Mohammed Morsi

Steve, you seem to have a lot of information on financial matters in regards to the US government. If you were hired as an adviser to President Obama to help balance the budget, what would be your recommendations? Be specific as to what would be cut from spending.

Leeches and parasites
 
Steve, you seem to have a lot of information on financial matters in regards to the US government. If you were hired as an adviser to President Obama to help balance the budget, what would be your recommendations? Be specific as to what would be cut from spending.
Since this thread concerns Morsi; I will respond in this thread: The Pending "Fiscal Cliff".

The response is here.
 
Last edited:
Egypt court sentences in absentia 7 Coptic Christians, US pastor to death over anti-Islam film

"In a statement sent to The Associated Press Wednesday, Sadek, who fled Egypt 10 years ago and is now a Coptic activist living in Chantilly, Virginia., denied any role in the creation, production or financing of the film. ... He said the verdict “shows the world that the Muslim Brotherhood regime wants to shut up all the Coptic activists, so no one can demand Copts’ rights in Egypt.”"
Will Morsi allow this persecution to continue? Where are the Western nations including Obama on this outrage? The US is using its military, diplomatic, and economic power to bring "human rights" and "democracy" to the Arab world. Yet when it comes to Christians being persecuted and their freedom of speech being squelched, there is silence. Will the West apply pressure to Morsi to guarantee the civil and religious liberties to Coptic Christians?
 
Egypt court sentences in absentia 7 Coptic Christians, US pastor to death over anti-Islam film

Will Morsi allow this persecution to continue? Where are the Western nations including Obama on this outrage? The US is using its military, diplomatic, and economic power to bring "human rights" and "democracy" to the Arab world. Yet when it comes to Christians being persecuted and their freedom of speech being squelched, there is silence. Will the West apply pressure to Morsi to guarantee the civil and religious liberties to Coptic Christians?

Well Said!!!!!
 
Will Morsi allow this persecution to continue? Where are the Western nations including Obama on this outrage? The US is using its military, diplomatic, and economic power to bring "human rights" and "democracy" to the Arab world. Yet when it comes to Christians being persecuted and their freedom of speech being squelched, there is silence. Will the West apply pressure to Morsi to guarantee the civil and religious liberties to Coptic Christians?

Why is it Obama's responsibility to respond to what an Egyptian court has ruled? You realize that the USA is not a Christian nation, right? The USA does not seek to promote, protect, or defend Christianity.

We should be trying to disentangle ourselves from being in all of these other countries rather than trying to get them to live the way we think they should live.
 
Why is it Obama's responsibility to respond to what an Egyptian court has ruled? You realize that the USA is not a Christian nation, right? The USA does not seek to promote, protect, or defend Christianity.
I will disagree with that. But beyond that, the US speaks of Muslims having equal rights, freedom of speech, and not being persecuted. Yet when it comes to the reverse, the US uses its power to prop-up Islamic regimes that fail to give equal rights to Christians in those countries. See the text below from Obama's speech before the UN on how the US has used its power to protect the right of all people to express their views. So even if the US is not a Christian nation, as you contend, we should not "help" Islamic regimes that persecute their religious minorities.

We should be trying to disentangle ourselves from being in all of these other countries rather than trying to get them to live the way we think they should live.
You are correct, that we should not try to "force" other countries to adopt American culture. See the article and text below; because we are doing exactly that. (Again I refer you to Obama's quote concerning how the US has been involved worldwide to protect free speech.) Afghan women caught between modernity, tradition. It would seem to me that if we are to encourage "women's rights" in Afghanistan that religious freedom of Christians in the Middle East deserves protection too.
"After 11 years of Western intervention in Afghanistan, a woman’s right to study and work had long since been codified by the U.S.-backed government. Modernity had crept into Afghanistan’s capital, Farima thought, but not far enough to save her from a forced marriage to a man she despised."(emphasis added)

President Obama’s 2012 address to U.N. General Assembly (Full text)
"Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views -- even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened." (emphasis added)
 
I will disagree with that.

Review some of the statements from the founding fathers, 1st amendment, etc.

Treaty of Tripoli said:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

"It was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, receiving ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797 and signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797."

But beyond that, the US speaks of Muslims having equal rights, freedom of speech, and not being persecuted.

You mean when a country's ruler turns its military on its own people? Or when the leadership of a country oppresses its own people? Yes, the US will often release a statement condemning these actions.

"After 11 years of Western intervention in Afghanistan, a woman’s right to study and work had long since been codified by the U.S.-backed government. Modernity had crept into Afghanistan’s capital, Farima thought, but not far enough to save her from a forced marriage to a man she despised."(emphasis added)
I'm not really sure how you even compare this to anything other than Iraq. When you invade a nation & destroy the government, you have some obligation to set that nation back on track.

We did not invade Egypt, we did not send in troops to topple Mubarak, so the two situations are quite different. Egypt is the responsibility of the Egyptians.

"Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views -- even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened." (emphasis added)
This is a general feel-good statement. It doesn't mean we are going to intervene diplomatically or militarily in any nation where the leaders don't respect their people.
 
This dialog is, in at least a limited sense, a reflection of the greater context of the world. Comments about the USA's role in world affairs are all over the map and not even homogenous from USA citizens. Which is to be expected, since we aren't a homogenous people ourselves.

Regarding the USA two-party system, I am against it vehemently. We need at least one more party, perhaps a more centrist-oriented version, or perhaps some variant of Libertarian. The reason is polarization. The country tears itself apart because we have forgotten how to compromise. The political parties push people to vote "red" or "blue" and give them a majority in Congress. Then, when they get it, they run roughshod over the rights of those whose party didn't get the majority.

I'm not going to say that it would solve everything if the USA had three parties of roughly equal size, but having that would FORCE our elected representatives to work towards consensus and compromise rather than working towards gridlock until the next election so they could then force their changes past the opposition. And laying the groundwork for that election by blaming "the other side" for the failure to get anything done. I'm currently ready to vote out the slime-balls - ALL of them - and start with a totally new House and Senate. Except that the candidates we have been getting aren't the type to instill confidence either.

Regarding the USA's role as pushing human rights around the world, I would venture to say that where we do that and in the process push against the established authoritarian government, we become hated because that established government, in a simple attempt to hold on to power, says we should be hated for being busybodies. The people go along with it because in those countries, unbiased news doesn't reach the people. They can't make their own decisions wisely because they don't have everything they need to know. Sadly, the Fox news and CNN news and other organizations have their own agendas and so don't always push out a complete, well-rounded view either. We are victims of that "filtered news" syndrome ourselves.

As to the rationale for the USA pushing human rights, I think that the current trend evolved from the WW2 generation who came home from the European and Pacific theaters of operation with first-hand memories of concentration camps, death camps, and evidence of Man's inhumanity to Man. I know my (now deceased) father-in-law could never forget what he saw during his service. He was part of a unit that liberated a work camp and was forever changed by the horror of it all. He commented on it to me a few times before he passed on.

Many essays and poems were written about what happened in that time, comments about folks looking the other way when the soldiers came for their neighbors, then realizing way too late that folks would look the other way when the soldiers came for them. Not only the Jewish, gay, gypsy, and Seventh-Day Adventists in Europe, but many folks in Nanking Province in China suffered because nobody stood up for their rights. Perhaps we learned that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, and we don't want to be an isolationist country because that is how you get crushed by those who surround you with oppression.

I'll get down off the soapbox now.
 
I think the people should give him the chance in his time period for president and the world must not be leaded by the protestors on Tahrir square.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom