Kerry: Egyptian military didn't take over Egypt

Well everyone, I guess Washington finally got off the fence and chose which side to support. I can't help but think the delay in choosing was noticed by everyone and impressed absolutely no one. However, better late than never?

ISLAMABAD (AP) — U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry says the Egyptian military did not take over but instead was "restoring democracy" in Egypt.

I do hope this is said in the full awareness that he's speaking for and SETTING U.S. Policy by his words. These days, some of our leaders have such a 'foot in mouth' issue, I have to wonder if they even give thought to that impact. However, his words are not ones that leave any room to back up later.

The Obama administration has refused to call the ouster a coup. That designation that would cut off $1.3 billion in annual military aid to Egypt.
Kerry says millions of people asked the military to intervene because they were afraid the country would descend into violence.

Source

I wonder what overall reaction from the various 'sides' will be to this? It's really the only direction American values LEAVE to go, if we're to give more than lip service to all we stand for ....but it's sure not the direction it looked like it would go. To some in Congress, this definitely isn't the way they want it to proceed by their statements.

Times grow more interesting, indeed.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


So. . . um. . . who's in charge of Egypt now?

Obviously it must be some democratically elected leader, right?

Guess I was busy and missed the election.

Who won?

reply to post by beezzer


I dunno

I'd rather have the Military in Charge instead of the Muslim Brotherhood in there, but hey, what do I know? I'm just like the rest of the 99.999999 % of the people here at ATS and just have an outsiders point of view.

At least I'll admit it

reply to post by SLAYER69

You know? That's probably the most intellectually honest position to take. It's certainly not our country and I, for one, know only what I read about for Egyptian events and what the people there actually want.

I'm supporting the Military regime in general terms because millions of Egyptian people in the street seem to agree with that direction for their country to take, and they do seem the better of the choices as it appears from here. There again though, we are looking for many thousands of miles away and at a culture most of us can only understand on an academic level.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Seems like the U.S. has done everything not to stop throwing money into Egypt...

I guess Kerry and the current administration is under the impression that the deposed Morsi government will not be returning and better start throwing words like democracy around a bit to make their support seem legitimate.

What far reaching implications does all this have? Why does the U.S. need to keep funding Egypt and not use the money on domestic issues? I think we all have some theories.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

I'm supporting the Military regime in general terms because millions of Egyptian people in the street seem to agree with that direction for their country to take, and they do seem the better of the choices as it appears from here. There again though, we are looking for many thousands of miles away and at a culture most of us can only understand on an academic level.

Just to play devils advocate here;

Some would argue that there were millions of Egyptians in silent support of Morsi. The election of Morsi literally drew a line right down the middle of the population.

From wiki:

The commission said Morsi took 51.7% of the vote versus 48.3% for Shafik.

I am sure a lot of people were not able to voice their support due to being unable to register or failed to vote.

One could see this as the Egyptian Military's attempt at re-establishing a semblance of power they once had under the guise of "true" democratic reform. Its hard to determine the majority when the election drew such a close margin.

Again, just playing devils advocate.

I for one see millions of people being compelled to actively and publicly demonstrate for change. Something was obviously not right for a significant number of the population under the Morsi government. If the military allows for a peaceful transition and removes themselves from a seat of final authority, then all is well for now...

I mirror your sentiment Wrabbit; Interesting times indeed.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

So. . . um. . . who's in charge of Egypt now?

Obviously it must be some democratically elected leader, right?

Guess I was busy and missed the election.

Who won?

The democratically elected dictator?

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

So. . . um. . . who's in charge of Egypt now?

Obviously it must be some democratically elected leader, right?

Guess I was busy and missed the election.

Who won?

The democratically elected dictator?

Your comment stirs up an interesting question: Would overthrowing a current government ever be democratic? Or does the process involved with deposing an administration have all the characteristics of a dictatorship? In other words a dictatorship of the majority..

I don't have the answers......yet

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


a coup against an elected government is nothing new unfortunately.

to call a military regime as the restauration of democracy, is strange propaganda.
especially when the military is financed by a foreing power

imo, this could turn egypt into turmoil for the forseable future.
too many egyptians will not identify with this regime and will fight for their country, for better or worst.
i feel sad for the people of egypt, hopefully one day they will be free from western interference.

reply to post by MDDoxs




I would say democratically elected sure can have many definitions nowadays.


The lines have been blurred MD.

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by MDDoxs

 

I would say democratically elected sure can have many definitions nowadays.


The lines have been blurred MD.

I agree completely

I believe we have had a brief conversation on how fluid the definition of "democracy" has become. I think this blurring has allowed for many changes of power.

I think it is under this skewed perception of Democracy that Kerry has presented U.S support.

Kerry HAD to lie and say that.

US Law says that we can not give aid money or do business with a 'free country' that has a coup.

So in order for the Obama administration to continue to bow down to Egypt, it has to be said that
there is no military coup in Egypt.

Info Here

Should it define the events of Wednesday evening as a “military coup”? That’s important, because under U.S. law, the government is not permitted to provide financial aid to a country where the military has overthrown a democratically-elected government.

“If the United States formally declares Mursi’s ouster a coup, U.S. law mandates that most aid for its longtime ally must stop. And that could weaken the Egyptian military, one of the country’s most stable institutions with long-standing ties to U.S. authorities,” Reuters reports.

According to Section 7008 of the FY2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-74), aid administered by the State Department and USAID is banned to the government of any country where a military coup or decree has overthrown a democratically-elected government.[…]

So how much 'aid' would be interrupted if the law was actually followed?
$1.3 billion in 2013 and $1.55 Billion more in 2014.
Obama doesn't want to stop giving his Muslim Brotherhood buddies all our money.
So he's having his state dept flunky - John Kerry - LIE.
(John 'Winter Soldier' Kerry is a well known liar .. lots of practice at it!!)

Just a General note to add here. The Egyptian aid issue seems simple on the surface. Give them money or don't give them money, just like any other nation right? We cut off aid or grant more of it to nations in a changing basis, almost daily.

Not so with Egypt. Egypt and Israel are both special cases and perhaps that's true to the point of saying they are in a class all their own. Which happens to be true, too.

After the 1979 Camp David Peace Accords, part of the agreements to come out of that whole process dealt with financial aid to both nations with the intent of achieving and/or maintaining parity of military force. Neither would become strong enough to menace the other without almost even odds of losing and being destroyed in any war.

Obviously those annual payments in cash and material have continued, to both nations, to the present day. It made sense too, right into late 2010 early 2011 when the Arab Spring sprung and all hopes for a sense of balance and equilibrium were about crushed. Now? I don't honestly see why we don't end it.....but that WILL take the formal withdrawal as a nation from some agreements. It can never "just be stopped" or the fall-out from becoming a nation that can't even maintain formal, official agreements will make us about as worthy of trust as a Banana Republic on the 4th leader for the year.

You guys know that democracy is over for that country right? Any elections after this will be rigged to make sure they dont come back.

Sometimes I wonder how the world would be if Ron Paul was the US president.