Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit JohnRussell's column >>

JOHNRUSSELL

Articles Posted: 242  Links Seeded: 1388
Member Since: 12/2007  Last Seen: 1/17/2012

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Would You Agree That Americans Basically Don't Care What Happens In Egypt?

Thu Feb 3, 2011 9:22 AM EST
us-news, egypt, xenophobia, foreign-affairs, the-world, isolationism
By JohnRussell
Advertise | AdChoices

I have watched, with varying degrees of interest as time permits, the events in Egypt unfold, and observed that the cable news coverage of these events are as extensive as any international event I can recall that does not directly involve Americans. The three major 24/7 news channels all have dedicated large blocs of their programming to this story.

For all of that, I see a ho hum reaction on the part of everyday Americans. This is not a water cooler topic in offices, nor, in my belief, in households, schools or on the street. It is of interest to the so called 'chattering class', media pundits and wanna be media pundits, news junkies and a smattering of the constantly curious.

Americans , it seems to me, would much rather see the efforts of the news media , and especially politicians, be spent on improving conditions here in the USA. The country has too many problems of great magnitude, most notably ongoing unemployment and underemployment, people forced to work three part time jobs to make ends meet, for example.

But even more than that, the media never seems to understand that Americans don't care much about the rest of the world. If it's sons and daughters were not fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan for the past decade, we wouldn't have cared about those two countries much either.

We don't really care anymore about England, Japan, Russia, etc etc either. Most Americans NEVER travel outside the US, in their lifetime. Most Americans have no great desire to travel outside the US in their lifetime. Their interest is in their families, their jobs, their local sports teams and their hobbies and personal interests. Americans have always been abysmal in understanding geography, and world history.

Is this right, or wrong? Nope. It is just the way it is.

We should give as much consideration as is practical to becoming more isolationist, in improving this country for the benefit of it's people. The US cannot cure the world's problems, and most of us don't even care to try.

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • JohnRussell's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: Citizens Against Apathy, Gut Check America, Headline Discussion, Heated Debate, Historical Vine, ObamaVine, Political Analysis, US News and Views
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (111)
Jump to discussion page: 1 2
JohnRussell

I have looked around Newsvine and really don't see the interest in 'Egypt' here that one sees in, say , the latest pronouncement by some fringe Tea Party person.

  • 10 votes
#1 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 9:28 AM EST
King Dave

I'm very interested in Egypt, and how religion ruins everything. I read a good comment somewhere, about the lack of interest in world affairs, it said "they haven't figured out how to blame one another...yet."

How is this for future use, The Tea Party Brotherhood? /joke.

  • 9 votes
#1.1 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 10:09 AM EST
JohnRussell

I'm very interested in Egypt, and how religion ruins everything.

Believe me, atheism would ruin everything too. A world that was only atheistic would be parts utter chaos, selfishness and apathy.

  • 3 votes
#1.2 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 10:21 AM EST
Marshall James

john

so a country such as ours that would be atheist would be chaos?? apathy????

selfishness is a good thing....havent you ever read up on Objectivism?? it doesnt mean selfish in doing whatever you wanted...that is stupidity...it means making decisions that are best for you in the long run. True selfishness is good.

Religion has caused nothing but torture, murder and misery throughout the history of the world.

it has caused so much harm and has its hand in nearly every atrocity known to man.

Regardless I do agree that people do not care so much.....now the reasons may be interesting and maybe that is what you should of questioned in your article.

  • 5 votes
#1.3 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 10:40 AM EST
JohnRussell

I 'know' the reasons. Self-interest. People's favorite subject is themselves, and very few people have any reason to care about Egypt.

I'm not saying it's right. It is what it is.

  • 1 vote
#1.4 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 10:47 AM EST
JohnRussell

Religion has caused nothing but torture, murder and misery throughout the history of the world.

This is utter nonsense. Yes, those things have happened, and they've also happened in the absence of religion. Human beings are aggressive animals with an inborn self-preservational instinct to dominate. Religion has offered much to the world, most importantly helping to make untold hundreds of millions of people throughout history make sense and order out of their lives. Religious principles are almost entirely loving and altruistic. It is the inevitable corruption of individuals that has blemished religion, not belief in a higher power.

  • 4 votes
#1.5 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 10:53 AM EST
Marshall James

altruism goes against common sense.

and what religion brings is ones belief that their morality is better than anothers.

nearly all wars have religion behind them.

the billions of people killed throughout history over religion might disagree with you that it brings sense and order.

  • 7 votes
#1.6 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 11:12 AM EST
MattInTX

Believe me, atheism would ruin everything too. A world that was only atheistic would be parts utter chaos, selfishness and apathy.

You seriously believe this? What's better: someone who is good because he's afraid of going to hell or someone who's good just because?

Religious principles are almost entirely loving and altruistic

Perhaps to people who believe exactly as you do.

  • 3 votes
#1.7 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 11:20 AM EST
JohnRussell

Why do you think people would know what 'good' is, without religion? The idea that people would be good 'because' is perplexing. I find it much more likely 'because' would lead to pure survival of the fittest.

  • 2 votes
#1.8 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 11:28 AM EST
Marshall James

I find it quite troubling that you think people would only know of good and natural law with religion.

Its quite simple. If you are famaliar with Judge Napolitano I would recommend reading his book

A Nation of Sheep

he is religous but would explain to you.

its quite perplexing that you actually think that humans would be evil without religion.

sad really....as I know many atheists and they lead very fruitful lives....and probably in all reality live their lives "less evil" than my religous friends.

just an observation with my friends of course.

peace.

  • 1 vote
#1.9 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 11:44 AM EST
JohnRussell

I didn't say they would be 'evil', they would be without moral direction though. Without reflection on man's relation to the rest of creation, on his place in a 'large' scheme of things, which is what DIRECTLY led to the creation of religious inquiry, why do you think man would be moral? Morals derive from religion.

  • 1 vote
#1.10 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 11:54 AM EST
J. W. Welch

If we need religion to know what "good" is then it would follow we need it to know what "bad" is. The trouble is that one religion's "good" may not hold for another. The same for bad.

By saying we need religion to determine the good from the bad it would also follow that such distinctions must not have existed before religion.

In certain circumstances some religious types may think it "good" to kill in order to stop what they perceive to be a greater evil committed by another. Similarly one religion might deem it "good" to kill another who is presumed to have insulted their religion in some way. Are these examples of good or bad behavior? Are good and bad absolute? Or do they share gray areas?

It appears we may be hardwired to have a predisposition to belief in a deity as well as to make distinctions between what is harmful "bad" and what is beneficial "good". Religion and civil institutions may merely serve to codify what is good and bad behavior among their other functions.

Sorry to be off topic a bit so I'll add:

In the real world we need Egypt or any other country to the extent of what they can do for us. That's called realpolitik. I don't mean any harm to ordinary Egyptians but they can fix their own problems while we have more than enough of our own to take care of.

  • 1 vote
#1.11 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 12:01 PM EST
trm2008

A world that was only atheistic would be parts utter chaos, selfishness and apathy.

I consider that to be utter nonsense.

  • 7 votes
#1.12 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 12:15 PM EST
JohnRussell

Atheists would by inclination believe that 'moral' behavior is biologically dictated, as is in their view, all human emotion and behavior. I have had atheists tell me that 'love' is nothing but a chemical reaction in the brain.

That is not morality. I find the idea that human beings would be naturally moral to be silly. Sure they would band in tribes for self protection and so forth, but when the time came to take the only watering hole from the other tribe , they would do so without blinking. The TRUE religious perspective, which is selflessness ( as taught by almost every religious icon from Jesus to Buddha) would not look at it that way.

  • 1 vote
#1.13 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 12:24 PM EST
Nofluer

Isolationism didn't keep the Japanese bombers away from Pearl Harbor, and it won't keep the Muslim extremists away from America.

  • 7 votes
#1.14 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 12:32 PM EST
CL1

" The TRUE religious perspective, which is selflessness ... would not look at it that way." ---I agree, and this is something I have also stated (in the past).

  • 1 vote
#1.15 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 12:38 PM EST
Physicist-retired

I find the idea that human beings would be naturally moral to be silly.

Scientific research shows otherwise:

Morality: Infant origins of human kindness

The behaviour of babies shows that we've got kindness built in, says Paul Bloom

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827821.900-morality-infant-origins-of-human-kindness.html

  • 3 votes
#1.16 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 12:39 PM EST
CL1

Physicist, I agree, imo, that animals (and people) display compassion as innate. ..However, I don't believe that morality or compassion is innate in everyone. I don't think a morality 'gene' has been discovered, yet, there appears to be predisposition. Likewise, immoral and amoral behavior appears to have predisposition. Basicly, I don't think we can say that all animals or humans are one way or the other. ..It just depends.. I'll read your link.

  • 3 votes
#1.17 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 12:57 PM EST
trm2008

You're welcome to your opinion John, but the majority of christians I've met aren't any more moral or unselfish than the atheists I know. They don't exhibit any higher level of apathy either. To be frank, the position sounds a lot like "holier than thou". It just doesn't wash.

  • 8 votes
#1.18 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 1:13 PM EST
Physicist-retired

CL1,

If you link that link, I can supply many more. This area of research is exploding.

  • 2 votes
#1.19 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 1:14 PM EST
JohnRussell

You linked to a pay for view article.

And I would suggest that infants are neither moral or immoral, as we don't know how they conceptualize the rest of the world. And we will never know.

    #1.20 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 1:17 PM EST
    Physicist-retired

    I have a subscription, and provided the link after signing in.

    You can't read it that way? Try opening it in a new tab.

    If not, I'll provide some critical sections. Please let me know.

    • 1 vote
    #1.21 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 1:20 PM EST
    madvargr

    A world that was only atheistic would be parts utter chaos, selfishness and apathy.

    As opposed to Ayn Rand's libertarianism?

    LOL

    • 2 votes
    #1.22 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 1:20 PM EST
    rimbauda

    Who cares enough for the people of Egypt to pray for them? Do you find it hard to pray, with any enthusiasm, for those who are not close to you?

      #1.23 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 1:26 PM EST
      Physicist-retired

      From New Scientist October 2010 by Paul Bloom :

      In my own research, I have been studying the development of our capacity to judge the behaviour of others as right or wrong...

      I created a set of short plays for babies using puppets. In one, a character would struggle to get up a hill. One puppet would help him; another would push him down. We then presented each baby with the two puppets. Even those as young as 6 months old tended to reach for the "good guy", suggesting that this is who they prefer.

      We also created plays in which one puppet does neither good nor bad, and we found that babies reach for a good guy over a neutral guy, but would rather reach for a neutral than a bad guy. This suggests babies are both drawn towards the good guy and away from the bad (Nature, vol 450, p 557).

      More recently, we explored the judgements of 3-month-olds. Although babies that young cannot coordinate their actions well enough to reach for something, we knew from the previous study that babies first tend to look to where they're going to reach. As predicted, they looked at the good guy, and not at the bad guy, suggesting that they, too, favour this character (Developmental Science, DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.00951.x).

      Are these true moral judgements? It's an open question. One might ask, for instance, whether babies are motivated to reward the good character and punish the bad - this is the focus of ongoing work. At minimum, though, we can conclude that babies are sensitive to third-party interactions of a positive and negative nature, and that this influences how they behave. They have, then, the foundations of morality.

      http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827821.900-morality-infant-origins-of-human-kindness.html

      • 2 votes
      #1.24 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 1:43 PM EST
      Kshark

      King Dave--

      Ah yes religion, an abstract that is not even a living, breathing thing ruins everything. Oh yes. And yes the Communist countries where religion is not acceptable really have the most perfect way of life. LOL. Sheesh.

      I'd actually go with the more logical, reasonable and accurate premise that Humans ruin everything.

      --------------------------------------------------------

      As for what ya wrote John, while I am not glued to my tv and not showing a massive emotional investment in what is happening in Egypt I do know it is a very serious time of chaos that will affect things here and elsewhere. I understand the grievance of the people, though I hate the Muslim Brotherhood. This is important in what is happening, but a lot of the times people in any country are not really going to focus so heavily on what is happening not within their country.

        #1.25 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 1:54 PM EST
        BizEBea

        OK, you are all off topic and I don't want to post at the end, so here it goes:

        I am captivated by the events in Cairo. I have been following for several days, albeit not the entire protest. With, at best, a mediocre knowledge of the events that have led up to this protest, I think it would be irresponsible for me to publicly declare my opinions. One would think that other people are taking the time to allow this information to absorb prior to vocalizing opinion as well. Also, we have to leave the room for the citizens of Egypt to determine their own fate. I know I don't want to be viewed as meddlesome. With that said, I will tell you that I am most certainly interested, concerned and watching for how Egypt, the nation, will play this one out.

        To those who support a more introverted effort here in the states, I think you have a very valid point. However, withdrawing all support around the world suddenly and focusing solely on domestic issues would cause a ripple effect that would have consequences for us. Which difficulty is easier to deal with? If this is a path that we as a nation decide to take, it must be implemented slowly over the course of several years with prior warning and planning for foreign governments. We spend billions upon billions in foreign aid annually.

        • 3 votes
        #1.26 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 1:56 PM EST
        JohnRussell

        I created a set of short plays for babies using puppets. In one, a character would struggle to get up a hill. One puppet would help him; another would push him down. We then presented each baby with the two puppets. Even those as young as 6 months old tended to reach for the "good guy", suggesting that this is who they prefer.

        On the face of it, this doesn't sound like 'science' to me. First of all, an assumption is made that the baby 'knows' one of the puppets is being 'helped'. Someone could just as easily need help getting down a hill as getting up. But I will try and read the article.

        • 2 votes
        #1.27 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 1:59 PM EST
        Nick46

        I am very interested in Egypt. Any unrest in the world affects the US. This just goes to show that people have a breaking point. Unfortunately we are headed in that direction.

        • 1 vote
        #1.28 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 2:06 PM EST
        JohnRussell

        If this is a path that we as a nation decide to take, it must be implemented slowly over the course of several years with prior warning and planning for foreign governments. We spend billions upon billions in foreign aid annually.

        This is a very valid point. It would take many years. It would also take that long to force American business to confine their interests within our borders.

        • 1 vote
        #1.29 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 2:09 PM EST
        BizEBea

        Private free trade and federal domestic responsibilities, imo will always be viewed as two very separate issues. Those who are in the business of money and not of governing will never sign off on cutting 80% of their market share. It just won't happen.

        • 2 votes
        #1.30 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 2:14 PM EST
        JohnRussell

        That's why I said force.

          #1.31 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 2:31 PM EST
          Use Your Mind

          There may have been a time and a place where religion was needed to keep people in check morally but that time has passed, with the exception of the south. If religion were gone they would indeed resort to chaos. The missing element is education.

          • 2 votes
          #1.32 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 2:33 PM EST
          boomer 54

          JohnRussell,

          You believe in God. I find it very strange that you believe people are not inherently moral. I though according to believers man was made in God's image.

          Now on topic: Everyone I talk to is very interested in Egypt. Stability in that region of the world is important to us all. We all love freedom fighters--seems to be getting really ugly, though.

          • 2 votes
          #1.33 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 3:26 PM EST
          King Dave

          JohnRussel. Did you see the guy riding the camel, dressed as his idol Muhammad, swinging a sword, galloping into an angry mob? One big difference, Muhammad's beast could fly. Only the religious could gather in one place and stand perfectly still for fellow religious marauders to confront them. The mob apparently beat the camel to death. Dopes.

          Given one choice, would you rather your neighbor be an atheist or a Wahhabi Muslim?

          • 2 votes
          #1.34 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 4:44 PM EST
          JohnRussell

          I am worried about someone who brings their dislike of religion into every topic. You may need therapy.

          • 1 vote
          #1.35 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 5:16 PM EST
          King Dave

          You may need therapy

          What do you mean? I'm getting it already from Glenn Beck.

          And besides, if it wasn't for me bringing up the very popular subject of religion on Newsvine, you would have been stuck on 2 votes and 8 comments. And one of the votes was mine!!! So you're welcome.

          • 3 votes
          #1.36 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 7:41 PM EST
          CL1

          Physicist, thank you for the offer of additional links, however, I'm skeptical, and won't find the time for a lot of linked studies.

          I tend to agree with JR on the 'morality' of infants issue.

          Another Viner not long ago sent me to a Yale or Harvard infant morality study. I found several areas to criticize. This particular study was focusing on color, size and shape of objects and associating the infant's choices with positive and negative. I couldn't believe the Viner didn't see all of the built-in 'forced' prejudices, i.e... a bright color over a dark color, some shapes naturally stand out over others, being left or right-handed causing a 'natural' selection to that particular object, and more.

          I don't agree that morality and compassion are the same thing (if this is part of the current thinking). Compassion is an act of kindness, imo, and nothing more. In other words, I feel no obligation or moral conscience to do so. However, 'morals' are directly related to what a society deems as right or wrong conduct directly related to 'harm.' ..It might be possible to conclude an act of kindness from an infant, especially if the infant senses crying or unhappiness, but to conclude that an infant senses societal behavior and right vs. wrong conduct ... I can't go along with that. ...just my opinions.

          • 1 vote
          #1.37 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 11:59 AM EST
          Physicist-retired

          CL1,

          First, I appreciate you taking the time to look over the article. I often wonder how many people actually look at links - thanks.

          I guess it would help to agree on a definition of morality in this discussion. You've provided this one:

          'morals' are directly related to what a society deems as right or wrong conduct directly related to 'harm.'

          Does that work as a basis for further discussion?

            #1.38 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 12:04 PM EST
            CL1

            Physicist-retired, I was only able to read the preface in the link. It required a subscription to read the full article. ..When it comes to links, sometimes I read them, and sometimes I don't. For me, it depends on a lot of variables.

            Lol... After many discussions about 'morality' on the Vine, it appears it's impossible for everyone to agree on what is truly moral behavior (other than Laws).

            Were you wanting to put this into the context of the Egyptian people and the treatment they receive from their leadership?

              #1.39 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 12:47 PM EST
              Physicist-retired

              CL1,

              The gist of the link that you couldn't access was posted in comment #1.24 above. I thought it was fascinating.

              I see a lot of this stuff because my daughter is a forensic psychologist. She provides me with more info than I can read on topics like this.

              Were you wanting to put this into the context of the Egyptian people and the treatment they receive from their leadership?

              Since this is a thread about Egypt, that would be appropriate. But I think it was derailed into a discussion on religion, atheism, and morality rather quickly. So we can go either way.

                #1.40 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 12:59 PM EST
                CL1

                " it was derailed into.... rather quickly." ...Lol, now I'm comfortable admitting that I was confused about what the topic of discussion was supposed to be. :)

                  #1.41 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 2:00 PM EST
                  Reply
                  Wizeguy

                  Let then implode and go back the time of Pharohs for all I care. But if they try to close the Suez Canal send in the U.N. Troops.

                  If they wish we can stop subsidizing them and leave them unprotected. maybe they can set up a nice Islamic regime..want to see how all those women screaming at the cameras like that!!!

                  • 3 votes
                  Reply#2 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 9:39 AM EST
                  indemrependent

                  If you can't see why Americans would rather not talk about Egypt...Then you are missing the point. Ignorance is bliss!

                  On a side note, I'm sure our military will be there soon enough.

                  • 2 votes
                  Reply#3 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 10:09 AM EST
                  Vlad's dog

                  I think many are so wrapped up in their daily lives that they try not to add any more worries on top of the ones they have. Of course there is also the fact that many don't care about anything that goes on outside of their houses.

                  There are many who do care on events across the globe, we just have to look harder to find them.

                  • 5 votes
                  Reply#4 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 10:18 AM EST
                  JohnRussell

                  I think most Americans, rightly or wrongly, perceive that , even with all it's faults, they live in the best country on earth. If that is the case, what do these other places truly have to offer that should require a lot of their time or attention?

                  • 2 votes
                  #4.1 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 10:22 AM EST
                  Vlad's dog

                  I am a firm believer that you don't stop learning till you are dead. I just wonder why some people just don't feel the need to learn anything new after a certain time. My life is very rich and interesting because I still continue to learn. How can we spread that lesson, I just don't know.

                  • 5 votes
                  #4.2 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 10:33 AM EST
                  Mike-584822

                  Egypt doesn't even have the Superbowl. That is more important than a little riot and a regime change going on in the Middle East. Actually there have been several governments over there that have changed in the past few weeks. The other countries may be a bit concerned about current events even if we aren't.

                    #4.3 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 11:43 AM EST
                    retired military ex republican.

                    I care but also realize there is little or nothing we can do. Obama is handling it well. Yes I am for the people but if we try to apply pressure politically or monetarily in the revolution at hand we will be seen as intruding into things we have no right to take part in. Will this impact us? It already is gas went up 23 cents a gallon today.

                    • 2 votes
                    #4.4 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 5:32 PM EST
                    Reply
                    etva

                    I think there is a large portion of Americans who tend to avoid or attack, that which they fear or don't understand. In this case, most people I've spoken with think Egypt is too far away to require their attention, though they have concerns about what they are seeing. I'd call it blissful ignorance.

                    Personally, I do care what happens, and I think the current situation in Egypt will have a major impact in the future, regardless of the outcome.

                    • 6 votes
                    Reply#5 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 10:37 AM EST
                    Physicist-retired

                    etva,

                    I agree with everything you say.

                    I'd also add this: 60% of Americans don't own a passport. This is unusual for a wealthy country. I've lived abroad, and found that most people in wealthy countries not only travel extensively, but also speak several languages.

                    How many Americans do that?

                    We seem to think that events outside our borders don't affect us very much. It simply isn't true. What happens in Iran or Greece can have a huge impact on us.

                    Personally, I've been glued to Al Jazeera's live stream from Cairo for 3 days now. I'm listening to it as I type this.

                    • 3 votes
                    #5.1 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 12:29 PM EST
                    JohnRussell

                    I'd also add this: 60% of Americans don't own a passport.

                    In the course of looking a couple things up for this article, I saw a travel website that said that , as of Oct 2009 ( the date of the article) 80% of Americans did not own passports. Don't know how accurate that is.

                    And some of the people who have passports were once immigrants to this country.

                    • 2 votes
                    #5.2 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 12:45 PM EST
                    Physicist-retired

                    This is the latest data I can find, which shows that 63% of Americans didn't have passports in January 2011 (slightly higher than the number I used above):

                    The number of Americans who have a passport, according to the most recent statistics issued by the State Department in January of 2011, is 114,464,041.

                    Given the country’s population of 307,006,550, about 37% of the population has one. This means that nearly 2 out of 3 Americans can’t even fly to Canada, let alone travel to anywhere else in the world...

                    http://www.theexpeditioner.com/2010/02/17/how-many-americans-have-a-passport-2/

                    • 2 votes
                    #5.3 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 12:53 PM EST
                    etva

                    60% of Americans don't own a passport. This is unusual for a wealthy country.

                    I've often wondered about that. Even those that do travel rarely seem to expand their perceptions beyond the one-dimensional world view typically shared by most Americans.

                    This issue needs it's own article, but to be honest, I think it's because our size/location and lifestyle create a breeding ground for ignorance, which is assisted and sometimes promoted by our media. I think, it's led to a superficial view of the world, not to mention a national feeling of superiority (as opposed to national pride.) And unfortunately, these two traits are often obvious to people from other countries, who've had more direct experiences with the rest of the world.

                    • 2 votes
                    #5.4 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 1:09 PM EST
                    trm2008

                    80% of Americans probably can't afford to travel that far.

                    I think, it's led to a superficial view of the world, not to mention a national feeling of superiority

                    Egocentricity/Sociocentricity

                    • 2 votes
                    #5.5 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 1:15 PM EST
                    retired military ex republican.

                    trm 2008 how true. I have traveled mostly in the military but in the past often to Mexico and Canada. Americans in general live and think with blinders on. They don't understand or care about the trials and tribulations of foreign workers. Here the rich tend to see the middle class as inferior to them. Some even act like we are surfs who have no rights or worth. Unfortunately this is learned behavior implanted by in most cases by their parents. Even churches tend to teach the same type of worth for people different than themselves racially and religiously. Jesus who is portrayed as white he was not. Cleopatra was not white. Gee maybe our text books should be corrected.

                    I would guess all depends on how white do you have to be? To be white enough for the Right wing.

                    • 1 vote
                    #5.6 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 5:45 PM EST
                    Reply
                    Andrew-1162039

                    But even more than that, the media never seems to understand that Americans don't care much about the rest of the world.

                    The news media should have a greater purpose than to simply entertain, so I'm glad they chronicle important world events rather than just reporting what gets the most ratings. We already have TMZ, we don't need CNN to reduce themselves to that level.

                    I think for the most part people have shown interest in this story in comparison to most other international news. Think about how much less news the Honduran coup of Zelaya got last year. Because of its history, culture, and place in world politics a lot of Americans find Egypt quite intriguing.

                    • 1 vote
                    Reply#6 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 10:59 AM EST
                    JohnRussell

                    Perhaps there is marginally more interest in Egypt, but it is confined to the small group of people who have always been interested in overseas affairs. I have seen nothing online or in real life to indicate the average American cares at all about this.

                    • 2 votes
                    #6.1 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 11:03 AM EST
                    MYOB-1251250

                    What difference does it make if the "average American cares" or not? The "average American" has no control or influence over what happens in Egypt.

                    • 4 votes
                    #6.2 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 11:30 AM EST
                    retired military ex republican.

                    Egypt was a major center for the Arts and Sciences and Mathematics, Astronomy and inter country trading. To ignore a country so important in our past with our lack of compassion and interest in their history we could fall into the same fate in the future. And what will we be known for out huge military might. Oppression of those less fortunate than ourselves. A Tangled web we weave and we leave a mark on many we touch scorched by our demand for riches for ourselves at extreme costs to those we deal with. The hatred for one of our own who has become President shows the rest of the world the rich see themselves as a master race like Germany.

                    • 1 vote
                    #6.3 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 6:01 PM EST
                    Reply
                    kazutam

                    We should give as much consideration as is practical to becoming more isolationist, in improving this country for the benefit of it's people. The US cannot cure the world's problems, and most of us don't even care to try.

                    Well said John.

                    It's pretty hard to be an example for the world, when you are too worried about what is going on with the rest of the world to pay attention to what is happening in your own country.

                    • 1 vote
                    Reply#7 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 11:23 AM EST
                    Megidolaon

                    While I'm a newshound and tend to associate with other people who are, I can say that I'm very concerned over Egypt and have been following everything very closely, as have my friends. However, I have the feeling that my friends and I are, overall, in the minority. Granted, I'm unemployed/disabled, so I have nothing else to do all day except keep up with the news, but the general apathy and lack of interest I've seen from other people (not just Americans) is pretty disheartening. The old, "It doesn't directly affect me right now, so it's not important" element.

                    We're watching history unfold here. This will be remembered for hundreds of years. How often do you get to be witness to such events? This doesn't just affect Egyptians or the Middle East. It'll have worldwide implications. How can you just not care?

                    • 2 votes
                    Reply#8 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 11:34 AM EST
                    SeattleBobb

                    Egypt is very important. So is Yemen and Tunisia. The reason being that they are all a double edged sword. One hand you have an uprising of people that want to heard and want to get away from dictator style governments. That is a good thing. But on the other hand, what you will have is the potential overthrow of dictators which will open the door for increased religious control. All "democracies" are not created equal. A so called democratic government that has elections, but all those running are only associated with one religion that dominates the government is not really a free democracy like most people think. The form of democracy that might develop in Egypt will be an election between strict Islam leader A or strict Islam leader B. If all leadership options follow the same Sharia law principles it isn't really a free democracy.

                    When you have Imam's like Anjem Choudary in Britian and the Muslin Brotherhood in the region saying things like all countries, including the USA will be under Sharia rule one day, its proves that they do not want free democracy, they only want to give people the choice between leader A and leader B who are basically from the same party/religion. It would be like voting for a President between only democrat or only republican candidates. The young people there are willing to protest and revolt against a dictator, but it's all different story when it comes to religion. If the Muslim brotherhood gets control of Eygpt, they will put in place strict Sharia law and any protesters will be met first with religious guilt for questioning Sharia law and if they keep protesting they will just be killed. Just watch and see.

                    • 4 votes
                    Reply#9 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 11:42 AM EST
                    ms-984397

                    Thats it in a nutshell.

                      #9.1 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 12:00 PM EST
                      Reply
                      tesla013

                      I would agree that some do not, and some do. Those numbers will fought over by either side of the political aisle. But given all that we already involved in over seas I think many are hoping that with dwindling news coverage they can just ignore it until gas is 6 dollars a gallon and they want to know why.

                      • 1 vote
                      Reply#10 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 11:59 AM EST
                      Village Idiot-2299796

                      Not Interested? Not Interested? Now Why Would You Say That?

                      Perhaps you want that people NOT be interested. Not some people anyway. Fact is, there is plenty of interest in Egypt.

                      After Mubarak’s speech, Obama held a press conference where he backed his ally’s plan to cling to office until September. He spoke of the our longstanding “partnership” with Egypt and of the need for an immediate and orderly “transition” to democratic reform. Translation?

                      Keep Mubarak in office as long as possible! The intent is to buy time for Washington and the Egyptian military to disorient, disperse and repress the mass opposition to the regime, while creating a puppet regime to support aristocratic rule and maintain the strategic and economic interests of US imperialism in the region. This inevitably means relying on the military to suppress popular opposition.

                      Even as tens of thousands occupied Tahrir Square in the past 2 days, Obama refused to back popular demand for Mubarak resignation. Mubarak, the military and their US advisors have huddled in intense strategy sessions to formulate a political response to the outpouring of opposition that will ensure the survival of the regime.

                      These efforts attest that America’s ruling class is very much interested in Egypt. But those same people and their sycophants recommend total disinterest by others so as not to disrupt their class interests in Egypt, and (above all) to ensure that we don’t emulate the Egyptians.

                        Reply#11 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 12:09 PM EST
                        TheyreAllCrooks

                        I think Americans (presidents and administrations) have cared about Egypt too much for too long.

                        The US for 30 years has propped up the murderous dictator Mubarak and sat idly by as he brutalized his people. We've bankrolled him to the tune of some 30 billion in an effort to purchase so-called peace with Israel.

                        We gave planeloads of money to this demon in instances where we wouldn't even help our own people - and now his wife has fled Egypt in a plane loaded with yours and my money.

                        We are now being paid back. How do you like your return on the investment?

                        Mubarak saw gold at the end of the rainbow and made fools of every US president over the last 30 years. Making peace with Israel was a small price to pay and in return every US administration over the last 3 decades has held their nose as he robbed, pillaged, murdered, raped, falsely imprisoned and tortured thousands of Egyptians - with the full blessing of the US of A.

                        Yes, we Americans have a despicable history of soap boxing about freedom, democracy and liberty while simultaneously financing some of the most evil and treacherous humans that have ever inhabited earth - and Mubarak is certainly one of them!

                        Egypt is a classic case study of how NOT to spend foreign aid dollars.

                        We're now concerned that "evil doers", terrorists, and The Muslim Brotherhood may come to the fore in Egypt? I don't know why that is - evil doers have been in control of Egypt for 30 years and you and I paid for all their fun and games while the Egyptian people were on their way to abject poverty.

                        40% of their population is in poverty in large part because US administrations sat by in silence so they could pacify Israel.

                        At least we know Mubarak didn't give all of his US arms to terrorists...they're being used against his people on live TV for the entire world to see!

                        It's now time to pay the piper.

                        • 3 votes
                        Reply#12 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 12:11 PM EST
                        Village Idiot-2299796

                        Yeppers!

                        Get and stay out of Tunisia, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

                        Occupation isn't freedom.

                        • 2 votes
                        #12.1 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 12:25 PM EST
                        CL1

                        TAC ---would you mind elaborating on, "sat by in silence so they could pacify Israel." ... Just wanting additional understanding. Thank you, sir. :)

                        • 3 votes
                        #12.2 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 12:31 PM EST
                        TheyreAllCrooks


                        TAC ---would you mind elaborating on, "sat by in silence so they could pacify Israel." ... Just wanting additional understanding. Thank you, sir. :)

                        After the assasination of Anwar Sadat, Mubarak seized the opening. He promised 30 years ago that he would not run for re-election - but here we are today - that he was a caretaker until a leader could be chosen.

                        The US and Mubarak at some point early on entered into a cozy little winky winky relationship - meaning the US would give Mubarak whatever he wanted - greenbacks, tanks, planes, tear gas (we're seeing lot of our tear gas at use on live TV) more greenbacks, etc in exchange for his pledge to make faux peace with Israel.

                        The Israeli's got the peace accord they wanted from Egypt, the US presidents got to stand on the White House lawn smiling from ear to ear and holding hands with the "peace loving" Mubarak and Israeli leaders - and the Egyptian people got, well, they got f****d - and the US turned its head the other way, so long as that piece of peace paper with Israel wasn't violated.

                        Egypt has long been regarded as the most important Arab nation and Egypt making peace with Israel was the calling card every US president had sought to achieve.

                        This is an open and shut case of US blood money bolstering one of the most heinous dictators on earth.

                        No American president held his feet to the fire on human rights because he held the Israeli card - and I would be willing to bet he probably told every US president over the last 30 years - "you don't give me more greenbacks, I'm tearing that peace agreement to shreds".

                        40% of the Egyptian population is in dire poverty - while the ruling class, propped up by the US, has pissed on their heads for 30 years - all in the name of peace with Israel.

                        And your tax dollars funded the masacre.

                        • 2 votes
                        #12.3 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 12:52 PM EST
                        jazzman646

                        

                        TheyreAllCrooks

                        You're very naive if you think democracy is suddenly going to break out in Egypt if Mubarak leaves. More than likely we will get a govt more hostile to the US.

                        Obama is making the same mistake now Jimmy Carter made with Iran in the 70's. Carter backed the mob in the street and we all know what the result of that was. Today in Iran we have more repressive and totalitarian regime in Iran under the "mullahs" than there ever was under the Shah.

                        Supporting democracy is great, but the reality is its foreign to the culture and Islamic belief of most of the middle east. Turkey may be the one exception. This situation in Egypt is not white or black, its very grey.

                        Obama like Carter in the 70's is acting stupidly.

                        • 3 votes
                        #12.4 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 1:24 PM EST
                        TheyreAllCrooks

                        jazzman

                        I never said democracy would come to Egypt, and I uspect it won't - but the US has no right to claim the moral high ground here.

                        Mubarak was and still is a creation of US foreign policy.

                        He promised 30 years ago that he wouldn't run for re-election after Anwar Sadat was assassinated and every US president since then has given him a get out of jail free card and billions of US tax dollars - all in the name of keeping peace with Israel.

                        Actually, he kept his promise, because every election held in Egypt was rigged and paid for by the US - so never really ran for re-election.

                        If you're going to assign presidential blame to Democrats Obama and Carter...then blame every Republican US president too because over the last 30 years - they were all complicit in what we are seeing on TV today.

                        I hope the people find a way to end this before the lid blows off...but I doubt that will happen.

                        It's a good thing Mubarak didn't allow his citizens to have guns...they'd be in the midst of an all out war right now!

                        But then again, no guns meant he got to screw them over for 30 years - bought and paid for with yours and my tax dollars!

                        • 2 votes
                        #12.5 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 1:36 PM EST
                        TheyreAllCrooks


                        Obama like Carter in the 70's is acting stupidly.

                        Would you elaborate please.

                        What exactly should President Obama do that he hasn't done? OR are you just dumping on Democrats Carter and Obama?

                        Every US president over the last 30 years propped up this vicious dictator - so blaming Democrats in this instance is a rather weak position IMO.

                        Why do you not assign any blame to Republican presidents?

                          #12.6 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 1:51 PM EST
                          CL1

                          TAC -- Excellent job in explaining your position. I knew Egypt was important, but didn't know how much involvement our Nation has had in influencing Mubarak's control politically and economically. You very aptly filled in the blanks, and I think your assessment makes perfect sense. Mubarak is in the position to tell the US to jump and how high (btw, "cozy little winky winky" ...lol, perfect).

                          Thanks for pointing out how they are using our military equipment.

                          I remember someone on the Vine once explaining we give money to Egypt and other countries to create economic movement, i.e. we give them money to make goods and then we in turn buy them; that may be true, yet I wonder if that is somewhat of a pretense, and that the dollars being given to other Nations are actually for political favors (is that what is meant by "doing our bidding"?).

                          I hope JR doesn't mind my pursuing a better understanding of how Israel has so much control in the US. Who, specifically, in our leadership or otherwise, is being pacified by protecting Israel? ..And, how does protecting Israel benefit the US. It would seem the incentive would have to be much larger than just having them as an Ally, yes? ...If you don't want to pursue this, that's Ok, TAC. As far as ontopic - it just might be, considering the impact Egypt has on Israel.

                          Thank for your reply. It was perfect. :)

                          • 2 votes
                          #12.7 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 2:05 PM EST
                          jazzman646

                          Obama and others should not be making statements in support of or against Mubarak.

                          We should say we support democracy and the decision of the Egyptian people about who runs their govt, and then shut the hell up.

                          As for what we've done over the last 30 years with Egypt, we've paid dollars and given Egypt other incentives to maintain peace there, and not with the goal of keeping Mubarak in power.

                          As I pointed out, war and turmoil in the middle east could mean ecomonmic kaos here in the US.

                          Also, US Egyptian policy of today was in place during the eight years of the Bill Clinton administration. So Im not just "dumping" on Democrats.

                          Was Clinton trying to keep Mubarak in power?

                          No, he knew the impact, like every other President between Carter and Obama, that war in the middle east, would have on the US, and knew it was critical to maintain a moderate Arab nation on Israel's border.

                          • 1 vote
                          #12.8 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 2:16 PM EST
                          CL1

                          I also think Jazzman's points are very significant, especially in pointing out how vulnerable Egypt would be to Islamic pressures if Mubarak leaves. In thinking this through a little more, we're definitely being held 'hostage' by Mubarak, which is wrong - but that might be better than having Hamas or some of the other insurgents (Hobollah ?) dominating Egypt. This is really a 'rock and a hard place' issue, isn't it?!

                          • 1 vote
                          #12.9 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 2:17 PM EST
                          TheyreAllCrooks


                          Was Clinton trying to keep Mubarak in power? No, he knew the impact, like every other President between Carter and Obama, that war in the middle east, would have on the US, and knew it was critical to maintain a moderate Arab nation on Israel's border.

                          I agree with you in part, but at the end of the day the answer is still yes - Clinton and every president of the last 30 years wanted Mubarak in power - because they saw no other alternative to him. If not Mubarak then who? Every US president has had to ask himself that question - and since they never could identify who else, they steadily propped him up.

                          The underlying problem is that none of our presidents Republican or Democrat did enough to push him toward political, social or economic reform - most probably because Mubarak held the Israeli card and I'm sure he played it whenever he was called on the carpet by a US president.

                          He knew once he agreed to keep peace with Israel - he could do whatever the hell he wanted too inside his borders and the US would give him planeloads of money and look the other way - and so he did, and the planeloads kept coming.

                          He litteraly pillaged his people and the US kept sending him billions - through both Democratic AND Republican admninistration.

                          • 1 vote
                          #12.10 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 2:30 PM EST
                          JohnRussell

                          To my understanding of history, the nation of Israel was created to give the Jewish people of the world a 'safe haven' in light of centuries of prejudice against them and mistreatment of them, particularly in Europe. By creating the nation of Israel, Europe, and by extension the US, were both 'making up' for past injustice and ridding themselves of the need to reinstate the remaining Jews of Europe into post war European configurations.

                          I believe Israel is 'protected' by the US government for those same reasons, plus as the balance their military threat has provided to overt militant Muslim expansionism in the region.

                          • 2 votes
                          #12.11 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 2:45 PM EST
                          TheyreAllCrooks


                          I believe Israel is 'protected' by the US government for those same reasons, plus as the balance their military threat has provided to overt militant Muslim expansionism in the region.

                          You're very correct on all points. That is why Israel is #1 on the US aid list and why Egypt is #2.

                          The US has never made it a secret that the "Peace" between Israel and Egypt is largely based on money to Egypt.

                          If the US was not giving billions to Egypt there never would've been any peace.

                            #12.12 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 3:23 PM EST
                            TheyreAllCrooks


                            In thinking this through a little more, we're definitely being held 'hostage' by Mubarak, which is wrong - but that might be better than having Hamas or some of the other insurgents (Hobollah ?) dominating Egypt. This is really a 'rock and a hard place' issue, isn't it?!

                            That's been my point all along. The US bet all its chips on Mubarak and did whatever it could to keep him in power because he agreed to peace in exchange for money and military aid.

                            The human rights violatiions thatt he's committed overt the last 3 decades went mostly overlooked by the US because they didn't want to lose him.

                            US Money bought peace and US money also paid for human rights atrocities that he committed.

                            Sadly that is a fact and now we've reached the tipping point.

                              #12.13 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 3:37 PM EST
                              JohnRussell

                              The US has never made it a secret that the "Peace" between Israel and Egypt is largely based on money to Egypt.

                              If the US was not giving billions to Egypt there never would've been any peace.

                              Maybe, but Egypt also grew tired of having their ass kicked by Israel.

                              • 1 vote
                              #12.14 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 7:51 PM EST
                              Reply
                              clarke ong

                              John

                              Moral direction or morality in general is a codified system that makes society possible and has no need of being inspired by a creator.

                              It is based on the premise that cooperation trumps chaos as a tool to perpetuate society. That premise is true based on empirical evidence.

                              We use the tool of morality because it works, nothing more.

                              • 3 votes
                              Reply#13 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 12:21 PM EST
                              CL1

                              I agree with many of your generalizations, JR, as mostly true of most Americans. "Caring" doesn't change anything. There isn't anything I can do personally about the situation, but I still watch the unfolding events. This is an extremely critical situation in that Egypt is an important ally, and our 'meddling' and any pressures we put on the leadership of their Country could have dire consequences for us. It's the job of the people of each Nation to create their own reforms. Our involvement/meddling in the affairs of other Nations should only come when a Nation poses a threat to the peace and survival of our Allies.

                              • 1 vote
                              Reply#14 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 12:24 PM EST
                              Druswid

                              Honestly, while the situation in Egypt does, in fact, evoke sympathy, I do not believe it is our business to go into other people's countries and fix their problems and tell them what to do. It's their country, and they need to work out their own issues. Now, let's take humanitarian aid, in general, such as food and medical supplies to poorer countries. I think that's something that's noble and worthy of doing, but when it comes to politics, and when it comes to policing, I don't think that's our domain at all. How can we take care of other countries when we can barely take care of our own?

                              Second, I must address the belief that morality comes from religion. I do not believe it does. First of all, Christianity was not the first religion, despite what the Bible might say. Of course, if you believe in what the Bible says, you might be of a different opinion, but science and history shows a much different picture. Now, why do rules and morals exist within a society? They exist to keep the society orderly and to prevent chaos. Just think of all the societies that have existed prior to those of today. They all had legal codes and procedures. But I also think that people are generally good, and don't wish to do others harm. For myself, I feel that I'm a good person because I was raised and instilled with a sense of goodness and justice, aside from the intrinsic goodness, but also because being anything less would make me feel less than a man, and more of a rat. Why should goodness need the fear of punishment hanging over it? If someone is only good out of fear of reprisal, doesn't that mean that something is generally lacking? I should think so myself.

                              • 3 votes
                              Reply#15 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 12:34 PM EST
                              jazzman646

                              Most Americans may not care about Egypt but should for the following reasons:

                              • the US cannot afford Egypt to become another radical Islamic state like Iran and exporter of terrorism and safe haven for terrorists
                              • Any turmoil in the middle east will eventually affect oil prices and the stock market (would you like tp pay $7 per gallon for gas, and today the stock market IS being affected by whats happening in Egypt)
                              • If Egypt becomes a hostile radical Islamic state on the border of Israel war is probably inevitable and once again we have a threat to oil flow affecting oil prices and the stock market (already the so called "Muslim Brotherhood" is talking about attacking Israel if they come to power in Egypt)
                              • The fall of Egypt to radical Islam may lead to its spread also to other moderate nations in the middle east friendly to the US such as Jordan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia

                              The bottom line is the US can in no way just ignore what is happening in Egypt or "isolate" it self from the rest of the world. Economically and politically, that would be insane.

                              But most of the comments to this article seem to be focused on a discussion of religious belief and not Egypt.

                              • 5 votes
                              Reply#16 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 1:11 PM EST
                              JohnRussell

                              The bottom line is the US can in no way just ignore what is happening in Egypt or "isolate" it self from the rest of the world. Economically and politically, that would be insane.

                              Actually, the US could isolate itself from the rest of the world, although I admit it is not practical at this time and the prospect would alarm a lot of people.

                              The United States cannot logically continue to support dictators. World wide, politics is too transparent in a world of instant communication. Back in the 50's we could 'secretly' support despots, and thus not necessarily expose ourselves to condemnation. That cannot happen anymore.

                              Radical Islam needs to be contained and ultimately defeated by the promotion of reform of the ideology, not by propping up dictators who agree to oppose it for a (relatively) brief period of time.

                              • 2 votes
                              Reply#17 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 1:30 PM EST
                              rimbauda

                              reform of the ideology

                              How do the terrorists masters convince young people that Allah would somehow condone the mass killing of innocents? or derive any glory from it? It really must work only on those primed for a rebellious act, without much concern for the consequences. You'd think that after 50 years of terrorism, they would get wise that it's a fool's game, and those that preach it are small-minded idiots.

                              • 1 vote
                              #17.1 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 1:47 PM EST
                              jazzman646

                              I don't advocate supporting dictators, but US govt and Senators should not be making statements urging Mubarak to step down.

                              The US position should be we support democracy, and will respect the choices of the Egyptian people. But the US will have to deal with whoever the Egyptians choose, or with Mubarak if somehow he remains in power.

                              • 2 votes
                              #17.2 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 1:52 PM EST
                              TheyreAllCrooks

                              It was the US government that helped keep Mubarak in power for 30 years. How many billion have we given him? And how many billion did his wife leave Egypt with?

                              There will be no peace in Egypt until he is gone - and even that is no guarantee there will be peace. We helped create this monster but there is no putting the genie back into the bottle.

                              This should serve as a reminder to America that nothing good ever comes from supporting dictators - yet president after president continues to do it.

                              • 2 votes
                              #17.3 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 2:05 PM EST
                              CL1

                              My personal opinion has always been that the next war wouldn't get started in the current hot-spots, but would start in one of the neighboring countries. This might be 'it,' and is the reason why I think Americans should be aware and paying attention to the significance of what is happening in Egypt.

                              • 2 votes
                              #17.4 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 2:25 PM EST
                              jazzman646

                              It was the US government that helped keep Mubarak in power for 30 years. How many billion have we given him? And how many billion did his wife leave Egypt with?

                              Once again the goal of US foreign policy in Egypt is and never was to keep Mubarak in power, its to maintain peace in the region.

                              Mickey Mouse could be in power in Egypt, and that goal wouldn't change, and neither would the way we achieve it.

                              We deliver defense articles and services to certain foreign nations as part of our overall foreign policy. Under those agreements we inform every nation we will cut off that type of aid at the first sign its being used against the population to control them politically by force.

                              The Egyptian army has shown great restraint in Cairo, moving now only to stop violence between supporters of Mubarak and anti-Mubarak protesters, because they and Mubarak know those rules. Otherwise, Mubarak would long ago used US supplied tanks and other equipment to crush this uprise.

                              You keep saying US aid has kept Mubarak in power. I'd like you cite and link a story to one case where US aid of any type has been used for the purpose of keeping Mubarak in power.

                              The Mubarak's ripping off US aid, although it happens in Egypt and elsewhere in the middle east, doesn't have anything to do with his maintaining power.

                              • 2 votes
                              #17.5 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 2:48 PM EST
                              TheyreAllCrooks


                              Once again the goal of US foreign policy in Egypt is and never was to keep Mubarak in power, its to maintain peace in the region

                              How many times do I have to say that I agree with you for you to understand that I agree with you on that point? lol

                              However, the ONLY reason the US supported Mubarak was because he agreed to keep peace with Israel in exchange for billions upon billions in economic and military aid - plain and simple.

                              Israel is #1 on the US foreign aid list. Egypt is #2.

                              And almost all of the aid we giveEgypt is in military equiptment. Equipment that he has used to dominate his people.

                              Of all the countries on earth that we give money to Egypt is #2.

                              So yes, our aid has in large part kept him in power and it was in the interest of every US president to kepp him in power because that meant peace.

                              But I'm sure every POTUS over the last 30 years has asked himself - "what the hell is gonna happen when Mubarak dies or gets overthrown? Who de support then?"

                              Because they knew he was never going to leave via an election.

                              It's a nasty game. Egypt stays nice to Israel, the US keeps giving Egypt billions AND because Mubarak knew that was his ace in the hole he was free to brutalize his people and we paid for a lot of it.

                              He is a brutal dictator who murdered thousands of his people, wrongfully imprisoned them and presides over a population where 40% are in poverty - yet he is #2 on the US money list.

                              Our aid did in fact help keep him in power...that's waht being #2 on list gets a dictator!

                                #17.6 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 3:13 PM EST
                                Reply
                                TheyreAllCrooks

                                It would seem the incentive would have to be much larger than just having them as an Ally, yes? ...If you don't want to pursue this, that's Ok, TAC. As far as ontopic - it just might be, considering the impact Egypt has on Israel.

                                I'm certainly no expert on the mideast but IMO it goes back to the very founding of Israel after WWII and that's why Egypt has always been the central focus of any chance for peace.

                                It's about the land.

                                It will be interesting to see what happens. When Mubarak goes - who takes over may well determine if there is another Israeli war with Egypt.

                                This isn't just about the Egyptian people getting freedom...it's literally about war or peace and the stability of the entire region.

                                A lot is hanging in the balance here.

                                  Reply#18 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 2:17 PM EST
                                  JoMan

                                  I find it interesting that those complaining about what is going on in Egypt right now and America's responsibility or non-responsibility with it are the same right wing isolationists who cried the loudest during Obama's visits overseas to establish good relationships.

                                  This is just another opportunity for conservative right wing trouble makers to establish more hate in our country.

                                  • 1 vote
                                  Reply#19 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 2:32 PM EST
                                  Nofluer

                                  Okay - Joman has posted the final post - untracking to avoid the trolls. Thoughtful discussion on this thread is apparently over.

                                    #19.1 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 3:10 PM EST
                                    CL1

                                    TAC, #18 - Thanks for the reply. "..it's literally about war or peace and the stability of the entire region." ----- I follow your thinking with that statement, and why we all should be concerned. As was stated elsewhere here, if WWIII gets underway in Egypt, it will affect all of our lives economically. It could lead to a devastation that no one wants to think about. I've changed my opinion on how to handle this, and I don't know if it would be considered left or right wing ... but, I think the UN should step in and remove Mubarak, and force a democratic electorate, but the choice of Candidates should be highly scrutinized in who their political affiliates are.

                                    • 2 votes
                                    #19.2 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 6:16 PM EST
                                    Reply
                                    Pattie in Maryland

                                    Egypt is an important ally in maintaining stability in the region. Egypt also borders the Suez Canal. It's also a country that was hit hard by the population bomb of the last 30 years or so and has an extremely young population that is competing for increasingly scarce and expensive basics like food, so it will be interesting to see how much support that the right-wing Muslims get from this young, Internet-savey population.

                                    • 2 votes
                                    Reply#20 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 3:12 PM EST
                                    silvrhawkDeleted
                                    afloatinasea

                                    Are you serious even asking this question? How many Americans can find Egypt on a map of the world? Most could care less, most are just trying to survive this effen economic disaster.

                                    • 2 votes
                                    Reply#22 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 3:48 PM EST
                                    Navy Doc 8404/06/09

                                    I heard some are criticizing Obama about Iran's ordeal last year and the tardiness of Egypt this year. I can't fault him about Iran's ordeal. If you recall, Michael Jackson died that week and the whole ef'n world focused on that rather than the struggle for freedom by Iran's youth. Of course no one cares 'till their own freedoms at risk...

                                      Reply#23 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 4:29 PM EST
                                      JohnRussell

                                      . I can't fault him about Iran's ordeal. If you recall, Michael Jackson died that week and the whole ef'n world focused on that rather than the struggle for freedom by Iran's youth.

                                      This is so incongruous I am almost speechless.

                                        #23.1 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 4:31 PM EST
                                        Navy Doc 8404/06/09

                                        Why? That's what happened. How about the American public, along with the world public lost focus on the Iran protest because of the death of a pop star. I recall getting up in the morning, and Iran was all over the news. Mid day, the news broke about Michael Jackson dying and the only news about Iran after that was scattered on the tickers, forgotten.

                                          #23.2 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 8:44 AM EST
                                          JohnRussell

                                          And you think the President lost focus because Michael Jackson died. Obama's reaction to Iran did not need to be connected in any way shape or form to Jackson dying. Think about what you are saying.

                                            #23.3 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 9:09 AM EST
                                            Reply
                                            1devon

                                            I think people do and should care, but feel powerless to actually do anything.

                                            • 2 votes
                                            Reply#24 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 4:54 PM EST
                                            phil in vegas

                                            i for one, can not understand why so much money is sent overseas. boy, are we easy or what!! 1.5 bil for egypt and only god knows what other countrys receive...

                                              Reply#25 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 5:45 PM EST
                                              clarke ong

                                              Oil phil, oil.

                                                #25.1 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 6:05 PM EST
                                                Reply
                                                Village Idiot-2299796

                                                How Things Work ...

                                                1. Mubarak broadcasts a televised speech declaring his intention to remain in office until the September elections.

                                                2. Immediately afterward, there is a “frank” and lengthy telephone conversation between Obama and Mubarak,

                                                3. Obama then delivers his own televised speech, praising the Egyptian military, affirming that Mubarak understood that a “change must take place,” and calling for an “orderly transition” in Egypt.

                                                4. Mobs of armed men, plainclothes secret police and the thugs of Hosni Mubarak’s National Democratic Party attack.

                                                5. Scores of unarmed people are dead, thousands are wounded. The uprising is over.

                                                6. Republicans pretend to be ‘divided’ about the President's response.

                                                Get it?

                                                Oh yeah!

                                                7. Flowery language notwithstanding, the US and President Obama have full political and moral responsibility for the dead and wounded.

                                                  Reply#26 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 6:27 PM EST
                                                  Physicist-retired

                                                  VI,

                                                  5. Scores of unarmed people are dead, thousands are wounded. The uprising is over.

                                                  6. Republicans pretend to be ‘divided’ about the President's response.

                                                  Get it? Oh yeah!

                                                  The crowds in Tahrir Square this morning are huge. And multiple sources are reporting that the US is negotiating with Egypt for Mubarek's immediate resignation.

                                                  It would seem that the uprising isn't over yet. You can watch it live here:

                                                  http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/

                                                  7. Flowery language notwithstanding, the US and President Obama have full political and moral responsibility for the dead and wounded.

                                                  Or full credit for a transition from a dictatorship to something more representative for Egyptians.

                                                  (Perhaps Mubarek deserves the credit for his thugs killing and wounding so many?)

                                                  • 2 votes
                                                  #26.1 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 8:15 AM EST
                                                  Reply
                                                  Jump to discussion page: 1 2
                                                  Leave a Comment:
                                                  You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                                  You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                                  (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                                  Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                                  As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                                  FUN STUFF:
                                                  • Leaderboard |
                                                  • E-Mail Alerts |
                                                  • Top of the Vine |
                                                  • Newsvine Live |
                                                  • Newsvine Archives |
                                                  • The Greenhouse |
                                                  COMPANY STUFF:
                                                  • Code of Honor |
                                                  • Company Info |
                                                  • Contact Us |
                                                  • Jobs |
                                                  • User Agreement |
                                                  • Privacy Policy |
                                                  • About our ads
                                                  LEGAL STUFF:
                                                  • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                  • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                  • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com