constitutes “getting involved.”
They need something to yap about. Without controversy, they have no job. It is that simple.
Don’t “wow” me like I asked some ridiculously absurd question. Look, I was there three weeks ago. Every day since I’ve been home, I’ve been chatting with Egyptian friends I’ve made who are on both sides of fight there-- one of whom is a journalist. I don’t pretend that I have some all encompassing knowledge about the situation because I spent two weeks there, talk to some people, and have read some things, but at the same time, pretending like this is some clear cut situation with “butchered” victims is even more absurd than me pretending I’m an expert.
Here’s the thing, both sides have done bad stuff. The Brotherhood-- er, pro-Morsi- side contends that they are entirely peaceful and haven’t done a single violent act. No guns, no assaults, no looting, no killings. They claim that it is in fact the military putting secret people amongst their ranks-- plants who are the only ones committing atrocities with the sole purpose of making the Brotherhood look evil and justify government intervention to stop their protests. Despite video footage of pro-Morsi protesters being violent by the truckload. Despite the Brotherhood having a long and sordid history of violence throughout Egypt.
I don’t buy it. I don’t. While I was originally pretty sympathetic to their calls for justice with regard to the democratic process (and really, I do put tremendous value on that process), it’s my contention that the acts that have taken place in the last few weeks prove that the intention of the Brotherhood isn’t that of a unified or secure Egypt, but one a power grab.
That said, I fully agree with the Brotherhood’s position that this is just an attempt for the old military leadership to gain back the power they lost with the removal of Mubarak. But what’s worse? The old military leaders back in power or the Brotherhood who protest in the streets of Luxor, chanting about killing Christians and Jews? Oh, and then burning churches, looting stores, and burning down other buildings. Of course, if you ask the pro-Morsi folks about this, they’ll tell you that it’s not the actual pro-Morsi folks doing this, but those dastardly government plants.
Now, I presumed your original comment was suggesting that the Brotherhood are innocent in everything that’s happened and are being butchered. I was clarifying before I disagreed with that contention.
And, for the record, the only thing both sides I’ve talked to agree on is that the US needs to stay out of it. When Obama gave his statement on the situation the other day, a couple of my new friends messaged me on Facebook, effectively saying the same thing: “Can you tell your President to shut up about Egypt? He’s making it worse for all of us.” I told them I’d try to let him know, but Obama never answers my texts anymore. 
No Obama fan here, but McCain is insane. There is no way that the USA should become involved in Egypt…it would be a matter of hours before both sides were our enemies. face it-we have finally learned the futility of trying to intervene in muslim/ME countries. As for Egypt, it looks like the army will do anything necessary to prevent the Muslim Brotherhood from taking over-and that will lead to a lot of bloodshed. That is too bad, but there is nothing that any outside force can do about it. The best thing for Obama is to stop talking about it, and let history take its course.
nm
I clicked that link, but see only “Babble, babble, babble, Obama has no plan” but with no mention of any McCain plan.
If you do find a McCain plan on-line, please just give the one-sentence summary, not a link. I find John McNitwit grossly overrated.
It wasn’t the absurdity of your question, but the callousness of your remark that seemed to assert that there aren’t ANY innocent people in Egypt. As if protestors on either side are fair game, because all’s fair in love and war.
I’m not suggesting that at all. I was responding to the question asking why people are trying to shame Obama into action. My response is that a thousand Egyptians were killed over the span of a few days. And rather than stand by and let the crazies kill each other, perhaps we as “civilized” people should pretend to care that there are actual human beings being killed.
IOW, they are trying to shame the President on humanitarian, not political, grounds. That is why I brought up Darfur. Half a million people were killed while the international community stood on the sidelines. We had no dog in that fight, and yet, as human beings we completely dropped the ball.
I don’t pretend to know much about what is actually happening in Egypt but it appears to me that the brotherhood is destroying property, looting and burning. If this is the case a goverment has a right to restore order by any means neccessary. When riots occur here in this country I am appaled at how tolerant our poilce forces suddenly become.
What option do we “civilized” people have that doesn’t result in even more actual human beings being killed? Any military intervention is just going to turn into an Iraq-esque guerilla war against one or both of these factions. It’s not in the US’ best interests to actively support either the military or the Brotherhood/ We have no grounds to invade unilaterally and establish a third regime. The division is ideological rather than geographic so partitioning the country isn’t an option.
Rather than stand by, we should do what? Specifically?
Turning off aid money hurts the poor and the innocent more than it hurts warring factions.
Giving money to one side but not the other is a bad idea.
Invade and occupy? No.
So, what would you like to see done?
You don’t have to pretend to not know much. Do you know that the elected government in Egypt is not the one that is killing people? The people being killed are supporters of the democratically elected government. But apparently democratic elections only count if the correct side is elected.
Foreign aid to Egypt, which works out to $5 per American per year, is spent on military rather than food or medicine. To cut that aid would probably be foolish: Saudi Arabia would just increase its aid to Egypt, and U.S. would lose some of the little influence it has. (However, you can trust the GOP gibberish machine to chastise Obama for not cutting aid, though no Republican President would either.)
What to do? 
Send in James Bond or Jason Bourne, though I’m not sure exactly what instructions to give them.
I don’t think that the U.S. should do ANYTHING. The question wasn’t “What do YOU think should be done?” but rather, “Why do some people think Obama should get involved in Egypt?” And I answered that question, which basically boils down to “For humanitarian reasons.”
Beyond that, I cannot speak. I haven’t thought it through because I don’t personally espouse that philosophy.
T.E. Lawrence.
What would be the democratic solution here. Hold a re-election with Morsi back on the ballot?
We can turn off the military aid, and hell, that’d even save us a Billion bucks.
It seems like we go through this every time there’s a war or violence in some far-off place. There’s a hue and cry for America to “do something’” combined with stories about how much people are suffering. The President is encouraged to make some sort of statement, and then we’re told our “credibility” is on the line. Then as soon as an American soldier dies, or kills someone he shouldn’t have, we’re told we’re in a quagmire, and we can’t withdraw, for whatever reason.
My purely speculative theory is that the people who are over there - the journalists and diplomats - believe they have a moral imperative to try to help, by bringing on American involvement. And it happens that the more America helps, the more important their roles in the conflict become, and the more it helps them in their careers.
Which would lead to just as many upset people. Many there believe that the Brotherhood originally won by, effectively, gerrymandering and literally buying votes.
Exactly. Why are we providing billions of dollars in aid to a military dictatorship that is slaughtering people in the streets right this very moment? The reason that there’s such an outcry over this is because everyone who isn’t a diehard Obama worshipper realizes that cutting off military aid the absolute minimum response that any civilized nation should take.
Not that the Islamists are our friends, but we’re not doing ourselves or anyone else any favors by implicitly supporting a bloody crackdown on political protestors.
Fair dinkum. Which GOP leaders are in favor of cutting off Military aid?