Forum Thread

Egypt's New President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 19 1 2 Next
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Dallas, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Abdel Fattah el-Sisi was sworn in 6/8/14 as Egypt's 6th President under democratically elected means. He rose to this occasion on the momentum of being THE guy that ousted the criminally insane Mohamed Morsi. Remember that guy? Democratically elected, then decided to turn the country and his office into an extreme dictatorship/kingship with unlimited powers? Yeah, well a military coup was formed and kicked that guy out of office. And el-Sisi was the man in charge of it.

    So now, el-Sisi is President of Egypt. He won 96% of the vote. 96%. I have a hard time believing that any democratically elected politician in a fair process gets that overwhelming of a majority vote. His opposition calls the process an outrage and said:

    "We cannot give any credibility or ratification to the announced numbers of turnout or results," Sabahy said last month. "The announced results are an insult to the intelligence of the Egyptians."

    Do you think that el-Sisi has the ability and integrity to restore some amount of peace and stability in the country of Egypt? I think he is working on a best-case scenario steam of momentum and support; he's the man that ousted Morsi. I'm sure most everyone is willing to at least see what he can do and give him a real chance to fix things. I hope he is a marked improvement. Seems as though being President of Egypt has a way of seriously going to your head though.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    It really is sad to see a peoples revolution turn into yet another military dictatorship. If his actions as acting President are a harbinger of things to come, then Egypt is in for a treat. Egypt is jailing dissidents by the thousands, conducting mass trials of political opponents that last mere minutes, and are sentencing hundreds to death for political crimes. It's really easy to win 96 percent of the vote when you stifle dissent and jail your political opponents.

    The Egyptian government estimated it has jailed over 16,000 of its own citizens since last July's military coup. The real number is undoubtedly higher. I can't say that I believe he has any integrity at all. He may force peace and stability in Egypt by killing and jailing thousands of his own people, but it's a far cry from the democracy the original revolutionaries who ousted Hosni Mubarak were calling for.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote: It really is sad to see a peoples revolution turn into yet another military dictatorship. If his actions as acting President are a harbinger of things to come, then Egypt is in for a treat. Egypt is jailing dissidents by the thousands, conducting mass trials of political opponents that last mere minutes, and are sentencing hundreds to death for political crimes. It's really easy to win 96 percent of the vote when you stifle dissent and jail your political opponents.

    The Egyptian government estimated it has jailed over 16,000 of its own citizens since last July's military coup. The real number is undoubtedly higher. I can't say that I believe he has any integrity at all. He may force peace and stability in Egypt by killing and jailing thousands of his own people, but it's a far cry from the democracy the original revolutionaries who ousted Hosni Mubarak were calling for.
    Yes, it is a continuing horror; part of it is/was American foreign politics. In the past the only attention of us was to sell/give weapons or money for weapons; plenty of that money "disappeared" into certain pockets, which made them even more corrupt . We are now playing the same game al over again in the Ukraine/Poland ; hand out mony and weapons; it has backfired so many times; do we ever learn????
  • Other Party
    Nebraska
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Unfortunately a nice guy who wants to be a "kinder and gentler" type of president just isn't the best choice for some countries, especially in THAT region of the world.

    If Sissi has to crack down, and jail political opponents, and even sentence some to death...as bad as that is, the alternative might be worse.

    I think an all out civil war in Egypt, a Syria-style civil war, could be much worse, and many more could die. What's worse: civil war which kills hundreds of thousands, or a dictator who kills a few hundred? Both are bad, but the choice is clear. Egypt has more people and more weapons and more advanced weapons.

    Egypt tried a democratically elected leader and we see what happened. I'd grade that experiment as an F.

    Back to the old style military hard core dictator, as bad as he may be, might be preferable to the alternative.

    Dutch you are right, we give billions in weapons and we are surprised when violence breaks out?
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jamesn Wrote: Unfortunately a nice guy who wants to be a "kinder and gentler" type of president just isn't the best choice for some countries, especially in THAT region of the world.

    If Sissi has to crack down, and jail political opponents, and even sentence some to death...as bad as that is, the alternative might be worse.
    I'm sorry, but this statement shows a complete disregard for the peaceful revolution that toppled the regime of Hosni Mubarak in 2011. To suggest the Egyptian people need a brutal dictator to keep peace is unfortunate and an incorrect assumption. It's easy to keep peace when you jail people who disagree with you by the thousands and conduct mass executions to stifle dissent. The "peace" in Egypt right now is a farce.

    jamesn Wrote: I think an all out civil war in Egypt, a Syria-style civil war, could be much worse, and many more could die. What's worse: civil war which kills hundreds of thousands, or a dictator who kills a few hundred? Both are bad, but the choice is clear. Egypt has more people and more weapons and more advanced weapons.
    Is this a serious question?

    jamesn Wrote: Egypt tried a democratically elected leader and we see what happened. I'd grade that experiment as an F.
    A transition from a military dictatorship into democracy is never smooth. America's own experiment with democracy nearly came to an abrupt end in 1812 and that was over twenty years after gaining independence from England. We also fought a brutal Civil War that nearly irreparably tore this nation apart. Egypt had her first revolution a mere few years ago. Give her some time to sort things out before suggesting that the only way its citizens can live is under a military dictatorship.

    jamesn Wrote: Back to the old style military hard core dictator, as bad as he may be, might be preferable to the alternative.
    And what alternative is that? Giving the people of the country the ability to choose who leads them in free and fair elections?
  • Other Party
    Nebraska
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jared you do not understand some of my post.

    First, you sound like an American who has never been to the middle east. I am an American who has lived in the middle east twice. That alone does not mean that my opinion is any more important than yours, but I think I have an understanding that you do not and cannot have.

    ..."To suggest the Egyptian people need a brutal dictator to keep peace is unfortunate and an incorrect assumption"... I did not suggest what you think. I merely point out that "the alternative might be worse". I mean exactly what I said; that a brutal dictator who can keep the relative peace while doing all the things that brutal dictators do, may be preferable to all out civil war.

    This is a serious question: What's worse: civil war which kills hundreds of thousands, or a dictator who kills a few hundred? I will tell you which I think is worse. It is worse to have a civil war which kills hundreds of thousands, than a dictator who kills a few hundred. I thought that was an easy question. And this is the important point: That may be exactly what Egyptians are facing, all out civil war or life under a brutal dictator. Full blown democracy may not be possible right now.

    There will always be people who say that it's got to be full blown American style democracy, or nothing. Those people do not know what they are talking about. This is THEIR country, not ours. We cannot impose our will, and our style of government on all the countries of the world, as much as some of us want to. ..."free and fair elections"... sounds great, but may not be possible right now.

    We agree that the transition from a military dictatorship into a democracy as not being an easy process. If Sissi can maintain relative calm, even while being a brutal dictator, maybe he will begin to enter into that transition to democracy after a time. Neither you nor I know what he will do in the future. He seemed to be very popular when he started this process, I just hope he is what's best for the country right now. He took over from Morsi who seemingly took a terrible situation and made it much worse. Let's see what happens.

    And finally: Look at Syria and tell me if life is worse there than in Egypt right now. I think we both know the answer.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jamesn Wrote: jared you do not understand some of my post.

    First, you sound like an American who has never been to the middle east. I am an American who has lived in the middle east twice. That alone does not mean that my opinion is any more important than yours, but I think I have an understanding that you do not and cannot have.

    ..."To suggest the Egyptian people need a brutal dictator to keep peace is unfortunate and an incorrect assumption"... I did not suggest what you think. I merely point out that "the alternative might be worse". I mean exactly what I said; that a brutal dictator who can keep the relative peace while doing all the things that brutal dictators do, may be preferable to all out civil war.

    This is a serious question: What's worse: civil war which kills hundreds of thousands, or a dictator who kills a few hundred? I will tell you which I think is worse. It is worse to have a civil war which kills hundreds of thousands, than a dictator who kills a few hundred. I thought that was an easy question. And this is the important point: That may be exactly what Egyptians are facing, all out civil war or life under a brutal dictator. Full blown democracy may not be possible right now.

    There will always be people who say that it's got to be full blown American style democracy, or nothing. Those people do not know what they are talking about. This is THEIR country, not ours. We cannot impose our will, and our style of government on all the countries of the world, as much as some of us want to. ..."free and fair elections"... sounds great, but may not be possible right now.

    We agree that the transition from a military dictatorship into a democracy as not being an easy process. If Sissi can maintain relative calm, even while being a brutal dictator, maybe he will begin to enter into that transition to democracy after a time. Neither you nor I know what he will do in the future. He seemed to be very popular when he started this process, I just hope he is what's best for the country right now. He took over from Morsi who seemingly took a terrible situation and made it much worse. Let's see what happens.

    And finally: Look at Syria and tell me if life is worse there than in Egypt right now. I think we both know the answer.
    Jamesn; yes I fully understand your view and concur that the US often has no clue of how other cultures function or dis-function, neither do they often have no clue on why our own society shows malfunctions.
    It seems to be very easy here to have an typical American point of view which often proves to be wrong because their arrogant objectives.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote:
    It seems to be very easy here to have an typical American point of view which often proves to be wrong because their arrogant objectives.
    You can disagree with me without resorting to calling me arrogant. I have a different world view shaped off of my understanding of world history and democracy in general. To suggest I don't understand what I'm talking about shows that you are sorely lacking when it comes to being able to debate someone else without denigrating them. I would be happy to debate you regarding my world views and explain my views in a sober manner, but I won't have a discussion with someone who calls me or anyone else arrogant because I don't look at the world in the same exact way you do.

    I in no way suggested an Egyptian democracy should be molded after American democracy, nor have I ever said such a thing about any other nation. What I did say is that I disagree with Jamesn's view of what is going on there and I strongly disagree that some nations need a 'tough guy' who slaughters his own people in the name of keeping the peace.
  • Democrat
    Missouri
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Jared, I am also one in the belief that strong leaders who rule with an iron fist, cruelty, and kill the opposition is not how a country should be lead. Just imagine if Democrats and Republicans shot it out in order to kill the opposition to their views. In McConnell's character, that guy I can see having sights on specific people in opposition to his style of politics. I saw the 60's show on TV recently and had an opportunity to watch the coverage on Jack Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He had easy support to commit troops and missiles to Cuba and Russia, but he opted not to rush into that over reaction. Listen to Kennedy's Peace speech, which highlighted how America under his direction remained calm and strong, but not to over react with war. That is strong leadership, not like some of the ruthless dictators and rulers history has recorded.

    Some of the worst of leaders:

    Adolph Hitler.....responsible for over 20 million deaths
    Mao Tse-Tung..................ditto...............................
    Joseph Stalin....................ditto..............................
    Saddam Hussein....responsible for over 1 million deaths
    Kim Il Sung.........................ditto..............................
    Pol Pot................................ditto.............................
    Ho Chi Minh.........................ditto.............................
    Chiang Kai-Shek....................ditto.............................
    Kim Jong il.............................ditto..........................
    Idi Amin.......responsible for over 250,000 deaths
    Augusto Pinochet....responsible for over 100,000 deaths
    Francois Duvalier....responsible for over 30,000 deaths

    These are reports from just the past century of cruel leaders that spend their power to kill off their opposition, rule the people with a fist and place the poor people and cries for their help in prisons or work camps.

    Jared, your right, America or any country does not need a abusive ruler to lead a nation.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Dutch Wrote:
    It seems to be very easy here to have an typical American point of view which often proves to be wrong because their arrogant objectives.
    You can disagree with me without resorting to calling me arrogant. I have a different world view shaped off of my understanding of world history and democracy in general. To suggest I don't understand what I'm talking about shows that you are sorely lacking when it comes to being able to debate someone else without denigrating them. I would be happy to debate you regarding my world views and explain my views in a sober manner, but I won't have a discussion with someone who calls me or anyone else arrogant because I don't look at the world in the same exact way you do.

    I in no way suggested an Egyptian democracy should be molded after American democracy, nor have I ever said such a thing about any other nation. What I did say is that I disagree with Jamesn's view of what is going on there and I strongly disagree that some nations need a 'tough guy' who slaughters his own people in the name of keeping the peace.
    Jared, I said : it is very easy here ( in the US) to have........; I certainly did not mention you; it means our government and its foreign policies which have a tone of arrogance; sorry to say our politicians only think inward not outward. My guess is that you have an open mind; otherwise you would not be on the site.
  • Other Party
    Nebraska
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jared ..."some nations need a 'tough guy' who slaughters his own people in the name of keeping the peace"...

    I say that if democracy is not possible, then it is preferable to have a 'tough guy' who slaughters a few people and jails others, IF THOSE ACTIONS would prevent an all out civil war which could kill hundreds of thousands of people, flatten cities, destroy infastructure, cause millions of people to become refugees and flee their country...

    Because that is what's happening in Syria. And it is MY OPINION that what's happening to the people in Egypt, while not a good situation by any measure, is a far better situation for their people than what the Syrian people are experiencing.

    Sometimes in life there are no good choices, but some choices are better than others.

    Sissi has been president all of 3 days now, let's see what happens.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    AmcmurryFreedom Wrote: Jared, I am also one in the belief that strong leaders who rule with an iron fist, cruelty, and kill the opposition is not how a country should be lead. Just imagine if Democrats and Republicans shot it out in order to kill the opposition to their views. In McConnell's character, that guy I can see having sights on specific people in opposition to his style of politics. I saw the 60's show on TV recently and had an opportunity to watch the coverage on Jack Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He had easy support to commit troops and missiles to Cuba and Russia, but he opted not to rush into that over reaction. Listen to Kennedy's Peace speech, which highlighted how America under his direction remained calm and strong, but not to over react with war. That is strong leadership, not like some of the ruthless dictators and rulers history has recorded.

    Some of the worst of leaders:

    Adolph Hitler.....responsible for over 20 million deaths
    Mao Tse-Tung..................ditto...............................
    Joseph Stalin....................ditto..............................
    Saddam Hussein....responsible for over 1 million deaths
    Kim Il Sung.........................ditto..............................
    Pol Pot................................ditto.............................
    Ho Chi Minh.........................ditto.............................
    Chiang Kai-Shek....................ditto.............................
    Kim Jong il.............................ditto..........................
    Idi Amin.......responsible for over 250,000 deaths
    Augusto Pinochet....responsible for over 100,000 deaths
    Francois Duvalier....responsible for over 30,000 deaths

    These are reports from just the past century of cruel leaders that spend their power to kill off their opposition, rule the people with a fist and place the poor people and cries for their help in prisons or work camps.

    Jared, your right, America or any country does not need a abusive ruler to lead a nation.
    I just wonder you forgot on how many civilians we killed outside of our country since WWII; my point is; is it any of our bussiness to only point fingers; is n't time we look in the mirror first, before judging others.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Sure lets also add the Persians, Romans, Napoleon, Jenhish Khan, the Aztecs, Maya's, and of course Japan in WWII etc. Anyway the only one in your list who did attack us was Germany and Japan. So all the others did actually have no influence on our country other than "news".
    Considering our stupid foreign policy, we keep meddling in any conflict on this globe and come with the exuse "this keeps America safe". Sorry if you believe this total B.S. then you have not read any history books. As soon as we meddle into an internal disputes in sovereign countries then things will mostly backfire because we bet on the wrong horse. What they do with their own people is their bussiness, so stay out of it and make sure this country got its chickens in a row and look on what can be improved here instead of trying to control the whole world according our standards (which are not up to par either)
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    In Oct. of" 62" I, along with other elements of the 82nd Airborne were poised to jump onto Cuba and commence hostile actions, my unit's objective was to jump into cane field and secure a radar site, if the Russian Premier had called Kennedy's Bluff, which it wasn't a bluff, the situation would have vastly had different results then we have to/day, maybe the proliferation of Castro trained and led forces up and down Central America and in some cases South America would not have been active ,if at all. There is a lot of what if's but my point is that the Russian premier did back down because he foresaw the lunacy of engaging the U.S. in a shooting war,So, Kennedy did listen to his Military Advisors to the extent that if the talks failed there was a viable option and that he would exercise that option if need be fortunately that did not occur, he also lost some support of his more hawkish military people.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I am a bit partisan in outlook (ahem) -- but it seems that whenever we have a Republican President, our chances increase drastically in favor of a messy costly or unnecessary war. Take Nixon. (GOP President) -- because of him, we got involved in Viet Nam for at least 12 years, costing at least 58,000 American soldiers lives. Then (gasp) we find out that the whole reason for Viet Nam was a FALSE situation in the Gulf of Tonkin. The whole war was a phoney sham, & thus unnecessary. But that does not bring back all the million$ of dollars wasted, or all the dead soldiers killed for nothing.

    Then, in 2001, (under GOP Geo "W" Bush) we have a "suspicious event" - a New York plane crashed into the WTC bldg, creating a big wave of fear & anger that was used to ratchet up a totally useless War, looking for WMD (in Iraq) that did not exist. This then entailed US fighting in the area of Iraq & Afghanistan, for at least 10 yrs, killing the Iraq leader, + killing 1,000's of US soldiers, -- plus military waste & fraud in the trillion$ of dollars.

    In documentary by Michael Moore, "Capitalism -- a Love Story" --- (quote) "The FBI said we in the US had an epidemic of mortgage fraud during the Bush Admin. Eighty percent of mortgage fraud losses were induced by the lender personnel (ie: the CEO's)!! A bank regulator in the 1980's blew the whistle, and one of the major crooks (Charles H. Keating, Jr) sent out a memo saying "Get ......-- Kill Him Dead." (wanted to kill the whistle blower who told the truth to the FBI & American people). These banker CEO's were acting just like the MAFIA!! or worse.

    When "9/11" hit, Bush sent 500 FBI specialists OUT of the "white collar crime" division, just when we were entering (during the entire Bush Admin) the biggest wave of white collar crime in US history, (in fact, in world history). There were stock market crashes, foreclosures, corruption, bankruptcy, Wall Street tanked, there was global meltdown. But the crooked CEO's forced Congress to pay them enormous Bail-outs of $700 Billion, and later asked for the deployment of trillions of dollars more out of our Treasury & Federal Reserve --- to "stabilize the economy" & to bail them out. (This waste of money is actually a form of "generational theft").

    Due to the idea these places were considered "too big to fail" -- & needed our (taxpayers) bail-out, afterwards there were millions of jobs slashed, after they got the $700 billion.// Companies that stole our money: Goldman Sachs, City Bank, J.P. Morgan, Bank of America, and AIG. [END]

    NOTE: Isn't it interesting, that during that whole time, we were involved in a Major War, making it possible to "lose" billions of dollars in airplanes, missiles, bombs, jeeps, hardware, helicopters, uniforms, etc --- plus have to transport all those men overseas, & keep them furnished with water & food & medicine. NO way to account accurately for that kind of massive endeavor, so how many $billions do you think got squandered away?

    There have been films early on in the IRAQ war, where American soldiers were just driving along in a jeep, throwing out dollars & coins of at least a million dollars of value. They did it often. Such blatant waste & fraud, in an enemy nation, should be considered "ignorant betrayal" if not treason against We the People. But all of this is "just a GAME" to Bush family. It is just their own private "sand box" with little plastic soldiers they can command around & tell them what to do -- and if they get wounded or killed, no big deal --- it's all just puppet theater to people like Bush.